WW1 was a bit different than WW2 as the Germans weren't exactly evil like the Nazi's were. a German victory likely would have cost France some money and border territories. WW2 either wouldn't have happened or you probably wouldn't have had the racial policies of Nazi Germany and its very unlikely the Nazis would have even been formed.

Thoughts?

Ideally the UK should have simply allowed the Central Powers to crush France and Russia. Everyone would've been better off, even the French ironically. But especially the eastern Europeans- no Hitler, no Soviet Union, no collapse of Austria-Hungary. Perhaps the Serbs would have been in a bad position, but meh they didn't do that well historically anyway.

It would be very different world from the current one if Germany had won 'The Great War'.

As for 'should ?', well. I dunno - how to measure that? It's problematic since we really don't know the outcome of ''if' compared to what happened.

It would be very different world from the current one if Germany had won 'The Great War'.

As for 'should ?', well. I dunno - how to measure that? It's problematic since we really don't know the outcome of ''if' compared to what happened.

What would the likely outcomes have been and would the world be a better place? I'm thinking yes, even though our country fought Germany in the war.

Well, it's unlikely that Soviet Union had come to being, or national socialists as you said, along with very different US position since it would not had reaped benefits of the both WW's.

Colonization would have been different and independence battles for colonized countries would have been different (without the WW2 as we know it).

Lots of stuff.. i wonder how Russia / Japan relations had developed under different Russian government and what Japan would have become.

Depends on how Germany won. If Germany defeats Russia like in history then theres a big chance there still would be a Soviet Union. And Austria-Hungary was doomed to break up sooner or later anyhow. Hungary wanted total independence sooner and later, and with several nationalistic minorities it could have ended with a bloody civil war, who knows.

Ideally the UK should have simply allowed the Central Powers to crush France and Russia. Everyone would've been better off, even the French ironically. But especially the eastern Europeans- no Hitler, no Soviet Union, no collapse of Austria-Hungary. Perhaps the Serbs would have been in a bad position, but meh they didn't do that well historically anyway.
Agreed. The UK's entry in to the war guaranteed it would not be "over before Christmas." Japan, Italy, and the U.S. would not have joined had the UK let Germany go to Paris.


Importantly, another thing that would not have happened -- or would have happened less drastically, or later in history -- is the Great Depression.


As for Austria-Hungary, I think it would have trodded around for a while longer. In the long run, however, the multi-ethnic Empire just wasn't viable. The country that issued it's WW1 mobilisation orders in 15 languages would have eventually broken apart, or morphed into a commonwealth. Of course, my guess is as good as anyone elses.


i wonder how Russia / Japan relations had developed under different Russian government and what Japan would have become.
Good point. Japan would have been the only future Axis power not to have been affected. It's not unlikely that the Japanese would have gone and invaded China.

Depends on how Germany won. If Germany defeats Russia like in history then theres a big chance there still would be a Soviet Union. And Austria-Hungary was doomed to break up sooner or later anyhow. Hungary wanted total independence sooner and later, and with several nationalistic minorities it could have ended with a bloody civil war, who knows.

again: depends on how germany wins the war. if austria still exhausts itself at the italian border the empire falls apart just like it did.

and civil war is very unlikely, hungary would have demanded more independence anyway and would have gotten it to avoid civil war, resulting in them becoming a defacto independent state and a dejure one later on.

If either side had had competent generals, and stopped making infantry rushes at trenches, the other side would have exhausted itself tot he point of collapse while the defenders remained stronger.

But neither side had generals that smart :p

The most likely way I see this happening is Britain not joining, that'd prevent Italy, US and Japan among other joining. If this occured its likely Germany would have won. Of course given British policy at the time, trying to keep the balance of powers so no 1 nation could threaten Britain, its difficult to see how this would have occured. Perhaps Belgium allows German troops through and Britain decides given its 2 great powers on 2 great powers that they could sit this 1 out. In such a circumstance I'd say German victory would come in 1916 or 1917.

If Germany did win I don't think France would be utterly destroyed, I'd expect some territorial concessions including colonies, repayments and a very damaged economy. Further tension with Britain is likely following this given Germany's enhanced colonial empire. Given the treaty with Russia I can see Germany taken many French colonies rather than French soil itself.

As for Eastern Europe, the Czar abdicated in March 1917, Lenin actually came back to Russia with German help. A German victory means Russia goes Soviet. The coup comes in November 1917 puting Lenin in power. Ukraine breaks away in January 1918, Estonia in February, Russia begins to break ties with the allies. On March 3rd the peace treaty is signed much of the Russian empire is carved up. Under the terms of the treaty Russia surrendered Poland, Lithuania, Courland, Riga and part of Belorussia to Germany while the Ukraine became a German protectorate, while parts of the caucusus is ceded to Turkey. In May Georgia and Armenia declared independence. Alternate history would of yielded much the same results.

Its unlikely that Japan, Britain, the US etc would've sent troops into Russia in 1918 though.

The Austro Hungarian empire likely would've taken Serbia. I'd guess in the long term this would only add to the divisiveness of the empire, its likely it would've broken up eventually.

The Ottoman Empire would remain though its would still be the sick man of Europe. Its questionable how long it could've held its territories, I wouldn't be surprised to see Austria-Hungary or Britain later attempting to take them on, I also wouldn't be surprised to see it disolve in a civil war. Given Britain and France wouldn't have ruled it post WW1 like in real life the borders in the middle east today would be rather different. Israel would never exist. Islamic fundamentalism may not have become as much of a force, without as much Western intervention and no Israel to hate.

I think in the long term a war between Soviet Russia and Germany would be on the cards, the Soviets would be rather pissed off at having their nation ripped apart and post civil war would've sort to rectify it while Germany would be rather iedologically opposed to the Communist nation on its door step. I think Germany would end up defeating Soviet Russia, communism would fail to then be such a big influence in the 20th century, many communist regimes would never have come into existance and certainly no Iron Curtain. It is likely though that some communist uprisings would have occured and suceeded.

Meanwhile a stronger Germany with some new colonial acquisitions would lead to potentially a hostile relationship with Britain. In such a timeline the US is unlikely to be quite so powerful. The world would have 3 super powers, the US a potential super power if it mobilises, Britain and Germany. In such a timeline its probable Japan would follow the same course of action as in real life. This would potentially lead Japan to war with one or all of Britain, Germany (having taken over French colonies, possibly Indo China) and the US.

Further wars and possibly a world war would be likely though probably not on the scale of WW2 and certainly no Jewish genocide. I think imperialism would've lasted substantially longer potentially even to this day.

I can see a nasty civil war embroiling eastern Europe in perhaps the 1930s or 1940s finally bringing about Austria-Hungary collapse. The likely result of this is millions dead. Germany seizing Austria and maybe Czech territory. Perhaps a communist regime or 2 arising.

Fascism would probably still have risen though not in Germany; Portual Spain and Italy would probably establish themselves as Fascists. These fascist regimes would only find themselves at war if siding with Britain or Germany in a much larger war, by themslves they would've lacked the power to take on the major powers. Thus its likely Fascism would survive in these nations for a few decades.

I don't see any reason why A-H would collapse if they won the war. Serbia would likely be made a puppet state like Bosnia was shortly before. With Serbia out of the way and strong support from Germany, domestic elements would not be able to topple the Habsburgs. After all, the Hungarians and Austrians would still be strong supporters of the regime and would people like the Croatians or Bosnians really have the ability to fight for independence? This isn't Ireland, and the empire would be able to use overwhelming force.

Second, I'm not sure the Bolsheviks would necessarily take power in a German victory scenario. There's no reason to believe that speedy victory in France and then presumably an even more crushing eastward offensive than in real life would not bring the Tsar to the peace table. The belief that Russia could still win the war and the ties to the Entente is what kept Russia fighting 'til collapse in real life.
With France speedily dispatched and defeat clearly on the cards, either the Tsar or the Prov. Gov. (if we assume the Tsar is still overthrown) would likely make peace, leaving the Bolsheviks with no political ammunition. It's likely the Tsar would still be ousted, but Kerensky would be his successor, not Lenin (assuming the Gerries even let him go East in the first place in this new scenario).

I don't know enough to make predictions about the post-war period, but I think a key issue of speculation would be whether Germany would seek a colonial war with Britain (the inevitable result of continued or accelerated ship building) or accept some sort of naval-colonial peace package to set the British at ease. Another issue to guess at would be whether Germany would go for a Versailles approach to the European settlement, or the plan Wilhelm claimed to support in real life- total domination by Germany via an economic union and system of puppet states.

In Asia, the actions of Japan would likely hinge on relations between the UK & Germany and also on the degree of interest shown by the US. A German-British war would probably lead to the Japs attacking British possessions and later China proper. After all, attacking Germany would alienate a potential ally while leaving the greatest threat to their Chinese ambitons- Britain, intact. I can't see them attacking Russia in this scenario either in WW1 or soon after, since Britain would likely intervene in that case.

EDIT- I think the US would become even more isolationist than before in this scenario, at least as far as I can predict. Predicting beyond 1930 is unwise though since there are so many different routes the world could go depending mainly on the post-war policies of the Germans.

again: depends on how germany wins the war. if austria still exhausts itself at the italian border the empire falls apart just like it did.

and civil war is very unlikely, hungary would have demanded more independence anyway and would have gotten it to avoid civil war, resulting in them becoming a defacto independent state and a dejure one later on.

I think Austria sooner or later would have said stop, and Hungary wanted total independence in the long run. Also with all the different minorities and with nationalism on the rise things where doomed to go wrong sooner or later. Maybe not a full scale civil war, but at least some major rebellions that in the end would break up the whole Dual Monarchy thing.

Germany intended to annex Belgium, is my understanding.

Had Belgium overlooked the violation to their sovereignty and let the Germans through - it certainly would have been a lot less bloody.

Open markets wouldnt have been the looser. America would not have had the industrial boost of WW1, and Germany would have access to colonial markets one way or another. Thus the US would remain isolationist and there would have been no great power denied a market for it's goods. We could well be loking at a world where globalisation doesnt kick off in the same way at all.

Germany intended to annex Belgium, is my understanding.
I don't know about that, but the Germans were certainly encouraging the linguistic differences in the country with their "Flamen politik" ("Flemings policy"). For instance, during the war they established the first university in Belgium that only used the Dutch language (in Ghent). (Remember that at that time, the Belgian governement was till almost unilingually French-speaking, although the majority of the population speeks Dutch/Flemish)

The German's goal, as I believe, was to break up the country, and create a Flemish buffer state (not to annex it)

I won't take you in the definition of evil but I will say that Germany didn't have a huge chance to win WWI. No side did because of the type of war it was. Germany should have achieved a conditional surrender though.

and Germany would have access to colonial markets one way or another.

By taking over the losers' one, surely... just like France and Britain did at Versailles.

Germany didn't have a huge chance to win WWI. No side did because of the type of war it was.
Explain please.

By taking over the losers' one, surely... just like France and Britain did at Versailles.

Yeah, but a German with markets for its industrial goods would be more likely to be peaceful.

Any German victory or conditional surrender would have been better for all.

Adler

Any German victory or conditional surrender would have been better for all.

Adler
What would have been is entirely unknowable.

If it means a German superpower settles down peacefully, reforms into a full democracy, while spreading that kind of politics and principles around, that is a positive scenario. Especially important if it doesn't take any French colonies, but adopts a poliy of decolonisation as part of a negotiated peace, just to screw over the imperal powers it has brung low. That would be interesting, and probably kick-start the process.

A worst case scenario is rather a the strengthening of the military, the Junkers and the monarchical superstructure, to the point that it goes imperialistic overseas, while deciding it can fight the working class to submission at home. Then you've got a recipy for nasty imperial politics, with the prospect of great power conflict, and preconditions for a Soviet style revolution brewing at home.

There's simply no way of knowing how a victorious Imperial Germany would have ended up. Winning the war would be a necessary start, but there's simply no way of knowing who would win such a German peace. And there's no real reason to assume that everything would have been smooth sailing into clear and sunlit ocean, had Germany only won WWI.

Still, better for Europe? Quite likely, considering few things could be worse than the WWII it did get (though some other form of disastrous war is very possible). Better for non-Europe? A bit less obvious. WWI

Explain please.
Well, sides did win in the end, someone had to but, because of the primitive supply lines employed by all nations large gains were impossible to maintain. Any advance was limited.

I suppose when I say 'win' I mean a complete victory where the entire country is overrun like in WW2.

Okay would any Imperial German victory have been worse than WW2, Stalin, etc.

WW2 may still have happened but I doubt Imerial Germay even unreformed int a democracy would have been worse than Hitler. No cold war as we know it and German colonial policy and administration seemed better than most if not all other European powers including the British.

Even France would have been better off if it collapsed in 1914. Some countries would be worse off or not exist as we kno it(Poland, Israel, Czech Republice, Yugoslavia and its republics etc).

Okay would any Imperial German victory have been worse than WW2, Stalin, etc.

WW2 may still have happened but I doubt Imerial Germay even unreformed int a democracy would have been worse than Hitler. No cold war as we know it and German colonial policy and administration seemed better than most if not all other European powers including the British.

Even France would have been better off if it collapsed in 1914. Some countries would be worse off or not exist as we kno it(Poland, Israel, Czech Republice, Yugoslavia and its republics etc).

Yeah a victorious Germany would never abuse its new hegemony over europe and brutalise its new puppet states for commerical edification :rolleyes:.

I mean the US was properly democratic during the turn of the century, and its treatment of latin america was hardly pleasent. If we want to look at how a how germany might treat europe in victory I think the Warsaw Pact is probably a good model - exploitation, unrest, and german occupations. Plus if militarism brought them a quick victory in the Great War, they are unlikly to give it up for democracy are they?

As to german colonial adminstration being better? What are you on - the Herero Wars, the constant Tanzanian revolts and brutal missionary activity, and the fact that despite this they still couldn't turn a profit rather counts against them...

Overall its hard to say if German victory would have been better or not, I'd say there would be low intensity wars all over europe and germanies new colonial gains and eventually Russia would industrialise and want to break free of german influence/reclaim eastern europe resulting in another huge and bloody conflict. Plus if germany imposes too nasy terms on the allies you'll probably have their financial meltdowns triggering a different Great Depression by and by.

Yeah a victorious Germany would never abuse its new hegemony over europe and brutalise its new puppet states for commerical edification :rolleyes:.

I mean the US was properly democratic during the turn of the century, and its treatment of latin america was hardly pleasent. If we want to look at how a how germany might treat europe in victory I think the Warsaw Pact is probably a good model - exploitation, unrest, and german occupations. Plus if militarism brought them a quick victory in the Great War, they are unlikly to give it up for democracy are they?

As to german colonial adminstration being better? What are you on - the Herero Wars, the constant Tanzanian revolts and brutal missionary activity, and the fact that despite this they still couldn't turn a profit rather counts against them...

Overall its hard to say if German victory would have been better or not, I'd say there would be low intensity wars all over europe and germanies new colonial gains and eventually Russia would industrialise and want to break free of german influence/reclaim eastern europe resulting in another huge and bloody conflict. Plus if germany imposes too nasy terms on the allies you'll probably have their financial meltdowns triggering a different Great Depression by and by.

I'm not saying it would be milk and honey but would you have had the gulags, holocaust, WW2, the Great Depression, etc. I'm not imagining it would be fun for the losers.

I'm not saying it would be milk and honey but would you have had the gulags, holocaust, WW2, the Great Depression, etc. I'm not imagining it would be fun for the losers.

Well you'd have a different Great Depression, probably another holocaust if/when Russia has a right wing revolution (maybe the French would have go at it too ala the social context of the Dreyfus affair) and lots of death as Germany enforces a hegemony. And heck another German-Russian conflict will lead to just as much loss of life, and Japan will still be wanting to invade China...

The reason I think its better that the Anglo-French win is that unlike Germany and Russia they lack the motivation and manpower to enforce vassaldom on europe. A peace that has Germany lose but save face and money/be utterly discredited would be fair more conducive to peace in europe.

Well you'd have a different Great Depression, probably another holocaust if/when Russia has a right wing revolution (maybe the French would have go at it too ala the social context of the Dreyfus affair) and lots of death as Germany enforces a hegemony. And heck another German-Russian conflict will lead to just as much loss of life, and Japan will still be wanting to invade China...

The reason I think its better that the Anglo-French win is that unlike Germany and Russia they lack the motivation and manpower to enforce vassaldom on europe. A peace that has Germany lose but save face and money/be utterly discredited would be fair more conducive to peace in europe.

why a right wing revolution in russia? russia was defeated by germany in current history and it didnt succeed...

Well, sides did win in the end, someone had to but, because of the primitive supply lines employed by all nations large gains were impossible to maintain. Any advance was limited.
Supply lines weren't really "primitive" by any stretch. Railroads allowed millions upon millions of rounds of ammunition to be shot off, miles of barbed wire to be carried up to the front, ensured a nigh endless supply of human grist for the mill, and could even mount their own artillery. Hooray for attritional warfare.

The thing is, attrition isn't ever an end in itself. One doesn't set out to simply grind down both forces to nothing. Instead, attrition is employed by the side that has either a quantitative or qualitative advantage in order to see that advantage tell more later on, when maneuver actually begins. It's a form of softening up the enemy, like a predawn artillery barrage. One can find in this basic philosophy of the counteroffensive the reasons for some of the German successes in 1914, most specifically in the Battle of the Frontiers, when the French Plan XVII was stymied by German troops in the Ardennes, first defending and then taking advantage of the new French weakness to attack. That also appears in the German success in Poland following the Russian offensive failure at Tannenberg and in the Carpathians, where they failed to wipe out the Austrians. As to advances being limited, I present to you the counterexamples of August 1914, summer 1915 (in Eastern Europe), winter 1917 to summer 1918 in the Middle East (specifically, the Levant, but also Iraq to an extent), and the Allied advances in late summer and fall of 1918 in both Western Europe and the Balkans.

It's not that gains were difficult to maintain, or even that the speed of advance was low - the key issues in Western Europe, I believe, were the massive increases of firepower and the ratio of force to space since the last war. Initially, and fallaciously, most observers believed that the firepower increase would aid the attacker by simply allowing him to concentrate vast amounts of destruction at one point on the enemy's line. This isn't really true. Firepower benefits the defense because that usual three-to-one ratio stays constant; if the defender can be shot at, he can shoot at you too, after all. And the increased mobility inherent in the railroad benefited the defender by allowing him to move troops up rapidly to cover any breaches in the line. Hence the strategy of attrition: if the enemy no longer has troops to cover his holes, you can just plow on through the holes. The problem here was that aforementioned increase in the ratio of force to space. Now, with unprecedentedly large numbers in a relatively small space, firepower advantages on the side of the defensive are amplified (the defenders aren't abandoning their fortifications for open ground after all).
I suppose when I say 'win' I mean a complete victory where the entire country is overrun like in WW2.
World War II's complete and utter destruction of the Nazi and Italian fascist states, along with their puppets and allies, is unprecedented in modern history. Prior to that time, states just didn't get utterly annihilated. You don't have to completely wipe out the other side to win: as von Clausewitz said, all you have to do is make him do what you want him to do. That's the whole point of war.

It is true that the Western Allies didn't secure a "real" victory in 1918-9, mostly exacerbated by their perceived betrayal in offering a negotiated peace on the basis of the Fourteen Points and then ignoring both promises. That doesn't mean that they couldn't have. The German Army would probably have disintegrated somewhat in the lack of an armistice, and fighting would definitely extend far into 1919, but the war would now be on German soil, and famine was nigh, if not already there.

World War II's complete and utter destruction of the Nazi and Italian fascist states, along with their puppets and allies, is unprecedented in modern history. Prior to that time, states just didn't get utterly annihilated. You don't have to completely wipe out the other side to win: as von Clausewitz said, all you have to do is make him do what you want him to do. That's the whole point of war.

Just as an example, the Republic of Venice was annihilated on the diplomatic table. Or, what were the Polish partitions?

Venice and Poland did not simply go from being major powers to ceasing to exist; there were centuries of strategic decay and territorial loss before they were finally annexed. The partitions of Poland were themselves an example of the fact that major powers tended to survive more than one defeat. They were done away with in the end because they had become extremely minor powers over time; Germany did not.

Good answer. But still, the way I see it the demise of nazism and Fascism involved the destruction of those governments... and at the core, how was that different from, say, the fall of Napoleon III?

Just as an example, the Republic of Venice was annihilated on the diplomatic table. Or, what were the Polish partitions?
Napoleon Bonaparte, 1797:

- I have 80 000 men and twenty gunboats; io non voglio più Inquisitori, non voglio più Senato; sarò un Attila per lo stato Veneto!"

And that was the end of the Republic of Venice. Not much of a negotiation really.:assimilate:

The German state was already a de facto parlamentarian monarchy in 1914. With the Reichstag as power behind the DoW would me made, too. That is no guarantee. However, one thing is interesting: In 1918 Germany was de facto ruled by the OHL. But the generals were not able to to crush the resistance of the Reichstag. Many generals demanded annexations. That was denied by the Reichstag. Instead they preferred a line of buffer states allied with Germany. And with Germany as guarantee for their independence, these states would not have made much resistance later against German plans. Also these plans would have most likely eveolved to a kind of EU much earlier.
France would have lost colonies and perhaps parts at the border, but by no way as harsh as they did with Germany in Versailles. Or with Prussia at Tilsit.
In any case: WW2 would never have happened in the way it did. So no Holocaust, no Nazi rulership, not this level of attrocitis, at least by the Germans.
If the Soviets would have really ruled Russia in such a case of a German victory or if the Germans then invaded Moscow to remove them is another question. Like France becoming a nazi state.
Anything else than Versailles would have been better.

Adler

The German state was already a de facto parlamentarian monarchy in 1914. With the Reichstag as power behind the DoW would me made, too. That is no guarantee. However, one thing is interesting: In 1918 Germany was de facto ruled by the OHL. But the generals were not able to to crush the resistance of the Reichstag. Many generals demanded annexations. That was denied by the Reichstag. Instead they preferred a line of buffer states allied with Germany. And with Germany as guarantee for their independence, these states would not have made much resistance later against German plans. Also these plans would have most likely eveolved to a kind of EU much earlier.
France would have lost colonies and perhaps parts at the border, but by no way as harsh as they did with Germany in Versailles. Or with Prussia at Tilsit.
In any case: WW2 would never have happened in the way it did. So no Holocaust, no Nazi rulership, not this level of attrocitis, at least by the Germans.
If the Soviets would have really ruled Russia in such a case of a German victory or if the Germans then invaded Moscow to remove them is another question. Like France becoming a nazi state.
Anything else than Versailles would have been better.

Adler


Lets be honest- who cares about France? Anyone anyone at all? The Germans need somewhere to park their panzers. All wars are going to ave some level of atrocity involved but by most accounts prisoners were treated fair and occupation is never fun for the occupied but it wouldn't have been like the scale of Nazi atrocities. Wonder if france would actually have been better off i the Germans got a quick victory in 1914? No occupation in 1940-44, millions dead in WW1, the cost of fighting WW1 and 2+ the Maginot line.

At Anzac day here (WW1 memorial service April 25th) German soldiers were described as compatriots along with allied soldiers. WW1 you can't really dress the Germans and Turks up as the bad guys only the enemy. Stupid war.

Depends on when they won the war. Most likely it would either be a win in 1914, basically Schliefen plan would be succesful. This would be great France and Russia would be humiliated but the pre-war order would not be broken down globalisation would continue fairly unabated and Germany would most likelu continue the road to democracy they already started on (it was a constitutional monarchy). No Great Depression, no Soviet Union and no WWII.

Or they could've won in 1918 with a succesful spring offensive. This would be worse the pre-war economy would be smashed the Soviet Union would exist, Germany would demand a major humiliation of France and German society would be very militarised. The great depression or something similar would probably happen but a WWII is more doubtful and there certainly would'nt be a Hitler, the kaiser would still be in power.

A quick war would have been ideal but the best would probably be an allied win 1914. It would keep the global economic system but it would cool Germany's military ambitions.

I think we can agree that the best possible end to WW1 would have been a swift victory for either the Allies or the Central Powers. This would have meant a more moderate peace settlement, less war devastation and no Nazi Germany or Soviet Union.

German victory, however, is the only quick victory scenario- the Allies certainly had no means to beat the Germans quickly. The only scenario I could think of where that could happen would be an immediate entry of the US and Italy, or a total collapse of A-H in 1914, both of which require a lot of imagination.

Sure, a swift German victory over France and Russia, might have prevented the rise of the Soviets and Nazis, but something had to replace the Czars that were facing serious opposition before the war, and would more than likely have been disposed of fallowing even a swift defeat. And with that, Communists could still gain power, or any other extremist government.
At the same time, you could reasonably expect France to be in a VERY bad position, probably similar to Germany historically, if not worse (no mitigating leaders). This would turn France into a breeding ground for extremists bent on revenge, rather than the Germany.
The deaths of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empires would have been delayed, but not prevented.

So we don't suddenly get no Hitler and Stalin, so no war, we just have new extremes, with the same potential.

What probably would have been best was a moderate peace settlement, either way, but I doubt that would have occurred if either side won.
The next best possibility, likely would have been the French goal at Versailles: the complete and utter dismemberment of Germany, followed by ENFORCEMENT of this treaty.
That said even if the Allies had enforced the treaty of Versailles we could end up with a very different situation in Central Europe.

Sure, a swift German victory over France and Russia, might have prevented the rise of the Soviets and Nazis, but something had to replace the Czars that were facing serious opposition before the war, and would more than likely have been disposed of fallowing even a swift defeat. And with that, Communists could still gain power, or any other extremist government.
I can't see any reason why Kerensky and the SRs wouldn't have formed a co-alition democracy or possibly even a constitutional monarchy. That's pretty much what happened historically and the odds of a Bolshevik takeover in the event of a quick Russian collapse are not great at all.

At the same time, you could reasonably expect France to be in a VERY bad position, probably similar to Germany historically, if not worse (no mitigating leaders). This would turn France into a breeding ground for extremists bent on revenge, rather than the Germany.
The French probably would have a revolution, but it seems quite unlikely that the resultant state would've been close to barbarism of the Nazis or Soviets. Also, the French were quite irrelevant militarily. Even after winning the war in real life they were still dependent on Britain to fight Germany. They couldn't possibly have threatened the continent.

The deaths of Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman empires would have been delayed, but not prevented.
Well, that's a complicated issue and quite a vague statement. The empires may well have collapsed, but after how many decades? Neither state seemed about to collapse in 1914 and winning the war would hardly hurt them much.

So we don't suddenly get no Hitler and Stalin, so no war, we just have new extremes, with the same potential.
New extremes perhaps, but hardly anything like the same potential for death and destruction. France would be in no shape to fight and that leaves Britain and what's left of Russia to fight the Germans, Ottomans, Austrians and quite possibly the Japanese as well. This world order would be much more stable than the real one.

What probably would have been best was a moderate peace settlement, either way, but I doubt that would have occurred if either side won.
The next best possibility, likely would have been the French goal at Versailles: the complete and utter dismemberment of Germany, followed by ENFORCEMENT of this treaty.
The USSR would still exist, and I think the kind of Treaty you imagine would have been completely impossible. You can't expect Britain or the US to accept what would in essence be a French annexation of Germany or to commit themselves to garrisoning Germany as a colony. There was simply no way that the UK and US would have tolerated such treatment of Germany, particularly since both would be anxious to extricate themselves from the continent as soon as possible.

Or France and Britain would win WW1 just like it did, but instead, they would occupy Germany and there would be no World War 2

Lets be honest- who cares about France? Anyone anyone at all? The Germans need somewhere to park their panzers.

I know that was probably a joke but I care about them. So does the 70 million in France and probubly another 70 million around the world

I think we can agree that the best possible end to WW1 would have been a swift victory for either the Allies or the Central Powers. This would have meant a more moderate peace settlement, less war devastation and no Nazi Germany or Soviet Union.

German victory, however, is the only quick victory scenario- the Allies certainly had no means to beat the Germans quickly. The only scenario I could think of where that could happen would be an immediate entry of the US and Italy, or a total collapse of A-H in 1914, both of which require a lot of imagination.

This pretty much sums my position. A quick victory by either side in WW1 is preferable to the long nightmare that was the Great War, and any consequences of the resulting settlement are certainly better than the consequences of actuall history: two of the most monstrous regimes ever, and tens of millions of deaths.

A german hegemony in the european continent, even if on a context of authoritarianism and militarism, is much preferable to what actually happened.

This pretty much sums my position. A quick victory by either side in WW1 is preferable to the long nightmare that was the Great War, and any consequences of the resulting settlement are certainly better than the consequences of actuall history: two of the most monstrous regimes ever, and tens of millions of deaths.

A german hegemony in the european continent, even if on a context of authoritarianism and militarism, is much preferable to what actually happened.

Hard to see it being worse than the Soviets anyway. Would the great depression have happened if France collapsed in 1914?

Would the great depression have happened if France collapsed in 1914?
Since Europe wouldn't be so dependent on American loans...probably not. Probably.

Since Europe wouldn't be so dependent on American loans...probably not. Probably.

Thats what I thought but its been awhile since I've read up on the great depression.

I am not much of a historian, but I saw this topic and felt a need to comment.

Since they did not, I am inclined to say 'No.'

I apologize sincerely for the double post, my internet connection is stuttering or something.

German victory in WW1 would not simply have led to an early European Union, with the Kaiser at the head. The German Reich, while not as out-and-out evil as the Axis Powers or Soviet Union, was the basis of many of the anti-semitic, eugenic, and pan-Eurasian ideas of the Nazis.

German intentions, if the war were victorious, was to genocide Poland's population through starvation, and resettle the country with Germans until the Germans outnumbered the Poles, and it could be incorporated as an Imperial Province. The political settlement in the East, after Brest-Litovsk, was arranged so that there would be a ruling German minority in the various independent Kingdoms, which would manage the country's economy and keep it open for further colonization by Germans. There was also some mention of deporting all the Belgians to Iraq, and annexing Belgium, but I think that's just insane. Point is, Hitler wasn't unique in his ideas.

Admittedly, some of this comes from the extended war, as the greater sacrifices demanded required politicians to promise greater rewards for their population. A quicker victory, though, is simply improbable. Germany's best way to achieve the knock-out blow necessary is to invade France through Belgium, but doing so provokes Britain. While it isn't certain that Britain would join, calling the Treaty of London a scrap of paper doesn't get on their good side, nor does the previous decade-long naval arms race, and there's the Entente to think about. A knock-out blow on Russia is possible, though, and could probably force France to sue for peace. This would likely sacrifice many of the colonial gains, but the primary worry of the General Staff was Russia, who'd begun to outpace Germany, and where a one-on-one victory wouldn't have been as likely in two or three years.

Germany's problem going into WW1 was that its only ally was Austria-Hungary, which competes with Italy as weakest Great Power. Post-Bismark, Germany had alienated its former friends in Russia, and continued to antagonize other world powers like France, Britain, and the USA, eventually leading to the Anglo-French Entente and Franco-Russian Alliance.

In the long-term, a victorious Germany is hardly in a good position. It will be competing with either the USA and UK for global hegemony, Japan will keep eyeing its Pacific islands if they managed to keep them post-war, while restricting German influence in Asia. Russia, Soviet or not, will eventually make a try for its former territories in Eastern Europe, while other European powers like France and Italy will always be looking for a shot to knock the Germans down a peg.

Germany, in a different diplomatic position and some proper allies, can probably win, as it's an enormous string of bad luck and stupid mistakes that prevented it from getting a war it can win. But it will remain a tough fight, and nothing could stop it from having to compete in a Cold War-esque situation with the United States, who'd inherit the automatic allegiance of much of the Anglophone world with the decline of the British Empire and have an economy to match Germany, even if they managed to set up a Mitteleuropa.

EDIT: Ah, regarding the Great Depression, the causes would have been different. But the nature of the German economy only sets itself up for a bigger fall, especially if the tighter government control that was introduced to cope with the First World War remains (which it might have, as it was hugely effective). I'm also a believer in the Kondratiev Wave theory.

I disagree. Yes, there were anti semitic, eugenic and pan Eurasian ideas, but not so much like in every other country of that time, too. Perhaps less. Hitler was never elected because of his anti semitism, but despite of it. And he never got the majority on his own in the Reichstag! Anyway, to see the Imperial Germany as a successor to Hitler is wrong.
Never a German government before the Austrian leadership has tried to starve Poland into death. Yes, there were voices demanding huge areas for colonization. But despite their attempts Brest Litowsk lead to the creation of several states, which were all independent. And some of them chosed a German to become their king (like Finnland). As Germany was guaranteeing their independence they would have welcomed this alliance. In contrast to the rule of the Bolshevics and Russians.
Yes, it would have lead to a kind of European Union lead by Germany, not neccessarily by the Kaiser. The constitutional reform of 1918 would have taken place in the case of a victory, making the de facto situation legal (since the dismissal of Bismarck no German chancellor was chosen who had not the trust of the parliament).
So in the case of a German victory we had a kind of European Union, solved colony disputes and a France under German influence. While this is perhaps still problematic, the chances of ww2, in the form it happened, was 0.
Would have the crash of 1929 happened? That is an interesting question. I think so. But the consequences were much milder for Germany but more devastating for France, as I am sure they would still have to pay reparations.
But no Hitler, no ww2 in this way. If there might have been a ww2 against Stalin, or another Great War against Britain would be interesting to see, but only speculation. And the US in isolationism...
So yes, a German victory would have been much better for the whole world.

Adler

Wow me and Adler agree on something. Maybe Germany could do the world a favour and occupy France.

Germany did act as bad guys in ww1, at least in Poland. They've used the oldest town in Poland, Kalisz, for a target practice, though there was no military there, reducing it from 50 000 people to 5 000. They wanted to annex further territories in Poland.

And they weren't treaten all that harshly in Versailles, at least when it comes to eastern border. Au contraire, UK and Italy did everything possible to preserve their territory.
Sadly, it's a common misconception that Versailles led to ww2, but it was german grief over that they have lost, german nationalism, and tolerance of it by the west, that led to ww2.

Adler, German victory would be better for many countries, but surely not for Poles or the nations of Austria-Hungary (but Hungarians), or Danes. Germany didn't mind independant Finland or Belarus, for they were too far to colonise. But Poland was already halfly german, and Prussia wanted a bit more of it too. It's easy to grant freedom to nations, if You are giving it to nations of some other state. Poland had bad luck being both under german and russian rule, thus none really wanted it to stay free.

They wanted to annex further territories in Poland.
This statement is misleading. According to most published statements of German war aims in the First World War, the Germans did want to annex a few strips of territory, but by and large their plan was to rule over Poland via allies and puppet states. They had a Kingdom of Poland's framework set up, after all. It's true, though, that the Kingdom of Poland itself was basically a vehicle for Germanization and eventual annexation into the Reich.
And they weren't treaten all that harshly in Versailles, at least when it comes to eastern border. Au contraire, UK and Italy did everything possible to preserve their territory.
Considering a) how many Germans lived in the 'Polish' corridor and b) the fact that Germany was a hegemon in the Eastern Front, the loss of any territory in the East was considered to be a crime by Germans.
Sadly, it's a common misconception that Versailles led to ww2, but it was german grief over that they have lost, german nationalism, and tolerance of it by the west, that led to ww2.
That's a huge oversimplification if I ever heard one. Not so say that those elements weren't a huge part of it, but frankly if Versailles had either been better enforced or if it had been lessened in its impact, Germany probably wouldn't have gone to war. If Versailles had been properly enforced in the 1930s, the Germans wouldn't have had the means to go to war; if it had been lessened, they wouldn't have had the motivation. As it was, the 'happy medium', combined with the West's immersion in its own problems as opposed to stopping that nutcase in charge of Germany, helped ensure war. Again, this doesn't change the fact that it was the Germans' decision to go to war, and that they were the aggressor, but they certainly had a fairly good reason, at the beginning. Remember, even the Weimar Republic was revanchist in the East.

Not that this applies to you, or anything, but it always amuses me when the same people who piss and moan about how the German seizure of Alsace-Lorraine and their gigantic war reparations for the French caused World War I, turn around and defend Versailles as 'not having had as much to do with the causes of World War II as the Germans themselves'.

This statement is misleading. According to most published statements of German war aims in the First World War, the Germans did want to annex a few strips of territory, but by and large their plan was to rule over Poland via allies and puppet states. They had a Kingdom of Poland's framework set up, after all. It's true, though, that the Kingdom of Poland itself was basically a vehicle for Germanization and eventual annexation into the Reich.


Misleading? Since when naming things what they were is misleading? These "few strips of territory" is much of Congress Kingdom of Poland, with almost no german population and which have never been german but during 1793-1807, for 14 years...


Considering a) how many Germans lived in the 'Polish' corridor and b) the fact that Germany was a hegemon in the Eastern Front, the loss of any territory in the East was considered to be a crime by Germans.


I do agree that due to the fact that Germans were successful in the east, they didn't understand the loss of territory, but it doesn't mean Germany was harmed. You are apparently unaware of the facts here:
The name "Corridor" is part of German propaganda, to make it look as if Poland has gained / was given this land just to gain access to the sea, while, except for a small part of Silesia, these were MAJORLY POLISH (!!!) lands that belonged to Poland before the 1st and 2nd partages, that is before 1772, and 1793. Germany kept the majorly german parts of the pre-partages Poland, as well as some majorly polish ones. Compare it to the situation of the Czechs, who got all the historical Bohemian Kingdom lands, though much of it was majorly german. They even got part of Upper Silesia, without any plebiscite.

When it comes to Upper Silesia, Poland only got 29% of the territory, while it won the plebiscite on the majority of it. True, Germans won over the majority of the population, but the plebiscite rules were that the region shall be devided according the voting in municipalities, and majorly german cities were en exclave in polish territory.

There were more Poles left in Germany than Germans in Poland. And the situation of Poles was much, much worse.


if it had been lessened


what do You mean by "lessened"?


Again, this doesn't change the fact that it was the Germans' decision to go to war, and that they were the aggressor, but they certainly had a fairly good reason, at the beginning. Remember, even the Weimar Republic was revanchist in the East.


As well as You are. What "good reasons" did Germany have?
Actually, I wouldn't mind Gdansk entering teh Reich, because, while historically polish, it was majorly German, and it was given a special status by Versailles because Poland had no other port city. It's built itself another one, Gdynia, but is independance of one city instead of it being part of Germany enough reason to go to war? You suprise me. No-one was persecuting Germans in Gdansk (in fact Poles were not being treaten nicely there), nor in Poland, while the situation of Poles in Hitler's Germany was dramatic.

Misleading? Since when naming things what they were is misleading? These "few strips of territory" is much of Congress Kingdom of Poland, with almost no german population and which have never been german but during 1793-1807, for 14 years...
Uh, no. Polish Frontier Strip expanded and contracted several times due to statements by Reichstag jingoists, but it never was so large as to control all of Congress Kingdom Poland. Are you having some kind of selective memory issue wherein you consider the Kingdom of Poland to be a de facto German annexation, or something?
The name "Corridor" is part of German propaganda, to make it look as if Poland has gained / was given this land just to gain access to the sea, while, except for a small part of Silesia, these were MAJORLY POLISH (!!!) lands that belonged to Poland before the 1st and 2nd partages, that is before 1772, and 1793. Germany kept the majorly german parts of the pre-partages Poland, as well as some majorly polish ones.
Ah, no. While much of the Polish Corridor did have a majority Polish population, as did Posen, there was a majority German population along the coast and in Danzig, extending inland (although not that far). Poland got it without a plebiscite, after all, mostly because the Western Allies figured it was too important to risk a plebiscite with so many Germans in the critical seacoast regions that the Poles 'needed'. As to the partition business, yes, I know that the Corridor didn't officially belong to any German state before then, but that doesn't mean it didn't have a large German population at that time, and it certainly doesn't mean that there wasn't a majority German population in parts of the Corridor in 1919.
There were more Poles left in Germany than Germans in Poland. And the situation of Poles was much, much worse.
That's neither here nor there, as is the previous part of the argument. I didn't say jack about Polish nationalism or Polish reasons for war, and frankly I couldn't care less about either. I was talking about the Germans' reasons for invading anybody. I mean, it's not as though most of Alsace-Lorraine was majority French, either, but the Germans still got booted out of it.
what do You mean by "lessened"?
Lower war reparations, no war guilt clause, retention of the merchant marine, less territorial cession, permission to have an air force or navy...I mean, there's so much to choose from! Hell, even eliminating the war guilt clause alone would probably have satisfied many Germans.
As well as You are.
No. Please don't label me with political positions that I've not assigned myself. Nowhere have I indicated support for German jingoism and revanchism, only stated that it is a reasonable response given the circumstances.
Actually, I wouldn't mind Gdansk entering teh Reich, because, while historically polish, it was majorly German, and it was given a special status by Versailles because Poland had no other port city.
Nice of you. :rolleyes: As to 'historically Polish', I'd kind of agree, but that goes so far back (the 15th century, actually, was the last time it could be reasonably called 'Polish' before 1945) that we might as well claim territory as disparate as the Ukraine to be 'German' or the entirety of the Roman Empire to be 'Italian'.
It's built itself another one, Gdynia, but is independance of one city instead of it being part of Germany enough reason to go to war? You suprise me. No-one was persecuting Germans in Gdansk (in fact Poles were not being treaten nicely there), nor in Poland, while the situation of Poles in Hitler's Germany was dramatic.
You're right about the treatment of Poles. Whoop-de-doo. My point was that if the majority of the population of Danzig is made up of flag-waving, slogan-hurling, Pole-lynching Nazis, then there ought to be little reason to oppose its acquisition by the Reich de jure, because it was already German de facto. Compared to the whole Sudetenland affair as well as that of the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia, it's so insignificant as to warrant disbelief that such a thing would be contested so strongly by a Poland hitherto acquiescent in Nazi plans.

when i saw this question i had a different take entirely/

By "should" I thought it meant "did they have the resources and just blow the strategy." The question "should" as in "it would have been better or worse for the world," didn't occur to me,

But to answer it- Germans have an authoritative bent and cold efficiency which frightens me. they killed my whole extended family in Kiev. So no they shouldn't win anything. Ever.

But to answer it- Germans have an authoritative bent and cold efficiency which frightens me. they killed my whole extended family in Kiev. So no they shouldn't win anything. Ever.

I agreee with you

Uh, no. Polish Frontier Strip expanded and contracted several times due to statements by Reichstag jingoists, but it never was so large as to control all of Congress Kingdom Poland. Are you having some kind of selective memory issue wherein you consider the Kingdom of Poland to be a de facto German annexation, or something?


Can You read? I've written "much of" Congress Kingdom, not "entire" nor "most of"...


Ah, no. While much of the Polish Corridor did have a majority Polish population, as did Posen, there was a majority German population along the coast and in Danzig, extending inland (although not that far).


Not true when it comes to the coast. And when it comes to Gdansk / Danzig, and its extention - yes, it was majorly german, and that's why it wasn't given to Poland, but was made a free city, de facto putting it under german rule, but not under direct control from Berlin.

When it comes to the rest, it was majorly polish, but city of Bydgoszcz/Bromberg, Torun / Thorn and villages along Wisla river in between them, perhaps.


As to the partition business, yes, I know that the Corridor didn't officially belong to any German state before then, but that doesn't mean it didn't have a large German population at that time, and it certainly doesn't mean that there wasn't a majority German population in parts of the Corridor in 1919.


It did have a german population prior to partages, mosly gentry and citizens of towns. After the partages, Frederic II and his successors introduced many german settlers there, too. Parts of "the Corridor" had a german majority, but really small one, while many majorly polish areas remained in Germany.


Lower war reparations,


They didn't pay most of them anyway, while they received USA financial help, so that they could rebuild their economy to pay them, and while english determination to give Upper Silesia to Germany had to do with german claim they can't pay them without this region...


less territorial cession,


What would You keep by Germany, precisely?


permission to have an air force or navy...


If this clause was implemented with determination, ww2 would have never happened.


Hell, even eliminating the war guilt clause alone would probably have satisfied many Germans.


Surely, Germans were so offended by blaming them for starting a war that they have started a new one.


No. Please don't label me with political positions that I've not assigned myself. Nowhere have I indicated support for German jingoism and revanchism, only stated that it is a reasonable response given the circumstances.


Less territorial concessions, Germany was de facto forced to war by the evil treatment of it, Germany had good reasons to go to war... Yes, that's not revanchism at all.


Nice of you. :rolleyes: As to 'historically Polish', I'd kind of agree, but that goes so far back (the 15th century, actually, was the last time it could be reasonably called 'Polish' before 1945) that we might as well claim territory as disparate as the Ukraine to be 'German' or the entirety of the Roman Empire to be 'Italian'.


Thank You for that part, because it once again proves your ignorance in this subject. Gdansk was in polish hands since X century and earlier until 1308, temporily in 1410, and since 1454, when it has revolted against TK and voluntarily submitted to polish king, until 1793. So it was part of polish state until the very end of XVIII century. You were +300 years wrong.
Truth is that in 1308 (I may be wrong by 1 year) Teutonic Knights slaughtered the kashub / polish population and established a new, german, city, so since XIV century, the city was probably majorly german, but so was Ryga (since XIII century), the capital of Latvia, and even Hitler didn't demand it for Germany.


You're right about the treatment of Poles. Whoop-de-doo. My point was that if the majority of the population of Danzig is made up of flag-waving, slogan-hurling, Pole-lynching Nazis, then there ought to be little reason to oppose its acquisition by the Reich de jure, because it was already German de facto.


Giving it to Germany would mean even less possibility for Poland from stopping persecution of Poles there.


Compared to the whole Sudetenland affair as well as that of the Protectorate of Bohemia-Moravia, it's so insignificant as to warrant disbelief that such a thing would be contested so strongly by a Poland hitherto acquiescent in Nazi plans.

Do You really believe that if Poland has given up Gdansk the war wouldn't have started? Hitler wanted the war, though he wanted Poland to be on his side. It's highely controversial in Poland, but one historian claimed recently Poland would be better off alligning with Germany. Loss of Gdansk and a highway through Pommerania is not a grand price, especially since Poland in return could get concessions for polish minority in Upper Silesia, Masuria, Ermland, Babimosc, Zlotow, etc., and Hitler was promising access to Black Sea in return.
But the goal of Hitler was war with USSR and great colonial gains for Germany in Russia. Poland could become Hitler's ally like Italy, and participate in a war against USSR. And in this case, I am afraid SU would have fallen, with the Axis being considerably stronger, and starting much closer to Warsaw.
But Poland didn't want any gains nor a war.
And a war with USSR with neutral Poland was not possible, simply because Poland was in the way. So if Poland gave Hitler Gdansk, but denied alliance, Hitler would probably demand something more... and if he was given it, even more... until either Poland became it ally under pressure, or it would have ceased to exist.

Can You read? I've written "much of" Congress Kingdom, not "entire" nor "most of"...
But, IIRC, it wasn't even much of...but yeah, I did misread your post.
Not true when it comes to the coast.
I've found conflicting sources on that, actually.
And when it comes to Gdansk / Danzig, and its extention - yes, it was majorly german, and that's why it wasn't given to Poland, but was made a free city, de facto putting it under german rule, but not under direct control from Berlin.
Yes, exactly. Which is why the Germans ought to be reasonably understood when they clamor for its reentry into Germany.
They didn't pay most of them anyway, while they received USA financial help, so that they could rebuild their economy to pay them, and while english determination to give Upper Silesia to Germany had to do with german claim they can't pay them without this region...
That's not the point. If some mugger on the street holds a man at gunpoint for his wallet, but the man runs away and the police later catch the would-be mugger, would the man not still want the mugger to be punished?
What would You keep by Germany, precisely?
Hell, I don't know, it was a bloody example. :p
If this clause was implemented with determination, ww2 would have never happened.
Thank you for agreeing to one of my points.
Surely, Germans were so offended by blaming them for starting a war that they have started a new one.
Fine. You explain the reason for the German outrage at being blamed for the entire war.
Less territorial concessions, Germany was de facto forced to war by the evil treatment of it, Germany had good reasons to go to war... Yes, that's not revanchism at all.
If you care to look at my original post, I said that it was more complicated than just German revanchism, etc., etc., but that Versailles was partly to blame, because it was neither enforced well enough to prevent a further war nor lenient enough to prevent the Germans from getting angry over its clauses. I have attempted to paint the German reaction to Versailles as 'reasonable' and that I can see that particular side of their argument, not that I support it. Is it anathema to be able to see both sides of a coin? That's all I'm proposing to do here.
Thank You for that part, because it once again proves your ignorance in this subject. Gdansk was in polish hands since X century and earlier until 1308, temporily in 1410, and since 1454, when it has revolted against TK and voluntarily submitted to polish king, until 1793. So it was part of polish state until the very end of XVIII century. You were +300 years wrong.
:rolleyes: The country to which a given territory belongs does not determine the ethnicity of the people in it. For example, during much of the same period, what eventually became East Prussia was officially under the Polish crown, but I hardly think anyone would attempt to claim that Königsberg was Polish in ethnicity. Danzig was majority German from a period around the middlish of the 14th century, although God knows that's not my particular field of expertise so I wouldn't be able to give any sort of exact date.
Truth is that in 1308 (I may be wrong by 1 year) Teutonic Knights slaughtered the kashub / polish population and established a new, german, city, so since XIV century, the city was probably majorly german, but so was Ryga (since XIII century), the capital of Latvia, and even Hitler didn't demand it for Germany.
...which is basically what I said above. :) As to Riga, Hitler may not have demanded it for Germany but Kaiser Wilhelm II wanted to create a Courish state in personal union with the German imperial crown. Which, again, I can see the motivation for but would not necessarily support if it had occurred.
Giving it to Germany would mean even less possibility for Poland from stopping persecution of Poles there.
Did they even try, ever, to stop said persecution?
Do You really believe that if Poland has given up Gdansk the war wouldn't have started?
I don't believe that a war would have been averted (I mean, come on, it's that lunatic Hitler we're talking about here); a war between Germany and Poland might have been, though. With the caveats that you yourself mentioned later.

Compare it to the situation of the Czechs, who got all the historical Bohemian Kingdom lands, though much of it was majorly german. They even got part of Upper Silesia, without any plebiscite.

I would add that we didnt get from Germany nothing, we claimed our land from Austria-Hungary. Czech lands would be little problematic, we should have Silesia though that of course Poles would have more right to have it, and Lusatia which was in foreign state (Germany).

But, IIRC, it wasn't even much of...but yeah, I did misread your post.

I've found conflicting sources on that, actually.


Each german and polish census showed a polish majority in the, very short, shoreline that was given to Poland after ww2. Really, no doubt here. I was searching for an old book I have on this subject, but I lost it somewhere, unf. Therefore, I attach 1912 polish map, based on official censuses; while the russian parts are extremly biased against the Poles (f.e. Wilno and Grodno areas even today have a polish majority, but on this map there are hardly any Poles there), prussian and austrian numbers seem not to be very biased.
I've painted three lines here:
red - territory with polish majority
yellow - post-ww1 polish border
green - pre-partages polish border
As You see, Poland only got territories with clear polish majority, and only some of it. the majorly non-polish cut are the regions of majorly german cities of Torun and Bydgoszcz, which I have mentioned earlier.


Yes, exactly. Which is why the Germans ought to be reasonably understood when they clamor for its reentry into Germany.


But You do understand there were majorly polish areas in Germany and Poland didn't demand them, right?


That's not the point. If some mugger on the street holds a man at gunpoint for his wallet, but the man runs away and the police later catch the would-be mugger, would the man not still want the mugger to be punished?


In this case, the man at the gunpoint got his wallet back, earlier got insurance money for the loss and financial aid from the community, and later started killing his neighbours, and stealing their money.



Hell, I don't know, it was a bloody example. :p


There's no such thing as bloody example. You must take responsibility for your words. If You say Germany should've lost less land, be precise. I think Germany could have lost much, much more lands, based on ethnicity
To Poland
- entire Masuria
- southern Ermland
- Powisle region
- Zlotow region
- Babimosc region
- the rest of Upper Silesia
To Czechoslovakia
- the part of Klodzko/Glatz region that was czech
To Luzyczans
- Luzyce (they could've been made independant
To Frisians
- Frisia (could've been made independant


Fine. You explain the reason for the German outrage at being blamed for the entire war.


No-one likes to be blamed for anything bad. But it's not a reason to go to war.


nor lenient enough to prevent the Germans from getting angry over its clauses.


If Germans lost anything in the east, but only didn't GAIN anything, they would still be angry, probably. If there was no polish part of Pomerania and Silesia, they would be complaining about Major Poland ("Posen") region.


Is it anathema to be able to see both sides of a coin? That's all I'm proposing to do here.


The problem is that "understandable" has a slight meaning of being right.
I would say that, hm, people should not be suprised at German reaction, but their reaction was not right, and not reasonable.


:rolleyes: The country to which a given territory belongs does not determine the ethnicity of the people in it. For example, during much of the same period, what eventually became East Prussia was officially under the Polish crown, but I hardly think anyone would attempt to claim that Königsberg was Polish in ethnicity. Danzig was majority German from a period around the middlish of the 14th century, although God knows that's not my particular field of expertise so I wouldn't be able to give any sort of exact date.


When it comes to East Prussia, a significant part of its population was polish, the first polish paper was being published in it, many important Poles lived there, it was the biggest centre of polish reformation, and southern part of Eastern Prussia indeed was majorly polish until ww2.

But that's not the point. You mix historical rights with ethnical rights. Both are important. The city belonged to Poland for the definite most of its history. Originally it was polish. It was located at the mouth of a polish river. Imagine in XV century Algeria claimed Marseilles, because "since XXI century the city is majorly algerian"
Gdansk was german by ethnicity since XIV century, but was nevertheless a polish town, sharing polish history, being part of Poland, and being happy with that.


Also, the language didn't mean nationality before XIX century. Gdansk joined Poland voluntarily. I remember that during a war that broke out for polish succession (I, sadly, don't remember if it was the one between count Conti and August II or Stanislaw Leszczynski and August III, but notabene, Gdansk supported non-german candidate) a song of this city, in german, claimed the city to be "the heart of Poland". After Gdansk was captured by Prussia, many Danzingers, including Schoepenhauers, emmigrated from the city in protest, and german-speaking citizens of Thorn welcomed Frederic II with bullets.



Did they even try, ever, to stop said persecution?


in vain


I don't believe that a war would have been averted (I mean, come on, it's that lunatic Hitler we're talking about here); a war between Germany and Poland might have been, though. With the caveats that you yourself mentioned later.

Isn't it better, then, that Poland was so strict about Gdansk? If not, the war would have started later, with even better prepared to war Germany, and probably with Poland on german side, therefore with much bigger chance for Axis to win.

here's the map

But You do understand there were majorly polish areas in Germany and Poland didn't demand them, right?
Yes, but I'm not here to discuss the equitability of the Polish-German border, merely to explain the German point of view as best I can. I mean, it's obvious to any fool that there are loads of Poles living in territories that the Germans got. The Germans, however, were just as easily able to point to Germans in the territory the Poles got. All I wanted to do was state that there were Germans in the Polish territories which served as an impetus for German revanchism. Frankly, it's a huge mess that I'm glad I didn't ever have to try to solve.
In this case, the man at the gunpoint got his wallet back, earlier got insurance money for the loss and financial aid from the community, and later started killing his neighbours, and stealing their money.
:lol: Which is why I don't pretend to justify Hitler, for example. Just to say that the Germans in general had reasonable grounds for being dissatisfied with Versailles.
There's no such thing as bloody example. You must take responsibility for your words. If You say Germany should've lost less land, be precise.
Uh. Okay, I was just attempting to pull something out of a hat and give ten seconds' worth of possible ways for the Germans not to be so pissed at Versailles. I've never given any thought in particular as to what the Germans should or shouldn't have lost based on ethnicity or anything, but was merely suggesting it as a possible sop. Since you inquired, though, I think that Wilson's idiotic Point about nationality should have been chucked. If you're going to attempt to justify something, using such a nebulous term as 'ethnicity' is a poor plan because it can be made to fit basically anything and everything. It ought to have been plainly stated that the Versailles boundaries had jack-all to do with who actually lived there and more instead to do with the tinkering of the Great Powers which is what it always had been in the past. And I honestly think that if the Allies wanted to do something about the Polish situation, they should have gotten an army there first so they could have reasonable grounds for dictating a peace based on those terms; since that wasn't the case, then the Brest-Litovsk settlement ought not have changed regardless of whether there were moral or ethnic grounds for doing so.
No-one likes to be blamed for anything bad. But it's not a reason to go to war.
Sounds like this is an argument over what an individual person considers valid grounds for 'going to war'. Which is an argument without an end.
If Germans lost anything in the east, but only didn't GAIN anything, they would still be angry, probably. If there was no polish part of Pomerania and Silesia, they would be complaining about Major Poland ("Posen") region.
They seized that territory by force of arms and in most cases weren't evicted from it by war's end. I can understand being pissed that said territory was subsequently seized from them.
The problem is that "understandable" has a slight meaning of being right.
Insofar as 'understandable' means that it's not utterly without grounds, I suppose, but in my opinion 'understandable' doesn't mean that it was the right thing to do. That's what I usually reserve the phrase 'right thing to do' for.
But that's not the point. You mix historical rights with ethnical rights.
No, you are. You were, I believe, the one that said that the fact that Danzig belonged to Poland for x amount of time meant that it was ethnically Polish, eh?
Both are important. The city belonged to Poland for the definite most of its history. Originally it was polish. It was located at the mouth of a polish river. Imagine in XV century Algeria claimed Marseilles, because "since XXI century the city is majorly algerian"
That's not quite the same thing; Algeria has at no point actually controlled Marseilles either.
Also, the language didn't mean nationality before XIX century.
Since nationalism didn't really exist until the aforementioned century...:p
Isn't it better, then, that Poland was so strict about Gdansk? If not, the war would have started later, with even better prepared to war Germany, and probably with Poland on german side, therefore with much bigger chance for Axis to win.
It would have been even better if Chamberlain hadn't pulled his . .. .. .. . with the Munich Pact. So it goes. I'm not a Nazi apologist and I'm not arguing for German expansion, revanche, or nationalism; I'm saying that it made sense for the Germans to be pissed off at the terms of Versailles. Arguing about the strict legality of whether something should or should not belong to Poland or Germany was never my object; I'm simply trying to state that if the makers of Versailles truly had it in their minds to make the Great War 'the war to end all wars' they should have either enforced their own treaty properly or they should have made the terms of said treaty less stringent upon Germany. In most cases, the latter wouldn't have worked either. The terms of Versailles were wildly disproportionate to the actual achievements of the arms of the Allied Powers in the First World War, the Germans were pissed at that, and they had the means to make another go of it. Hitler just made it worse.

No-one likes to be blamed for anything bad. But it's not a reason to go to war
It isn't a reason for war. It was a contributing cause of nationalism, extremism, and hatred of the French (and others that imposed it) and with a bit of propaganda, the Jews. Creating an environment in which the Nazis could rise to power.

The best ways to end WWI would have been a lenient peace (no War Guilt Clause, less reparations [yes Germany didn't pay much of them, but it sure didn't help the German economy and pissed off a lot of people), OR enforced dismantling of Germany's ability to make war.
In the long term, though the former probably would have had better results.

The terms of Versailles were wildly disproportionate to the actual achievements of the arms of the Allied Powers in the First World War
But if the war had continued a year or two more, the Allies most likely would have had a clear victory, and if they had pushed, they likely would have marched to Berlin (time was against Germany from day 1, after all). So, while the defeat didn't appear complete, it would have been if they continued.

Uh. Okay, I was just attempting to pull something out of a hat and give ten seconds' worth of possible ways for the Germans not to be so pissed at Versailles. I've never given any thought in particular as to what the Germans should or shouldn't have lost based on ethnicity or anything, but was merely suggesting it as a possible sop. Since you inquired, though, I think that Wilson's idiotic Point about nationality should have been chucked. If you're going to attempt to justify something, using such a nebulous term as 'ethnicity' is a poor plan because it can be made to fit basically anything and everything. It ought to have been plainly stated that the Versailles boundaries had jack-all to do with who actually lived there and more instead to do with the tinkering of the Great Powers which is what it always had been in the past. And I honestly think that if the Allies wanted to do something about the Polish situation, they should have gotten an army there first so they could have reasonable grounds for dictating a peace based on those terms; since that wasn't the case, then the Brest-Litovsk settlement ought not have changed regardless of whether there were moral or ethnic grounds for doing so.


In another words, Poland should have remained in German hands, because they have taken it from Russians and, therefore, had rights to it, and since allies didn't get there, they had no right dealing with this land?
With your logic, Allies had no right doing anything with french lands being under german occupation while Germany surrendered. We surrender, therefore You can't take anything from us.

Avoiding ww2 isn't the only goal... and, taking into account no-one knew ww2 would have happened and how would it be like, it couldn't have been the goal. Germany got borders that might have not been completely satisfying for it, but weren't any harm to them.
If You left Brest borders and east as it was, Poland would consist of Congress Kingdom minus
- Chelm region, given in Brest to Ukraine
- western edge, given to Germany
- northern edge, probably given to Lithuania
... is that right? I don't think so. Would it stop ww2? Perhaps. Does it make it right? no.

Truth is that both UK and France had regions with national minorities, so self-claim for the nations of Germany was a bit hypocritic, but, when it comes to them, in UK they had some autonomy, and in France, they were in France for 1000+ years, mostly, while Pommerania and Major Poland were in german hands for less than 100 years, with pauses and having polish national uprisings, and promised autonomy.
And the polish problem had to be solved, because it was itself a problem that might have led to a future war as well. To solve it, Poland had to be created or Poles exterminated.


They seized that territory by force of arms and in most cases weren't evicted from it by war's end. I can understand being pissed that said territory was subsequently seized from them.


Oh, I understand them as well, but it doesn't make them right.


Insofar as 'understandable' means that it's not utterly without grounds, I suppose, but in my opinion 'understandable' doesn't mean that it was the right thing to do. That's what I usually reserve the phrase 'right thing to do' for.


Therefore, this thread is useless, because it turns into a banality: that Germans were pissed with Versailles and therefore started ww2. The question is: should they have been pissed? My opinion is that, while I understand them being pissed, they in reality had no grounds for feeling cheated, robbed or anything, when it comes to eastern border.


No, you are. You were, I believe, the one that said that the fact that Danzig belonged to Poland for x amount of time meant that it was ethnically Polish, eh?


You misread my post again. I posted that it was historically polish, not ethnically.


That's not quite the same thing; Algeria has at no point actually controlled Marseilles either.


There's a lot of place for that between XXI and XXV century :)


I'm saying that it made sense for the Germans to be pissed off at the terms of Versailles. Arguing about the strict legality of whether something should or should not belong to Poland or Germany was never my object; I'm simply trying to state that if the makers of Versailles truly had it in their minds to make the Great War 'the war to end all wars' they should have either enforced their own treaty properly or they should have made the terms of said treaty less stringent upon Germany. In most cases, the latter wouldn't have worked either. The terms of Versailles were wildly disproportionate to the actual achievements of the arms of the Allied Powers in the First World War, the Germans were pissed at that, and they had the means to make another go of it. Hitler just made it worse.

The objective, again, was not only to assure peace, but to assure just peace. And, again, lack of independant Poland could have led to some war too, or at least to another uprisings.

There was no alternative, really. Either leave it to Germany (but they wanted to cut her power) or give it back to Russia (Lenin would have sent lilies in thanks? Lol!) weren't attractive solutions to the Allies.

Personally I think Germany should have won WWI. The world would have been better off if GB never got involved.

but... why?

@ Squonk: Poland might have been better off at all, if they had been a German ally and not a German foe. But therefore they had to accept the loss of West Prussia and Posen (that might have been traded over sometimes later, but never West Prussia). While Posen was indeed Polish, West Prussia wasn't. We can discuss the history of West Prussia for a LONG time. However, in 1913 the majority of the population in that area was mainly German in total (although only slightly). Excluding the Kaschubs, the Poles had even a lesser part of the Population. Anyway, it was unjustified to give it to Poland without plebiscite.
When we talk about Plebiscites: Upper Silesia decided in a plebiscite to stay in Germany! And only because of the French it was parted. BTW: Many Poles wanted to stay in Germany, too.
And to South East Prussia: There was a plebiscite! That region, too, wanted to stay in Germany.
You give not facts but a very unbased nationalistic point of view here. Anyway, you should perhaps look at the facts before.
But back to Poland: As German ally they would have got their own state (they already got one in 1916 against the wishes of some who wanted to annex it completely). They would have been supported by Germany and would not have needed an own harbour. Perhaps the Germans would have granted them the Westerplatte, too. But Poland wanted more. They wanted to restore the old Polish Lithunian empire. That's why they were getting angry when the Germans denied them the areas not being Polish inhabited (majorily).
Back to Versailles. Enforcing Versailles was not possible. Simply the Entente didn't want another war and they wanted a Germany not too weak to counter the Soviets, if needed. Also especially the British saw the unfairness in it. That's why Hitler got the fruits others (stresemann, Ebert, Rathenau) have to be credited with.
Versailles was a catastrophe and meant Hitler. Full Stop. Without Versailles no Hitler.

@ Rod: Your point of view, although someway explainable, is as wrong as Hitler's. It is also rasistic.

Adler

@ Squonk: Poland might have been better off at all, if they had been a German ally and not a German foe.


Well, Russia might have been better off after ww1 without Moscow, given to Germany in exchange for it friendship as well...
C-mon. Major Polan ("Posen") is the craddle of polish state, Poland without it is like France without Reims and Paris.
What reasons did Germany have to keep it?


But therefore they had to accept the loss of West Prussia and Posen (that might have been traded over sometimes later, but never West Prussia). While Posen was indeed Polish, West Prussia wasn't. We can discuss the history of West Prussia for a LONG time. However, in 1913 the majority of the population in that area was mainly German in total (although only slightly). Excluding the Kaschubs, the Poles had even a lesser part of the Population. Anyway, it was unjustified to give it to Poland without plebiscite.


While Poles might have been a slight minority in entire "West Prussia" province, they were a definite majority in the area assigned to them after ww1. + this territory belonged to Poland for most of its history. And I see no reason for singling out Kashubs.


When we talk about Plebiscites: Upper Silesia decided in a plebiscite to stay in Germany! And only because of the French it was parted.


The voting was being made by municipalities. That it shall be divided was clear from the start. Poland never demanded majorly german Glubczyce region, f.e.
Poland won on the majority of territory, while german victory on a regional scale was due to
- a great numbers of Germans brought there from Rhein region (true, it was dumb polish idea)
- german victory in big cities, which were notabene exclaves in polish territory.
US should have been divided along the line separating german-opting and polish-opting land. It wasn't, because it would leave all the industry to Poland.


And to South East Prussia: There was a plebiscite! That region, too, wanted to stay in Germany.


No, they didn't want to stay in "Germany". They weren't given a choice between "Poland" and "Germany":
1) The choice was between Poland, and... "East Prussia", which was misleading people.
2) While "East Prussia" was written in gothic font, "Poland" was written in a latin font, to emphasise East Prussia as something known to them, and Poland as something allien
3) The plebiscite took place when all the Masuria-Masovia border was in the hands of Soviets, besieging Warsaw. German papers were already giving orbituaries for the saisonstaat or whatever. Only a suicidial person would vote Poland in this case. Even papal nuntio called for voting for Germany.
4) Germans were beating, killing and threatening polish activists. The same problem was present in Silesia, and would have been present in Pommerania: Germans remained the officials, the policemen, the military, the paper-owners, the higher clergy etc, giving Germany a lot of means to influence the result of the plebiscites.



You give not facts but a very unbased nationalistic point of view here.


Sadly, these are the words You shouls apply to yourself.


But back to Poland: As German ally they would have got their own state (they already got one in 1916 against the wishes of some who wanted to annex it completely). They would have been supported by Germany and would not have needed an own harbour. Perhaps the Germans would have granted them the Westerplatte, too.


:rolleyes: With western Congress Kingdom given to Prussia, Chelm region to Ukraine, and Kowno region to Lithuania, this is an indeed golden opportunity for the Poles. Hail to kaisers.


But Poland wanted more. They wanted to restore the old Polish Lithunian empire.


Not true. Poland didn't want ALL these territories, only such part of them in which Poles would be sure majority.


That's why they were getting angry when the Germans denied them the areas not being Polish inhabited (majorily).


:rolleyes:
Which are those? Again, Poland only got the part of Eastern Pommerania (Western Prussia) which was majorly polish. Even german researches were showing polish majority both in almost all Upper Silesia and Masuria...
What are the not majorly polish areas Poland demanded, according to You?


Back to Versailles. Enforcing Versailles was not possible. Simply the Entente didn't want another war and they wanted a Germany not too weak to counter the Soviets, if needed. Also especially the British saw the unfairness in it. That's why Hitler got the fruits others (stresemann, Ebert, Rathenau) have to be credited with.
Versailles was a catastrophe and meant Hitler. Full Stop. Without Versailles no Hitler.


It's very comfortable for You, as a devoted german nationalist, to claim that.
Germany didn't have to counter the Soviets - Polish-Romanian-Baltic alliance was enough to do so for enough time until the west would have done anything. Yes, the British 'saw the unfairness in it". And that's the exact reason for Hitler's success. UK and France started agreeing with Hitler's claims and allowed him to demontage Versailles. And THAT led to war. They lacked the strong will to oppose german claims - which were turned to its eastern, slavic neighbours, so UK and France didn't care that much about them anyway.

WW1 was a bit different than WW2 as the Germans weren't exactly evil like the Nazi's were. a German victory likely would have cost France some money and border territories. WW2 either wouldn't have happened or you probably wouldn't have had the racial policies of Nazi Germany and its very unlikely the Nazis would have even been formed.

Thoughts?

WW1's outcome would've been best had it been a draw. That way, no one would be bitter over the outcome and hold a grudge, which lead to WW2. I believe that if the US had no entered the war in 1917, the war would've ended around 1919-1920 with essentially a draw. This doesn't mean that totalitarian governments wouldn't sprout up in Europe, but they may not be warmongers, at least not in Europe. Fascism would be seen as a way out of the economic problems of the time. But this need not translate into conquest. For example, Spain had no territorial ambitions, while Italy only conquered Ethiopia and only joined WW2 when Mussolini got jealous of Hitler's success.

ww1 led to the independance of following nations:
- Finland
- Estonia
- Latvia
- Lithuania
- Poland
- Czecho-
- -Slovakia
- Croatia (as part of Yugoslavia)
- Sloven (as part of Yugoslavia)
- Bosnia and Hercegowina (as part of Yugoslavia)

and, if we count "soviet" independance, also
- Ukraine
- Belarus

Virtually entire Central-East Europe gained freedom - some nominally, some really.

Therefore, it was a step forwards.
Stalemate would mean Poland still more or less enslaved by Germany, and lots
of German puppet states.

And Eastern Europe achieved nothing in all its time of independence other then getting overrun by Nazi Germany, and then later the Soviets, and remained Soviet satellites for decades after.

I really fail to see the difference between pre-independence and post-independence Eastern Europe. All it did was trade rulers.

And Eastern Europe achieved nothing in all its time of independence other then getting overrun by Nazi Germany, and then later the Soviets, and remained Soviet satellites for decades after.

I really fail to see the difference between pre-independence and post-independence Central Europe. All it did was trade rulers.
The difference? Precedence.

The precedence of these states being independant in living memory, not just in some more or less remote past. (And in some cases perhaps never before.)

The difference? Precedence.

The precedence of these states being independant in living memory, not just in some more or less remote past. (And in some cases perhaps never before.)

Of course. Many of those states were based off the German ideas however. Finland, Ostland, Ukraine, and Poland to name a few. So to say that the Allies would have allowed for the precedent but not Germany is misleading.

Of course. Many of those states were based off the German ideas however. Finland, Ostland, Ukraine, and Poland to name a few. So to say that the Allies would have allowed for the precedent but not Germany is misleading.
Can't find anything particularly "German" about any of these.:confused:

The Russians even allowed the cultivation of Finnish national sentiments while it was a Russian arch-duchy in the 19th c. since that would ensure that the former proprietor Sweden wouldn't have anything to work with. It worked well for the Finns though.

The number of times the Poles have risen in serious rebellion against all and sundry also indicates theirs is something more than a "German" notion.

"Ostland" I don't quite know what you refer to, since that entity never came into being.

The matter of Ukraine and historical national sentiments is tricky I'll certainly grant though.:)

Can't find anything particularly "German" about any of these.

I don't mean that. I mean the Germans had plans for an independent Poland, Ukraine, Baltic States, and Finland just like the allies. It was on the basis of these Germans plans that several of these countries were granted independence by the Allies.


* Kingdom of Lithuania
* Belarusan Democratic Republic
* Kingdom of Poland
* Kingdom of Finland
* Latvia
* Estonia
* Ukrainian National Republic

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitteleuropa

So you can't just credit the Allies for granting their independence. Germany had the same plans. This would have created the same precedent.

Furthermore the Treaty of Brest-Litvosk also gave Armenia independence as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitteleuropa



And important part of the plan was annexation of tens of thousands of square kilometers of territories from which the native inhabitants, mainly Poles, Jews and Lithuanians would be ethnically cleansed to make room for German colonists. From Poland alone, Germany wanted to annex circa [3] and expel around 2.000.000 people. The remaining puppet states would serve as quasi-colonial possessions where Germany industry would exploit resources and workers. Additionally the ruling class would be composed of German minority, which the German planners hoped, would one day dominate the population, and allow the states to be absorbed into German Empire as its provinces[3] [4]

Germany and Austria-Hungary's claims to the lands of "Mitteleuropa" in World War I and success in attaining them in 1918, would lay the foundation of the concept of Lebensraum (living space) by the Nazi regime years later.


What a self - pawnage, silver! :lol:

And Eastern Europe achieved nothing in all its time of independence other then getting overrun by Nazi Germany, and then later the Soviets, and remained Soviet satellites for decades after.


Hm, I believed being free is better than not being free, but OK.
Poland:
- stopped commie revolution marching into Europe
- built Gdynia, a new city and the biggest port in Baltic Sea.
- created SOP, a completely new industrial centre, including military industry, quite good (Los airplanes, f.e.), though not enough in quantity
- had quite some cultural life.

You can not blame C-E Europe for military weakness, especially that NO_ONE was able to face Hitler alone.

What a self - pawnage, silver!

Hardly. It has nothing to do with my point.

Among the things You have written was that the Germans had plans for indpendance of these states, incl. Poland, just like the allies. That's a lie when it comes to nations of Austria-Hungary, and the link You've given clearly shows that Germany saw the other C-EE states not as independent ones, but as their colonies, contrary to the Allies. Also, Allies didn't want to annex half of Poland.

No one in Germany who was in charge wanted to annex half of Poland!

1. I already said, that it might have been possible later to give Poland Posen. But that wasn't so in 1916!

2. West Prussia was ever mainly inhabited by Germans since the 15th century and until 1919. We can discuss the history for a long time. However, in 1913, when the last census took place, the majority of the whole province was German. Although, granted, that changed from district to district. After ww1 and before ww2 a great number of Germans left or were displaced by Polish population. West Prussia was a mainly German inhabited area and thus belonged to Germany. Also you can't add the Kashuns to the Polish! They are a Baltic people, which indeed mostly joined the Germans and not the Polish. They should be seperated from the others.

3. Upper Silesia: At first, it was, like you said, a Polish idea to give voices to peole, who moved to other areas after the war began. They had hoped to get more voices, well, it failed totally. Anyway, it wasn't clear from the beginning, what was really the outcome. Even the Allies didn't know. So for the Germans it was this: The majority voted for Germany. So the whole province is German. The Polish would have argued the same way. But here the problem lies: How do you depart it? If there is a city with 100.000 Germans surrounded by 50.000 Poles in villages, how shall they be devided? Sure there are more Poles surrounding, but again, a very difficult decision. So the best would have been to give it totally to Germany. It would have been the fairest and the most democratically.

4. East Prussia in Gothic and Poland in Latin is somthing to underline the the differences. Clear. But I don't have any problems with that. In Contrast. Whoever is able to read the Gothic "Old German" letters, Fraktur, is able to read Latin. That is no problem. The other way round is more problematically. So if there was a misleading the Germans could have complained. BTW, that war the Poles started. They should not complain, when they have a plebiscite then when seemingly loosing a war against the Soviets. Also the same you accuse the Germans, forcing Poles to vote for Germany, did the Poles, too! That is no reason to complain. Tu quoque!

5. The borders should have been finally drawn after the war was over. Sure, Poland would not have got everything they wanted, but they were not really willing to accept a compromise IMO.

6. West Prussia had a population in the census of 1905 of 1.590.247 people. 567.153 of them were Polish or Kashubish (the latter should not be considered as Poles, but for the sake, we can add them here). So 35,66% of the population were Poles. Indeed only in 12 of 29 circles the Poles were in majority. Indeed in 6 of them only slightly (of the other 17 only one was nearly 50:50). So please consider your position.
Your facts are wrong.

7. If you tell me a German nationalist, I can tell you a Polish one.

Adler

No one in Germany who was in charge wanted to annex half of Poland!


Major Poland + Pommerania + Upper Silesia + Masuria + part of Congress Kingdom Germany wanted to annex...



1. I already said, that it might have been possible later to give Poland Posen. But that wasn't so in 1916!


Huh, and why shouldn't it have been given to Poland at once? And what would make Germany give it to Poland later on?


2. West Prussia was ever mainly inhabited by Germans since the 15th century and until 1919.


Uh, Germans only appeared in this area in XIV century... And You think by 100 years, they'd be a majority?


However, in 1913, when the last census took place, the majority of the whole province was German. Although, granted, that changed from district to district.


Thus it was divided in majorly polish and majorly german parts.


After ww1 and before ww2 a great number of Germans left or were displaced by Polish population.


As well as Poles in german-occupied areas...


Also you can't add the Kashuns to the Polish! They are a Baltic people, which indeed mostly joined the Germans and not the Polish. They should be seperated from the others.


What do You mean by "mostly joined Germans?
And no, they are not Baltic people, but Slavic, of lechite branch. :p


The Polish would have argued the same way.


Poles NEVER demanded certain parts of it.


But here the problem lies: How do you depart it? If there is a city with 100.000 Germans surrounded by 50.000 Poles in villages, how shall they be devided? Sure there are more Poles surrounding, but again, a very difficult decision. So the best would have been to give it totally to Germany. It would have been the fairest and the most democratically.


Uh, so if a party gets 60% of votes, it should get 100% of parliament seats?
Anyway, US was supposed to be divided by municipalities. German cities were exclaves. Tough luck.


4. East Prussia in Gothic and Poland in Latin is somthing to underline the the differences. Clear. But I don't have any problems with that.


Oh C-mon. It's clear manipulation.


BTW, that war the Poles started.


It's not a clear case.


They should not complain, when they have a plebiscite then when seemingly loosing a war against the Soviets. Also the same you accuse the Germans, forcing Poles to vote for Germany, did the Poles, too! That is no reason to complain. Tu quoque!


Sorry, but Poles didn't have army, or police, or landowners, or church or state officials there.


5. The borders should have been finally drawn after the war was over. Sure, Poland would not have got everything they wanted, but they were not really willing to accept a compromise IMO.


Uh, the borders Poland got WERE a compromise. If it wasn't, Poland would get entire Pommerania, entire Major Poland, entire Masuria, entire USilesia.



So 35,66% of the population were Poles. Indeed only in 12 of 29 circles the Poles were in majority. Indeed in 6 of them only slightly (of the other 17 only one was nearly 50:50). So please consider your position.
Your facts are wrong.


This was a german census, and the numbers can't be completely trusted.
Also, even according to this census Poles were majority in definite most of territories Poland got after ww1.

Squonk nationalism aside Poland still hasn't really recovered from WW2 yet 60 years later has it? How bad was it being a Pole ling in German/Russian areas pre 1914 or so?

Its a bum deal and ideally Poland could have been independent but given the choice between bad and worse. Would a German victory in WW1 and Poland being incorporated into Germany or being a German puppet state have been any worse than 1939-44 under the Germans or 1945-1991 under the Russians.

My understanding (feeel free to correct me if I'm wrong) was that alot of the real problems between Poles and Germans didn't begin until after 1920 or so. In my own country there are political problems sort of between the Maori and the "white" New Zealanders but we still live in the same country togather and for the most part get along. What were German/Polish or Russian/Polish relations like before the war. Were they that bad?

What are German/Polish relations like now? Here I've read stories about how its easy for Germans to go to Poland and vice versa with Polish children attending German schools in border areas. Also I've heard that Germans buy tobacco and petrol in Poland as its cheaper or sunbathe naked on Polish beaches as tourists.

German backpackers are taking over the country here. Damn Germans:p

It's not true polish-german problems started in 1920. While I do not agree with communist-time propaganda about Eternal Polish-German Conflict, Germans did have a destructionist influence on polish history, Teutonic Knights betrayal, murder of king Przemyslaw II, Brandenburg, partages etc.
But "modern" problems started I guess in XVIII century with Frederic II. With him, the state started deliberatory germanisation of polish/kashub speaking areas.
Polish was being chasen out of schools, out of churches, both catholic and protestant,
Polish refugees from Congress Kingdom were being expelled after many years, Poles didn't have right to buy land or build anything unless any German didn't want to buy it / unless he got a special permission. Of course all the officials were being chosen out of Germans. Polish organisations were being persecuted, and organisations were being established on german side for germanisation of eastern prussian provinces.
Now I guess they were doing so more to centralise the state and diminish the differences between them, and less because they "hated" Poles. But the result was the same.

I'll answer the rest later on.

It's not true polish-german problems started in 1920. While I do not agree with communist-time propaganda about Eternal Polish-German Conflict, Germans did have a destructionist influence on polish history, Teutonic Knights betrayal, murder of king Przemyslaw II, Brandenburg, partages etc.
But "modern" problems started I guess in XVIII century with Frederic II. With him, the state started deliberatory germanisation of polish/kashub speaking areas.
Polish was being chasen out of schools, out of churches, both catholic and protestant,
Polish refugees from Congress Kingdom were being expelled after many years, Poles didn't have right to buy land or build anything unless any German didn't want to buy it / unless he got a special permission. Of course all the officials were being chosen out of Germans. Polish organisations were being persecuted, and organisations were being established on german side for germanisation of eastern prussian provinces.
Now I guess they were doing so more to centralise the state and diminish the differences between them, and less because they "hated" Poles. But the result was the same.

I know about earlier Germa/Polish conflicts but how did the average man on the street think. Were Germans and Poles killing each other or did they play the same sports, or socialise togather for example.

What Do Some of You Mean WWI Won By Germany Are you Crazy Sure it May have Prevented WWII, but Lets Face It If There Was No WWII There Woulkd Be No Isreal,No EU,no NATO,No Warsaw Pact,No Vladmir Putin (Well We Could do Without Him), No Democracy and Worst of all America will be Siting On There Buts Still Waiting for An Invasion

I can't really tell how was it among "ordinary men". I guess it depends on specific time and depends on the region.

And when it comes today, I guess it varies a lot between generations, regions etc.
I remember my friends telling me that during celebration of 50th anniversary of my school, some elderly lady started tearing down german posters (my classroom was german and latin teaching room), telling it's a polish school and no german should be allowed there. So there are some extremists. And I think ollder people are the ones that dislike Germans the most. Well, there are skin-heads, who, obviously, don't like Germans, but it's a complete margin, at least in the areas I know.
But there is a strong divide between W (NW) and E (SE) Poland. West Poland is richer, more liberal and left-wing, and eastern is poorer, more rural, more pius and more nationalistic. There's a sharp break somewhere around former prussian border from before ww1. Oh, and bigger cities even in the east are more liberal and less prone to german-bashing politicians.

Most Poles have never seen a real German in their life. Most of the german minority are not "real" germans.
An interesting matter are some of the Silesians in Opole voivodship, as well as Masurians and Varmiaks. Originally polish, they adapted many german words, were german citizens before ww2 etc, and after the war they were considered by others as Germans. And they discovered they have more in common with Germans than Poles that came from Ukraine, Lithuania etc. And now, though they speak polish, hardly or not at all speak german, have polish origin, surnames, etc, some of them consider themselves Germans. Very interesting, isn't it. It's a real shame for polish state and Poles that they let that happen. By which I mean that there was too much politics involved, not too little. Also, economy was not on polish side.

In Opole voivodship, German party is one of the ruling ones and german is auxillary language in some of it.

Anyway, as I have mentioned, no-one really knows Germans here. There are many people with german surnames and of german descent, obviously, but that doesn't mean a thing. I knew some people of recent german descent, but I don't know what if they believe they are germans themselves.
After the fall of communism, the general trend is to discover the history of the land we live in all its diversity... It applies to my region, Silesia, the most... You know, old german monuments are sometimes being re-established, local newspapers mention glorious citizens of silesian / pommeranian cities even if they were obviously german, etc.
Sometimes it is due to german minority, and sometimes it is part of discovering the land... In the west Poland, it's a third generation of people living here, and they are feeling some link with this land, also with the german part of its history. Of course, it doesn't apply to all.

But I think it doesn't look bad. It may look bad from the west, if someone listens to Kaczynskis and Giertychs (notabene Giertych is a german surname). There still is a mefiance towards Germany in many Poles, but I believe it will be less and less of it as time passes. Even some really outrageous claims by ex-leader of german minority, mr Kroll, didn't spark all that much attention. But the Prussian Trust, Centre for the Expelled etc were much discussed for 2 years or so. Now it's quiet. Also, during this time the fate of polish minority in germany was discussed, because there were some not nice examples there (first of all, since 193? germany doesn't recognise Poles as a national minority. Secondly, in the case of a divorce between a Pole and a German, they always give children to the German and sometimes even forbid speaking polish with them - sic!
In some workplaces Poles were forbidden talking polish too, and it caused much controversy too, but it was a long time ago and the topic is seemingly forgotten.

I remember my friends telling me that during celebration of 50th anniversary of my school, some elderly lady started tearing down german posters (my classroom was german and latin teaching room), telling it's a polish school and no german should be allowed there. So there are some extremists. And I think ollder people are the ones that dislike Germans the most. Well, there are skin-heads, who, obviously, don't like Germans, but it's a complete margin, at least in the areas I know.


trust me, there are more countries than Poland who still strongly dislike Germany.

Not that Germany today is a bad country, but alot of people just can not seem to forget world war 2.

trust me, there are more countries than Poland who still strongly dislike Germany.

Not that Germany today is a bad country, but alot of people just can not seem to forget world war 2.

We had a Japanese foreign student stay at out house for 6 weeks. Ol Grandma wasn't to impressed when she found out about it. "Bloody Japs" etc etc. At least the Germans were European. She was old though and dead now.

Germans can be funny over here. My mother used to run a back packers which had alot of Germans stay there. Their favourite phrases.

" Back home iin Germany........"
" Why in New Zealand do you have so many war memorials? Every small town has one".

What are German/Polish relations like now? Here I've read stories about how its easy for Germans to go to Poland and vice versa with Polish children attending German schools in border areas. Also I've heard that Germans buy tobacco and petrol in Poland as its cheaper or sunbathe naked on Polish beaches as tourists.

German backpackers are taking over the country here. Damn Germans:p

Perhaps I might add a few impressions from the "other side".

While there are still some obvious tensions, the situation has normalised a little imho. The funny thing is that most Germans have never even HEARD of people like Erika Steinbach before her pics were all over the place in the news a few years (?) ago. I didn´t know her either. No normal German - except for the Neonazis - wants the territories which Poland was given after WWII back, which is the official position of the German government as well (2+4 treaty etc).

My personal experiences: While studying in Hanover, which is quite a bit away from the Polish border, I have noticed a lot of Poles were studying there as well. And I got along with them very nicely (we had a bit of trouble with Ukrainians and Russians sometimes, though). But, of course, as they already were studying in Germany, they probably had a relatively positive view of Germany before coming over here in the first place, so that might not be very representative. That aside, me and my friends really had no trouble at all with Poles whatsoever. And although I already think of myself as a quite open-minded person (but who does not think of himself that way), I was very positively surprised of how easy it was to socialize with them nonetheless. They even invited us to visit them in Poland one day when we have finished studying and I might say that I´ve found quite a lot of Polish friends while attending university. Additionally, I want to admit, IF WWII was mentioned, it came from Germans most of the time. We get a LOT more flak from British guys, for example. And since Poland has joined the EU and there is a lot more personal, direct contact between Germans and Poles, it seems to get better. So while there is still some tension, most people are really trying hard to overcome the old stereotypes - from both sides. But there still is a lot to be done. But it seems to me that both sides agree that it is best to overcome - not forget! - our common history and work together from now on and perhaps even become good partners in the process... becoming good friends might still be a bit too early considering some of the issues that still surface every now and then. But I believe that we´re on the right track. And the cheap gasoline over there helps, too ;).


" Back home iin Germany........"
" Why in New Zealand do you have so many war memorials? Every small town has one".

A friend of mine just came back from a trip to New Zealand a few days ago and the first thing she mentioned was that there seemed to be memorials all over the place :lol: ( and sheep ).

Perhaps I might add a few impressions from the "other side".

While there are still some obvious tensions, the situation has normalised a little imho. The funny thing is that most Germans have never even HEARD of people like Erika Steinbach before her pics were all over the place in the news a few years (?) ago. I didn´t know her either. No normal German - except for the Neonazis - wants the territories which Poland was given after WWII back, which is the official position of the German government as well (2+4 treaty etc).

My personal experiences: While studying in Hanover, which is quite a bit away from the Polish border, I have noticed a lot of Poles were studying there as well. And I got along with them very nicely (we had a bit of trouble with Ukrainians and Russians sometimes, though). But, of course, as they already were studying in Germany, they probably had a relatively positive view of Germany before coming over here in the first place, so that might not be very representative. That aside, me and my friends really had no trouble at all with Poles whatsoever. And although I already think of myself as a quite open-minded person (but who does not think of himself that way), I was very positively surprised of how easy it was to socialize with them nonetheless. They even invited us to visit them in Poland one day when we have finished studying and I might say that I´ve found quite a lot of Polish friends while attending university. Additionally, I want to admit, IF WWII was mentioned, it came from Germans most of the time. We get a LOT more flak from British guys, for example. And since Poland has joined the EU and there is a lot more personal, direct contact between Germans and Poles, it seems to get better. So while there is still some tension, most people are really trying hard to overcome the old stereotypes - from both sides. But there still is a lot to be done. But it seems to me that both sides agree that it is best to overcome - not forget! - our common history and work together from now on and perhaps even become good partners in the process... becoming good friends might still be a bit too early considering some of the issues that still surface every now and then. But I believe that we´re on the right track. And the cheap gasoline over there helps, too ;).



A friend of mine just came back from a trip to New Zealand a few days ago and the first thing she mentioned was that there seemed to be memorials all over the place :lol: ( and sheep ).


Most small towns have a memorial. New Zealand had some of the heaviest casualties per capita in both WW1 and 2 (for frontline soldiers). Our army always seemd to get the crap jobs or suffer from British screw ups (Galipoli or Monte Cassino).

We only had a little over a million people in WW1 and in WW2 we sent 60000 soldiers to the war from a population of less than 2 million and a few thousand of them didn't come back. There was also a memorial building frenzy oin the 20's and most small towns lost people to the war. Back then New Zealanders thought of themselves as British more or less and we were also one of the 1st countries in the world to declear war on Nazi Germany due to timezones.

Most small towns have a memorial. New Zealand had some of the heaviest casualties per capita in both WW1 and 2 (for frontline soldiers). Our army always seemd to get the crap jobs or suffer from British screw ups (Galipoli or Monte Cassino).

We only had a little over a million people in WW1 and in WW2 we sent 60000 soldiers to the war from a population of less than 2 million and a few thousand of them didn't come back. There was also a memorial building frenzy oin the 20's and most small towns lost people to the war. Back then New Zealanders thought of themselves as British more or less and we were also one of the 1st countries in the world to declear war on Nazi Germany due to timezones.

I see. Some author I read (I can´t recall who it was) claimed that the two world wars can be considered as a part of a "founding myth" for Australia and New Zealand - with both countries successfully entering the world stage etc. Would you agree? I remember reading that and being a bit sceptical if the people down under really see it that way,

Anyway, perhaps I should print out this information and make a little readme file that will be sent to everyone of the next 10 million Germans relocating there beforehand ;). Something like:
"WARNING: New Zealand has a seemingly disproportionate amount of war memorials/square kilometre in comparison with Germany. Discretion (or just keeping your f****** mouth shut completely) is advised!"

What Do Some of You Mean WWI Won By Germany Are you Crazy Sure it May have Prevented WWII, but Lets Face It If There Was No WWII There Woulkd Be No Isreal,No EU,no NATO,No Warsaw Pact,No Vladmir Putin (Well We Could do Without Him), No Democracy and Worst of all America will be Siting On There Buts Still Waiting for An Invasion

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the deaths of tens of millions of people would have been worth a bunch of regional alliances and an almost perpetual regional hotspot? And HOW exactly would there be no democracy in the world?

I see. Some author I read (I can´t recall who it was) claimed that the two world wars can be considered as a part of a "founding myth" for Australia and New Zealand - with both countries successfully entering the world stage etc. Would you agree? I remember reading that and being a bit sceptical if the people down under really see it that way,

Anyway, perhaps I should print out this information and make a little readme file that will be sent to everyone of the next 10 million Germans relocating there beforehand ;). Something like:
"WARNING: New Zealand has a seemingly disproportionate amount of war memorials/square kilometre in comparison with Germany. Discretion (or just keeping your f****** mouth shut completely) is advised!"

Its a definate influence and started to open peopes eyes I think and hte people here started to see themselves as New Zealanders as opposed to English people in a different country.

The veterens brought back stories and their war diarys. They were shocked at the appearence of alot of the Eglish troops who were pale and sickly looking in comparison (bit more out doors based lifestyle ere and better fed). There was also the ANZAC's at Galipoli.

The 2 wars also formed a few opinions that haven't changed to much over the years about our allies.

British. Fight like hell poorly lead.
Americans. Idiots with guns. Feared more than the Gerans due to friendly fire.
Australians. These guys can fight.
Germans. See Australians.
Italians. Useless but nice people when taken POW.
French. See Italians but minus the nice bit.

A British general complained to Freyburg in WW2 in the desert. NZ troops didn't salute British officers and he complained about discipline. He was told to wave to them and they will wave back.

Plenty of war stories over here about our soldiers getting thrown in the way for the Germans to pound on them, like in Crete and the desert. most of the soldiers were farm boys as NZ was very rural back then. On Crete they killed alot of German paratroops which was described as like shooting ducks back home during duck hunting season.

IN WW2 we fought mostly in the desert and then drunk and looted our way through Italy. And stole jeeps off the Americans and Panzers off the Germans.

Are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that the deaths of tens of millions of people would have been worth a bunch of regional alliances and an almost perpetual regional hotspot? And HOW exactly would there be no democracy in the world?

ww2 might have happened anyway, You know. And the idea " lets appease Germany before it starts demanding it, because otherwise it might start a ww2" is pathetic.

ww2 might have happened anyway, You know. And the idea " lets appease Germany before it starts demanding it, because otherwise it might start a ww2" is pathetic.

Imperial Germany probably would have been better for Poland instead of Nazi Germany. Could hardly have been worse.

Germany, during ww1, also wanted to expel 2mln Poles and Jews to make room for german settlers, as well as keep 1/2 or so of area inhabited by Poles... It's a choice between aids and cancer. And God knows what could have happened later on.

It's like saying: "lets introduce shari'ah in USA, or lets convert to islam altogether, and muslim fundamentalists will have no reason to complain about America ever again"

No, Germany didn 't want to annex large pieces of Poland (a small stripe excluded). And Pommerania, Upper Silesia and Masuria were already German. Thus we couldn't annex it.

Uh, Germans only appeared in this area in XIV century... And You think by 100 years, they'd be a majority?

Yes. I had seen such figures before. It wasn't populated much by the time of settling there. IIRC 40 % Germans, 35 % Poles, 25 % Kashubs and Old Prussians in the 15th century. While you're correct about the Kashubians as being Slaves, that does not count to give them to Poland! As they are no Poles either. Indeed most of the Kashubs were thinking to be Germans in 1913. Of the rest most of them indeed preferred to be Polish, but many, too, wanted to stay just Kashubs, no German or Pole. Thus they can not be counted for Poland only. Or if they were all Poles, why were so many displaced after ww2? Günther Grass is the most famous of them. Also if you equalize Germans with Germanics is as well wrong as the Nazis did. Infact the Germans are a people not only from Germanic heritage but also Slavic, Poles :p, Sorbs, Kashubs and Wends, and Baltic, Prussian, origin. Now also Turks, Arabs, Italians, Blacks,... German means on German Deutsch, belonging to the people. And to the people belonged all who spoke German and was part of the German culture. Not who was of Germanic origin.

Thus it was divided in majorly polish and majorly german parts.

No. As there were many strong German exclaves left. But they were not given to Germany because it would have given the Germans nearly all the insudtry. That is also a main reason, why the Upper Silesians hated so the Poles in the 20s and 30s. And why the Germans could not accept the loss.

As well as Poles in german-occupied areas...


True. Also a crime. But that does not change anything about the German majority in 1913.

Uh, so if a party gets 60% of votes, it should get 100% of parliament seats?
Anyway, US was supposed to be divided by municipalities. German cities were exclaves. Tough luck.
You're comparing apples with pineapples. This is no parliament election, but a plebiscite. And in plebiscites the majority decides. Just a lesson in democracy.

Oh C-mon. It's clear manipulation.


Why are Gothic letters for Germany a manipulation? Today it would be. But not in that days. I don't get it.

Sorry, but Poles didn't have army, or police, or landowners, or church or state officials there.


Polish army units in Upper Silesia, army supported militias, Catholic Church are not counting for the Poles, huh? Not counting the fights startted by the Poles?

Uh, the borders Poland got WERE a compromise. If it wasn't, Poland would get entire Pommerania, entire Major Poland, entire Masuria, entire USilesia.

It was a good compromise for Poland. If the winners of ww1 were fair, Poland would have got only Posen back. The rest is German. You can see it in the figures of the census of 1905 and 1913. As well as the plebiscites.

This was a german census, and the numbers can't be completely trusted.
Also, even according to this census Poles were majority in definite most of territories Poland got after ww1.

Then I can say I do not trust any Polish figures as well. Believe me, Prussian officials WERE correct (not counting errors due to the lack of technology, but that is true for both sides). German bureaucracy is infamous for that!
After ww1 because of the displacements of Germans in these areas all Polish figures are void.

Adler

Question for Adler. Fomr the German perspective/hisory how did the Germans themsleves rate soldiers form various parts of the world they faced on the battlefield. Over her I've read that in WW2 German counter attacks often targeted American lines because the troops were inexperienced compared to British troops.

Back then New Zealanders thought of themselves as British more or less and we were also one of the 1st countries in the world to declare war on Nazi Germany due to timezones.

from what i understand we were the first country to take German land during ww1. We had troops in the boats to Samoa as soon as it was declared.

Maybe we have more memorials because we are more proud of what they done, winning and all. In Germany there is no chance to forget the wars, because everyone reminds them constantly (Dirty Germans trying to take over the world) Plus they still have a occupation army. (kinda) and some of the battles took place in their country. While the war didn't affect our country so we need memorials to remember it.

Not to mention Germans and all of Europe have been fighting wars for hundreds of years so hard to have memorials for them all, while ww1 was New zealanders first real war, first time the country had sent an entire generation out to fight.

I'm not surprised Germany doesn't have so many memorials it must be hard to be proud of the fact your country lost two wars and were monsters in the second. Nothing against the regular Germans or your troops none of their fault the leaders were horrible.

In Schleswig-Holstein, where I live, nearly every town and bigger village has such a memorial. I can not say for other areas though.

Adler

ww2 might have happened anyway, You know. And the idea " lets appease Germany before it starts demanding it, because otherwise it might start a ww2" is pathetic.

Did you actually read what I had posted?

In Schleswig-Holstein, where I live, nearly every town and bigger village has such a memorial. I can not say for other areas though.

Adler

That surprises me. I don´t live *that* far away (Hanover area) and I´ve only seen one memorial here. And that is a WWI one.

That surprises me. I don´t live *that* far away (Hanover area) and I´ve only seen one memorial here. And that is a WWI one.

open your eyes. ww1 memorials are in every village and city around and in hannover: bennigsen, wennigsen, stadthagen, springe, hameln, holtensen, hildesheim, burgdorf, frielingen, garbsen, grasdorf etc.

they are not really exposed, often in a small, planted area but they are definately there.

open your eyes. ww1 memorials are in every village and city around and in hannover: bennigsen, wennigsen, stadthagen, springe, hameln, holtensen, hildesheim, burgdorf, frielingen, garbsen, grasdorf etc.

they are not really exposed, often in a small, planted area but they are definately there.

:blush:
Never noticed them somehow. Guess I will have to take a closer look, then. The only one (WWI&II) I saw is in Steinhude...

i have to add, that most of them are not big and pompous statues, but more like a simple stone with an inscription and a bench to take a smoking break ;)

i have to add, that most of them are not big and pompous statues, but more like a simple stone with an inscription and a bench to take a smoking break ;)

Here they are usually on the main street. They often have a statue of a soldier or a soldier with his arm around a child and a list of the dead. Or they are a big obelisk type monolith.

Each year on ANZAC day (April 25)they have a ceremony they and get around 5000 people and they fire a cannon. I've been but its hard getting up by 6am. Theres also a ceremony at Galipoli itself and the Turkish government has been great in that regard as we invaded them and killed alot of their soldiers.

Most countries have a national day usually an independence or military victory type day. The closest we have is about a military defeat.

Heres a few photos from our local memorial.

http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1013263098011272549pRCZnlJHwl

http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1013263137011272549fRkjcPqBaV

And another one but I'm not sure where it is. May be in town somewhere that I'm not familiar with.
http://travel.webshots.com/photo/1115062497053511720TnhjKo

Anyway in WWIII I say we join the Germans (assuming they don't have an idotic government) and invade France. paybacks a . .. .. .. .. ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Warrior_%281978%29

Anyway in WWIII I say we join the Germans (assuming they don't have an idotic government) and invade France. paybacks a . .. .. .. .. ..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Warrior_%281978%29

France has a bigger military than Germany does right now.

France has a bigger military than Germany does right now.

Thats why we help Germany out and dogpile on France:rolleyes:

Use Stealth bombers to take out the French nukes and turn Paris into a parking ground for Panzers. For WW3 have everyone invade France.

some variations from around hannover:

well, guess, when the first one was built...

EDIT: i noticed a slightly different connotation of the memorials. over here here you refer to them as "warrior memorials", not "war memorial". i guess this stems from the fact, that the wars of germany in general were more or less aggressive wars and thus nothing worth to be really proud of. so you rather emphasize on honouring the dead than the event itself.

Thats why we help Germany out and dogpile on France:rolleyes:

Use Stealth bombers to take out the French nukes and turn Paris into a parking ground for Panzers. For WW3 have everyone invade France.

Good luck breaking up the friendship between France and Germany right now.

They are pretty close

Good luck breaking up the friendship between France and Germany right now.

They are pretty close

Yeah but one day I'm gonna take over the worlds Bw ha ha:D

No, Germany didn 't want to annex large pieces of Poland (a small stripe excluded). And Pommerania, Upper Silesia and Masuria were already German. Thus we couldn't annex it.


They already were german-controlled, not german. Of course, Germany didn't have to annex half of Poland, and I didn't say that, the verb annex in my sentence refers to Allies, and in the second one to part of KC.


Yes. I had seen such figures before.


Mad by ultranationalist german historians?


It wasn't populated much by the time of settling there. IIRC 40 % Germans, 5 % Poles, 25 % Kashubs and Old Prussians in the 15th century.


These numbers are pure imagination... I could say it was 90|% polish (incl. kashubian) and 10% German with the same validity.


While you're correct about the Kashubians as being Slaves, that does not count to give them to Poland! As they are no Poles either. Indeed most of the Kashubs were thinking to be Germans in 1913. Of the rest most of them indeed preferred to be Polish, but many, too, wanted to stay just Kashubs, no German or Pole. Thus they can not be counted for Poland only. Or if they were all Poles, why were so many displaced after ww2? Günther Grass is the most famous of them. Also if you equalize Germans with Germanics is as well wrong as the Nazis did. Infact the Germans are a people not only from Germanic heritage but also Slavic, Poles :p, Sorbs, Kashubs and Wends, and Baltic, Prussian, origin. Now also Turks, Arabs, Italians, Blacks,... German means on German Deutsch, belonging to the people. And to the people belonged all who spoke German and was part of the German culture. Not who was of Germanic origin.


1) You are wrong about "most Kashubs believing to be Germans". This is pure fairy-tale.
2) Kashubian is regarded either as a lechitic language, meaning coming of the same branch of western-slavic languages as polish, thus nominally the closest to it, or a polish dialect.
3)Kashubs were not expelled after ww2, though many emmigrated later on to Germany, mostly for economic reasons. I'm suprised that anyone stayed. if You opened borders and gave free housing and help with finding job to ANYONE in Soviet Bloc, he'd consider it. Bah, I have a family in Germany too, because some members of my family married Silesian women who had right to emmigrate to Germany as long as they declared themselves to be German.
3)Grass is not a Kashub. His mother was, and even she has a german, not slavic, surname. Believe me, there are many Kashubs who are more reknown in Poland than Grass, including a historian G. Labuda and current prime minister, D. Tusk.
4) Of course there are many Germans of polish, polabian etc origin, but they speak german mostly. There are two most important factors in ethnicity:
1) language
2) declaration
Indeed, there are people of purely polish descent and barely speaking any language but polish but considering themselves german. But it's a complicated matter, and I think it's more a present thing, and before ww2 such people, speaking polish but not even conscious of that, had regional - Silesian, Masurian etc. ethnicity, not german. But of course, perhaps some have believed Bismarck claiming that Kashubs, Silesians and Masurians are "old germanic tribes" :rolleyes:


No. As there were many strong German exclaves left. But they were not given to Germany because it would have given the Germans nearly all the insudtry. That is also a main reason, why the Upper Silesians hated so the Poles in the 20s and 30s. And why the Germans could not accept the loss.


Uh, we were talking about Pommerania/West Prussia, not Upper Silesia now! Look at the map I've attached. The border was done precisely along the mini-regions with german and polish majority, with exception of Bydgoszcz/Bromberg and Torun/Thorn, where Poles were a slight minority due to the big cities, but formed a majority in the rural areas.

When it comes to Upper Silesia, it is true that industrial cities voted for Germany. But they were a big exclave in territory that voted for Poland. The allies thus gave Poland much of the industry, but gave Germany all the polish-opting territory west to the industrial cities, so that Germany could have some of them. If the division was done along the municipial votes, as it originally was supposed to be done, Germany would get NO industry, because pro-german cities were an exclave in the easternmost part of the area.

Who told You that Upper Silesians hated Poles during 20s and 30s? Which Upper Silesians? German of polish? On which side?

Germans "could not" accept the loss? Hitler was right, right?


True. Also a crime. But that does not change anything about the German majority in 1913.


German majority in ENTIRE West Prussia province, not the area given to Poland!


You're comparing apples with pineapples. This is no parliament election, but a plebiscite. And in plebiscites the majority decides. Just a lesson in democracy.


No, honey, it was clear from the start that the region would be divided. Again, Poland didn't demand much of the area that was part of the plebiscite zone. The plebiscite was supposed to decide where would the line of division run, according to majorities in MUNICIPALITIES, or whatever it is called in english.


Why are Gothic letters for Germany a manipulation? Today it would be. But not in that days. I don't get it.


Gothic font was something they were accustomed with, and latin something allien and perhaps they could not even read it. Also, it was not "Germany" written there, but "Eastern Prussia", which made it look like a choice between independance and Poland, not Poland and Germany.


Polish army units in Upper Silesia, army supported militias, Catholic Church are not counting for the Poles, huh? Not counting the fights startted by the Poles?


When it comes to Warmia and Mazury, the catholic church (as well as evangelic one) supported Germany openly. It wasn't that obvious in Upper Silesia, where local clergy was sometimes pro-polish, but bishop Bertram, a German, definitely was not.
Polish militias were mostly self-defence against german authorities. Two first uprisings were result of atrocities commited by Germans, in the first case Myslowice massacre, and in the second case murder of A. Mielęcki. And I doubt Poland could support them, being busy defending its own existance in the east. The goal of the second uprising was to limit full german control over administration. Only after it, 50/50 polish/german ratio was introduced in the police, earlier it was dominated by Germans and was a side in the polish-german struggle.


It was a good compromise for Poland. If the winners of ww1 were fair, Poland would have got only Posen back. The rest is German. You can see it in the figures of the census of 1905 and 1913. As well as the plebiscites.


You are not a nationalist, but an ultranationalist. Poland only got of West Prussia what was majorly polish according to german census plus two majorly german cities that were located in between of majorly polish territory.
Poland only got 29% of Upper Silesia, while it has won on majority of its territory.


Then I can say I do not trust any Polish figures as well. Believe me, Prussian officials WERE correct (not counting errors due to the lack of technology, but that is true for both sides). German bureaucracy is infamous for that!
After ww1 because of the displacements of Germans in these areas all Polish figures are void.


I've already mentioned that I consider prussian census the most accurate of three countries dividing Poland. Sorry, but Germany itself called for leaving Poland hoping for destabilisation of its economy. And they left of their own will, mostly.

Did you actually read what I had posted?

Oh sorry, I did misinterpret your post, for I missed the queation You were relating to.

These numbers are pure imagination... I could say it was 90|% polish (incl. kashubian) and 10% German with the same validity.


I can doubt your figures as well with the same argumentation. You're forgetting the old Prussians (old Prussians= Prußen). The Prußen were a Baltic tribe, which was incorporated into the German society after (forced) christionaisation. It is estimated, that in 1400 about 200.000 Prußen, 100.000 Germans and 27.000 Poles lived in that area between Weichsel and Memel. However, these figures are from all sides vague. We should not discuss them for long but should remain with figures of validity. And that are the one of the last census before ww1.

1) You are wrong about "most Kashubs believing to be Germans". This is pure fairy-tale.
2) Kashubian is regarded either as a lechitic language, meaning coming of the same branch of western-slavic languages as polish, thus nominally the closest to it, or a polish dialect.
3)Kashubs were not expelled after ww2, though many emmigrated later on to Germany, mostly for economic reasons. I'm suprised that anyone stayed. if You opened borders and gave free housing and help with finding job to ANYONE in Soviet Bloc, he'd consider it. Bah, I have a family in Germany too, because some members of my family married Silesian women who had right to emmigrate to Germany as long as they declared themselves to be German.
3)Grass is not a Kashub. His mother was, and even she has a german, not slavic, surname. Believe me, there are many Kashubs who are more reknown in Poland than Grass, including a historian G. Labuda and current prime minister, D. Tusk.
4) Of course there are many Germans of polish, polabian etc origin, but they speak german mostly. There are two most important factors in ethnicity:
1) language
2) declaration
Indeed, there are people of purely polish descent and barely speaking any language but polish but considering themselves german. But it's a complicated matter, and I think it's more a present thing, and before ww2 such people, speaking polish but not even conscious of that, had regional - Silesian, Masurian etc. ethnicity, not german. But of course, perhaps some have believed Bismarck claiming that Kashubs, Silesians and Masurians are "old germanic tribes"

Being of Slavig origin does not mean they belong to Poland as well. Of 90.000 Kashubs in a census of 1840 10.000 remained about 50 years later. Of course the 80.000 missing were not killed but assimilated into the German society. Of the rest one third (about) wanted to remain just Kashubs, while another 2/3rds wanted to become Poles. So I also say, that the Kashubs were integrated into the Germans as well.
Also there were displacements of Kashubs.

Uh, we were talking about Pommerania/West Prussia, not Upper Silesia now! Look at the map I've attached. The border was done precisely along the mini-regions with german and polish majority, with exception of Bydgoszcz/Bromberg and Torun/Thorn, where Poles were a slight minority due to the big cities, but formed a majority in the rural areas.

When it comes to Upper Silesia, it is true that industrial cities voted for Germany. But they were a big exclave in territory that voted for Poland. The allies thus gave Poland much of the industry, but gave Germany all the polish-opting territory west to the industrial cities, so that Germany could have some of them. If the division was done along the municipial votes, as it originally was supposed to be done, Germany would get NO industry, because pro-german cities were an exclave in the easternmost part of the area.

Who told You that Upper Silesians hated Poles during 20s and 30s? Which Upper Silesians? German of polish? On which side?

Germans "could not" accept the loss? Hitler was right, right?

In the case of Upper Silesia any division was highly problematic from a point of view of the right of self determination. While that worked hardly in North Schleswig, would have worked hardly in West Prussia, in Upper Silesia it would not have worked because of the many scattered islands of Polish terrain in German and German terrain in Polish speaking areas. Thus a plebiscite for the whole province would have been fair. And so it was seen by the Germans. Anyway, many Poles voted for Germany, too. Thus even the division is more unfair.
You mention Hitler. A good chess move. A morale club. Yes, Hitler was wrong in many things. And I do not want to defend this Austrian. In no way. His racial policy, ww2 and many other things makes him deserving burning in hell. However, you equalize me with him. And that's highly offending. Nevertheless: If Hitler was ever wrong he would not be in charge so long. Yes, I think Hitler has done a FEW things, which were legal, which were right. And demanding Upper Silesia was IMO one of these few (and also something which was seen that way throughout ALL German parties from NSDAP to SPD and partly KPD!). Most of these few things were also not of his origin btw, but are the work of really great men, Rathenau, Ebert, Stresemann.

German majority in ENTIRE West Prussia province, not the area given to Poland!


True. But that does not change a yota. Only in 6 districts of the Province the Poles were in total majority. In 5 other only slightly by at most 5% and in the other 18 the Germans. We could discuss long, if only the mainly Polish areas were given to Poland after a plebiscite. Even then there is nothing to discuss. But not now. It was also against the right of self determination.

No, honey, it was clear from the start that the region would be divided. Again, Poland didn't demand much of the area that was part of the plebiscite zone. The plebiscite was supposed to decide where would the line of division run, according to majorities in MUNICIPALITIES, or whatever it is called in english.


That was not clear from the beginning.

Gothic font was something they were accustomed with, and latin something allien and perhaps they could not even read it. Also, it was not "Germany" written there, but "Eastern Prussia", which made it look like a choice between independance and Poland, not Poland and Germany.

Ever seen Fraktur? Then you can see the easiness of Latin letters. There was no problem with that.

When it comes to Warmia and Mazury, the catholic church (as well as evangelic one) supported Germany openly. It wasn't that obvious in Upper Silesia, where local clergy was sometimes pro-polish, but bishop Bertram, a German, definitely was not.
Polish militias were mostly self-defence against german authorities. Two first uprisings were result of atrocities commited by Germans, in the first case Myslowice massacre, and in the second case murder of A. Mielęcki. And I doubt Poland could support them, being busy defending its own existance in the east. The goal of the second uprising was to limit full german control over administration. Only after it, 50/50 polish/german ratio was introduced in the police, earlier it was dominated by Germans and was a side in the polish-german struggle.


The Polish uprisings were conducted to annex ALL of Upper Silesia to Poland.

You are not a nationalist, but an ultranationalist. Poland only got of West Prussia what was majorly polish according to german census plus two majorly german cities that were located in between of majorly polish territory.
Poland only got 29% of Upper Silesia, while it has won on majority of its territory.

I already said, that such a division here was not possible, if you want to act fair. The plebiscite decided with 60:40 for Germany.

Adler

I can doubt your figures as well with the same argumentation. You're forgetting the old Prussians (old Prussians= Prußen). The Prußen were a Baltic tribe, which was incorporated into the German society after (forced) christionaisation. It is estimated, that in 1400 about 200.000 Prußen, 100.000 Germans and 27.000 Poles lived in that area between Weichsel and Memel. However, these figures are from all sides vague. We should not discuss them for long but should remain with figures of validity. And that are the one of the last census before ww1.


Was there census in AD 1400?
Anyway, I am not forgetting Prussians, because there were no Prussians west of Vistula. Name "Royal Prussia" was only given to Pommerania in XV century, as a name for Pommerania/Pomerellen + Malbork/Marienburg and Warmia/Ermland. After the fall of Poland this province, with some additions in the west, without Warmia, but with Marienwerder, was called West Prussia.


Being of Slavig origin does not mean they belong to Poland as well. Of 90.000 Kashubs in a census of 1840 10.000 remained about 50 years later. Of course the 80.000 missing were not killed but assimilated into the German society.


Uh, didn't You think they were rather treaten as Poles in next census?


Also there were displacements of Kashubs.


After ww2? The ones who declared to be German, perhaps. But another ones profitted from displacing Germans... Today Kashubs inhabit bigger area than during ww1...


In the case of Upper Silesia any division was highly problematic from a point of view of the right of self determination. While that worked hardly in North Schleswig, would have worked hardly in West Prussia, in Upper Silesia it would not have worked because of the many scattered islands of Polish terrain in German and German terrain in Polish speaking areas.


Not true... There was only ONE significant island... and these were industrial cities in the east. If not for them, the division would be clear.


Thus a plebiscite for the whole province would have been fair. And so it was seen by the Germans. Anyway, many Poles voted for Germany, too. Thus even the division is more unfair.


Many Poles voted for Germany - why does it make a division unfair?
And how come You can COMPLETELY ignore the wishes of 40% of population and most of the territory for union with Poland? The answer is easy: You'd like Germany to keep it all.


However, you equalize me with him. And that's highly offending.


You have more territorial claims towards post-ww1 Poland than Hitler had. I do not claim You'd start a ww2 or anything.


And demanding Upper Silesia was IMO one of these few (and also something which was seen that way throughout ALL German parties from NSDAP to SPD and partly KPD!).


It only shows ALL Germans were staunch nationalists, and as all parties put nationalism in their agenda, they helped Hitler get to power and helped starting ww2.



True. But that does not change a yota. Only in 6 districts of the Province the Poles were in total majority. In 5 other only slightly by at most 5% and in the other 18 the Germans. We could discuss long, if only the mainly Polish areas were given to Poland after a plebiscite. Even then there is nothing to discuss. But not now. It was also against the right of self determination.
[quote]

I've compared your claims with 1911 map, and here are the results.
DN - Germans over 55% MN - Gemans 50-55%
DP - Poles over 55% MP - Poles 50-55%

DN 16 (11)
MN 1 (1)

MP 4
DP 8

So it's 8+4=12 for Poland versus 16+1=17 for Germany, though it could be more for Poland, for the map only shows the percentage of Poles, and I counted all others as Germans, which doesn't have to be true.
If You cut off from West Prussia province the traditionally Prussian lands, and leave historical Pommerania province only (that is the originally polish part) the proportions are 8+4 for Poland, and 11-12 for Germany... Which means that in Pommerania, Poles were half or majority in most of the districts.
I will add, however, to be completely just, that in one case Poles were 55,2% and I had doubts if I should count them to 50-55 or in +55% zone. I counted them into +50%, for You yourself have chosen this +/- 5% distinction.

[quote]
That was not clear from the beginning.


It was.


Ever seen Fraktur? Then you can see the easiness of Latin letters. There was no problem with that.


It was a psychological move, Adler, a very clear and quite ingenious one.


The Polish uprisings were conducted to annex ALL of Upper Silesia to Poland.


that is as ignorant as claiming Kashubs are a baltic tribe.
No, Adler. After the plebiscite, Korfanty has drawn a line of division according to the result of plebiscite, with german industrial island on polish side, but cutting the polish area on edges on the other hand. The uprising started because the British and Italians wanted to divide US, giving Poland only Rybnik, Pszczyna and part of Katowice districts. The goal of the uprising, led by Korfanty, was to achieve the aforementioned Korfanty line.
Again, No-one in Poland ever wanted the almost purely german by then areas in the S-W of the region.


I already said, that such a division here was not possible, if you want to act fair. The plebiscite decided with 60:40 for Germany.
Adler

It was clear from the start that the division would be made. In your mind, I guess, good for Germany = fair. No. 40% of people voted for Poland. Why shouldn't at least some of them have the right to be given to the state they wished?

I will add that Poland didn't get entire Major Poland, though most of population were Poles and definitely would vote Poland in a plebiscite...

According to 1905 census (data in english wiki for West Prussia)

DN 16 (10)
MN 0

MP 6
DP 7

It's 6+7=13 for Poles, and 16 for Germany, 10 out of which are in historical Pommerania.

Both sources are far from your claim which was

DN 16

MP 5
DP 1

In this case, Kashubians are counted as Poland, which You won't like.
But there are 0,5 mln people of Kashubian descent in Poland, including 50 000 Kashubian-speakers. And only 5000 of them declared Kashubian nationality, which would make them 1% of Kashubs, or 10% of Kashubian speakers. I see no reason to single them out.

On the other hand, I'd like to point out that if somebody declared two native tongues, one of them being German, he was automatically counted as German, so the percentage of Poles/Kashubs would be higher.

As many Poles wanted to stay in Germany in Upper Silesia, why they all would have voted for Poland? Anyway, there were in the whole province 2/3 Germans. And in the districts there were mostly (60%+) inhabited by Germans

Elbing-Stadt
Elbing-Land
Marienburg
Danzig-Stadt
Danzig-Niederung
Danzig-Höhe
Dirschau
Stuhm
Marienwerder
Rosenberg
Thorn-Stadt
Graudenz-Stadt
Schochau
Flatow
Deutsch-Krone

For the Poles:
Preußisch Stargard
Karthaus
Löbau
Strasburg
Tuchel

Even:
Neustadt

Slightly German majority (-60%)
Graudenz-Land

Slightly Polish majority
Briesen
Thorn-Land
Kulm
Schwetz
Konitz

15 with clear majority for Germany, 1 with slight majority, 1 tied. 5 with clear Polish majority, 5 with slight one.

1.645.874 inhabitants. Of them were 567.328 Poles AND Kashubs. What are still different. And 1.061.803 Germans.

Thus the whole province should have stayed German.

Adler

I see You've changed the setting, it's no longer 55%, but 60%, because it is less favourable for Poles..., with Poles having minimal over 55% in some places, and Germans minimal over 60% in some... Also, there's no tie. In the district in question, there are (only 0,6%) more Poles than Germans, but Poles do not constitute a nominal majority. Telling it is a tie is not fair. Also, according to 1905 centus, it was 15:1 for Germans, 6:7 for Poles, so your numbers are not correct. Also, I noticed You did not post the clear polish majority cities, which was probably done with intent of influencing the perception of people briefing through this thread... Also, You only use german names, while I tried to use both polish and german until now. Here are the majorities in 1905, german names.


Polish 55 plus majority 6
Stargard
Karthaus
Putzig
Lobau
Strasburg
Tuchel
polish majority, less than 60% 7
Konitz
Schwetz
Berent
Neustadt
Briesen
Thorn-L
Kulm
german majority, less than 60% 1
Graudenz-L
German 60 plus majority 15
Schlochau
Flatow
Deutschkrone
Graudenz-S
Thorn-S
Elbing-S
Elbing-L
Marienburg
Danzig-S
Danzig-N
Danzig-H
Dirschau
Stuhm
Marienwerder
Rosenberg

And no, the fact that according to german census, Germans were 2/3 majority in the province doesn't mean entire province should be left by Germany... It's germans who have created the borders of this region, and they weren't clearly historical, nor ethnographical. And You failed to tell me: if You do insist You should not divide regions, should Poland have received entire Major Poland (Posen) province, also the majorly german parts?

From the whole population Germany should have got the whole province, like the Poles should have got whole Posen. If that means to make an exchange of territory it is okay. That means, if for example a Posen district, in which the Germans were in majority, was exchanged against let's say Tuchel, so it could have been done.

Back to the figures: I made the distinction between 60+% and lower than 60% as in these a choice for Germany and Poland was not totally clear, especially as in Silesia many Poles voted for Germany, too. My figures are correct. And Neustadt had a Polish majority of 300 people more than Germans. So a tie here is fair to see.

Adler

anyone want to try doing a map?

300 votes more is still not a tie. Germans were not a majority in Posen district, I believe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Posen
I don't see why in this one case in the world, the territory should be treaten as a whole. It wasn't the case of Schlezwig, nor Burgenland, nor Karintia, nor any other land.
Pommerania was historically polish, Poles/Kashubians were the autochtonic population, and they were a majority in the core part of the area. It seams completely natural Poland got some of that, especially that it was of vital importance to it, and barely any for Germany.

anyone want to try doing a map?

map of what?

map of what?


Of Europe had the CP won (see closed thread)

first version - Germany keeps to its word when it comes to the borders of Ukraine and the existance of Poland etc
second - it does not.

The second map is wrong. It wouldn't have been any complete annexation of Poland.
We can for long discuss the history of West Prussia. And we won't come to an agreement. However, even if we followed you suggestion, it would have needed a referendum in most of these areas. That was not done in West Prussia as it would have given Poland no access to the Baltic Sea. That's another reason for the trouble with Poland after ww1.
Germany could have accepted the loss of Posen and perhaps tolerated loss of parts of Upper Silesia. But the Polish Corridore was inacceptable. And that was seen throughout all parties, not only NSDAP.

Adler

That only proves all Germans were nationalists. All parties tried to gain support by nationalist claims, but, obviously, nazis could surpass them all. So it only helped nazis get to power. Had some parties been obiective and sympathethic to the Poles, perhaps ww2 would not have happened.
the "polish corridor" existed through entire history of this region, apart for 1308-1466 and since the end of XVIII century, but, may I add, in XIV - XV century it is hard to consider West Pomerania a german duchy, so in fact it was not a corridor then, and since the end of XVIII century more than that polish land fell in german hands. "The corridor" was nothing new or artificial. And it's not as if Germany was divided in half. It simply had an exclave posession. You can not blame Poles for that. Had there been no Poles there, Poland would not get this land. Had it not been polish by history, Poland wouldn't get it.

And You can not say that referendum would result in german victory.

When it comes to the map,
- Germany wanted to annex western part of Congress Kingdom, expel Poles and make it a place for German colonisation.
- Chelm (Kulm) land was promised to Ukraine
- Kowno (Kaunas) area would undoubtly be given to Ukraine, and I surmise that would be the fate of Suwalki and Podlasie regions, because lithuanian nationalists claimed them (I was too generous to Poland in the first pic.
- I doubt Austria-Hungary didn't want any gains as well, but even if not,
Poland would be reduced to Masovia region and perhaps the northern edge of Minor Poland. It would be smaller than Lithuania. Keeping it would only be trouble for Germany and Austria-Hungary, because it would always be unsatisfied with its borders and could spark trouble. Therefore, either it would have remained "independant" under some german prince (unlikely), or given to Austria or Prussia. Either way, it would be a cripple state, kind of like Germany reduced to Rheinland.

The original map is Congress Kingdom of Poland, 1815.
Yellow - what Germany wanted to annex
Red - what Ukraine was promised by Central Powers
Blue - what Lithuanians, Central's allies, were demanding and would likely get
Pink - what I think Austria would have annected (belonged to them 1795-1807)
Azure - what would be left for Poland
green - majorly polish areas

another map.

Yes, indeed, including Poland.

Ridiculous! Your claims here show, who is really nationalistic.

Adler

Uh, You're the historical revisionist here. You make dubious claims (everyone - including Poland! - would be happier had Germany won ww1, it's Katherine, not Frederic, who pushed for partage of Poland, etc). You'd like Germany to keep all its polish conquests from before ww1. You keep Bismarck in your avatar, and claim to be a prussian feldmarshall. You claim that if Poland gets war reparations, it should give Germany Silesia and Pommerania.

Yet it is ME who is more nationalistic?

Apart from that, You are clearly ignorant in some subjects You are so emotional about, as your claim Kashubs are a Baltic tribe shows. It was not a temporary lack of knowledge, because I've found your claim in the earlier thread that "West Prussia" was inhabited by Prussians.

Uh, You're the historical revisionist here. You make dubious claims (everyone - including Poland! - would be happier had Germany won ww1, it's Katherine, not Frederic, who pushed for partage of Poland, etc). You'd like Germany to keep all its polish conquests from before ww1. You keep Bismarck in your avatar, and claim to be a prussian feldmarshall. You claim that if Poland gets war reparations, it should give Germany Silesia and Pommerania.

Yet it is ME who is more nationalistic?

Apart from that, You are clearly ignorant in some subjects You are so emotional about, as your claim Kashubs are a Baltic tribe shows. It was not a temporary lack of knowledge, because I've found your claim in the earlier thread that "West Prussia" was inhabited by Prussians.

It was me who started this thread. Of course we don't know how things would have turned out had Germany won WW1 but I think you could make a good arguement even the Poles would have been beter off than what happened IRL. WW2 killed a third of Polands population and then you got 40+ years of communism.

Poland probably would have been a German puppet state had Germany won WW1 and maybe incorporated into the Reich. I think it would be likely Polish nationalism would have eventually lead to a polish state in the 40's or 50's similar to decolonisation in other parts of the world.

From you threads so far it seems the Poles were treated better by Imperial Germany than Nazi Germany or the Soiets.

It was me who started this thread. Of course we don't know how things would have turned out had Germany won WW1 but I think you could make a good arguement even the Poles would have been beter off than what happened IRL. WW2 killed a third of Polands population and then you got 40+ years of communism.

Poland probably would have been a German puppet state had Germany won WW1 and maybe incorporated into the Reich. I think it would be likely Polish nationalism would have eventually lead to a polish state in the 40's or 50's similar to decolonisation in other parts of the world.

From you threads so far it seems the Poles were treated better by Imperial Germany than Nazi Germany or the Soiets.

Imperial Germany led strong politics of germanisation. Polish language was being banned from schools, from church. Poles had to have a special permission to buy houses, the state was buying land and giving it to ethnic Germans. And many more. And, I am quite frank about it, german culture IS richer and more appealing than polish, especially when backed by a strong state and economic gain. Germanisation was very successful in XIX century. in the middle of XIX century, Olawa region in Lower Silesia had hardly any german speakers, and villages around Wroclaw were polish-speaking. In the beginning of XX century, there were hardly any ethnic Poles there. Even Major Poland, the craddle of polish state and of polish nationalism, was becoming more and more german, though, of course, there were reverse processes, very visible one was the case of bishop Bursche, of clearly german origin, who was polonised, who became the leader of polish evangelic church, denied volksliste in ww2 and was killed for that.
I mean, by the 40s or 50s Poles would have been a minority everywhere. If they got their own state, it'd be even tinier part of Poland than the Congress Kingdom. Again, germany wanted the western edge of it. Lithuania wanted the northern part of it, and polish-speaking areas east to it. Ukraine was granted by Central Powers eastern part of it. I doubt Austria-Hungary wouldn't have some too. C-mon. If someone gave You 1mln dollars for cutting off all your limbs, your genitalia, and burning out your eyes, would You take it?

Saying that Poland would be better off as a german province, because then there would be no ww2 is not fair intelectually. It's like saying: had Jews all have abandoned judaism in XVIII century, there would be no holocaust, or saying to a gay man that had he not had a boyfriend they wouldn't have been beaten up by someone hating gays, or saying to a woman: if you hadn't defended yourself from being raped, he would just rape you, and now you're raped and beaten up. It's all true, but...

And I know You've started the thread, but Adler claimed Poland would be better off too.

Imperial Germany led strong politics of germanisation. Polish language was being banned from schools, from church. Poles had to have a special permission to buy houses, the state was buying land and giving it to ethnic Germans. And many more. And, I am quite frank about it, german culture IS richer and more appealing than polish, especially when backed by a strong state and economic gain. Germanisation was very successful in XIX century.

All those things considered, could it not be argued then that the individuals who lived in the territory now known as Poland would have been better off by being part of Germany? So long as Germany accepted them as citizens and did not try to maintain them as some kind of servant underclass, I mean.

The construction of national identities throughout Central and Eastern Europe during the 19th was an artificial process everywhere! You started a bunch of small states divided along political lines which did not coincide with cultural lines, and a large illiterate peasant population which would be conscripted to the service of this or that new national state depending on who first managed to set up and control an elementary school system. You had new languages made up by mangling together regional dialects, or suppressing some in favor of others. You had fake or simply new "national treasures/epics/whatever" popping up to provide some "ancient roots" to the new national state and language. It was all the work of some (accidental, mostly) groups of intellectuals (who, in an apparent contradiction for nationalists, supported each other) intent on creating "modern nation-states" (and, of course, directing them as the new political elite afterwards).

And I know You've started the thread, but Adler claimed Poland would be better off too.

Well they may have been is the arguement being made but maybe not to the extent Adler is claiming.

If Poland was ever occupied by the Nazi's/Soviets and was fully absorbed withen the German Reich would the modern Pole be better off if the modern Imperial German had similar views to modern German citizens today? Odds are the German Reich would habve collapsed or changed by now regardless of a German victory in WW1.

I don't really see them treating Poles as a slave class. Assuming Poles living in a modern version of imperial Germany had citizen ship and minority rights would they have a higher standard of living. They may have some sort of semi autonomy or even be politically independent but numerous Poles would still be in Germany's borders and Poland may be smaller but never had WW2 fought on it.

Thats the arguement I was making at the start of the thread. Adler and yourself kinda went off on a tanget.

Sorry, but that's BS... Almost all countries of eastern Europe have at least medieval roots... and most have some literature history. And in the case of Poland You are completely wrong, there was a polish state, one of the largest in Europe, until the very end of XVIII century, and polish language has a fine history of literature. That's not true when it comes to many other small nations, but...
You may say that Slovakians or Belarusians are nations without history. That would be about true. But they do not fit into another nation as well... Slovakians have too different language to be considered Hungarians, and too different history to be considered Czechs or Poles. Belarusian language may be something in between polish and russian, but, well, what can we do. Saying they are Poles would not be true, and saying they are Russians would not be true as well. Religion and origins made them closer to Russia, most of history - to Poland. Therefore, a country was established to fill the void, and national feeling came later on. Well, it still haven't actually came there.
But apart from that, all the countries have their own history. Ukraine is a more complicated matter, though.

But what do You actually claim? Eastern Europe in XIX century was divided into Russian, Ottoman, Austrian (Austro-Hungarian) and partly German Empire (Poland). Does that mean there was only Turkish, Russian and German culture, nation, history there, according to You?

There is nothing stranger in eastern european nationalism than in irish, scottish, corsican or basque one.

I don't really see them treating Poles as a slave class. Assuming Poles living in a modern version of imperial Germany had citizen ship and minority rights would they have a higher standard of living. They may have some sort of semi autonomy or even be politically independent but numerous Poles would still be in Germany's borders and Poland may be smaller but never had WW2 fought on it.


today, Poles have no minority rights in Germany, since Hitler cancelled them in 1930's. Germany has many nice laws, like the ones allowing banning talking in a language other than german in workplace, even private conversations. Jugendamts or whatever even forbade polish fathers/mothers speaking to children in polish after their divorce with german wives/husbands. Some german museums still proudly show exhibits robbed from polish museums during the war. Etc. And it's many years after ww2. Had there been no ww2, polish situation would have been even harder. It'd have been the situation of Sorbs, a dieing out nation. For private individuals it might have been better, sure, but you can not expect some people to resign of their identity.

Poland wouldn't have been SMALLER. It'd have been 1/20 of Poland or so. What's your country. If it's Britain imagine your country reduced to Kent, but better off. If it's UK, imagine it reduced to New England. If it's Germany, imagine it reduced to Rheinland. Imagine a country of French size reduced to the one of Belgium's, or the country of Belgium's size reduced to the size of Luxembourg. That's what I'm talking about. It's not just a couple of villages this or that way.

Sorry, but that's BS... Almost all countries of eastern Europe have at least medieval roots... and most have some literature history. And in the case of Poland You are completely wrong, there was a polish state, one of the largest in Europe, until the very end of XVIII century, and polish language has a fine history of literature. That's not true when it comes to many other small nations, but...

Yes, Poland had a state before, and a specific culture and language. But even that was intertwined with german culture. A medieval state was not the homogeneous "ideal" modern national state, not even close. When the modern era of european nationalism came things might have gone in several different ways.

But while Poland does have a long history, several other european states' "ancient roots" are a joke - even down to the claims eventually made by the western states, trying to identify with roman-era tribes...


But what do You actually claim?

I claim that "national identities" were imposed top-down, and that the majority of the peasant population could have easily have fallen to any of the contending sides. Local elites did had distinct cultures, peasants had little in the way of culture - at least little that they were allowed to keep by the modern states anyway.

today, Poles have no minority rights in Germany, since Hitler cancelled them in 1930's. Germany has many nice laws, like the ones allowing banning talking in a language other than german in workplace, even private conversations. Jugendamts or whatever even forbade polish fathers/mothers speaking to children in polish after their divorce with german wives/husbands. Some german museums still proudly show exhibits robbed from polish museums during the war. Etc. And it's many years after ww2. Had there been no ww2, polish situation would have been even harder. It'd have been the situation of Sorbs, a dieing out nation. For private individuals it might have been better, sure, but you can not expect some people to resign of their identity.



I am not entering this debate about what would have been if and so on, but would like to adress your recent criticism on German laws etc., because here your arguments become some kind of typical Polish accusations one can often read, especcially on wiki and the likes of it.

The first point you adress is that Poles don't enjoy minority rights, which they should have according to you, i assume.
Taking them away during the 3rd Reich was obviously agenda driven and nobody will deny it was unjustness. But today, there is no Polish minority in Germany, who could claim them. The Poles that live here today are immigrants. No matter how much your former administrations claims otherwise. There are no authochtone Poles inside German territory anymore today. The official formulation is, that there are people with German citizenship and who are of Polish ancestry. Most of them were born in Poland and it seems as if it is enough to qualify as German if someone in their family once had a German sheperd j/k. Those do not claim special minority rights.
In fact, those that do claim the rights of an authochtone minority - a minority like the Frisians, Sorbs or Danes - are Poles without German passport. They are migrants aswell. And they have a nice lobby over in Poland, a nationalist lobby that plays its card very well when it comes to pissing off Germans. The lobby they have in Gemrnay is totally marginalized and mostly externally controlled by their home country. Fair enough.

The next point of you is the forbiddance of speaking a foreign language at a workplace, which is partially true. You are not allowed to speak anything else than German, if the terms and conditions of a certain workplace need the workers to understand each other. Examples could be flying an airplane, working as a police officer, or a complicated process of production at a machine. When you refill a shelf at Aldi or work at the cash desk, you can talk whatever you like, allthough i would consider it a bit rude, but whatever. Those laws are not made to discriminating poor Poles, Turks or whoever but for safety and ensuring the easy function of a work process.

About the Jugendamt claim, i don't have a clue. Never heard of it, but i am interested in it, if you can provide a link. Besides, my impromptu opinion: sounds like a hyped boulevard event, caused by a crazy judge.

The museum thingie sounds interesting, too. But your claim of a proud - sounds like that's another distoted perception of you - display of looted art can be brought against Poland aswell. See the Berlinka treasury in Krakow. What about an exchange? Oh and a link would be cool, too again. Because if your right, i am in for supporting Polish claims.

And now you come again with that Sorb story. Do we need the repetition of the last discussion from the thread where you claimed "Freedom for Sorbs", backed up with that quasi racist video from your panslavism friends on youtube? They are not dying out. It#s not the drama you would like to claim.

On a personal note, to me, you look quick to make any possible assumption and accusation towards the Germans, because you can't stand them and because your people suffered enough under them. Understandable. To me, you seem to like to divide, seed distrust and are keen on revanche. But that way you will never get any empathy or respect from me, or other Germans that grew up 2 or 3 generations after the war.

Al-salāmu ʿalaikum.

I thought the Sorbs were undergoing a revival? At least thats what I read here. I think you have to speak english here in the workplace except on breaks where you can speak anything you like. Health and safety reasons for starters.

But today, there is no Polish minority in Germany, who could claim them. The Poles that live here today are immigrants. No matter how much your former administrations claims otherwise. There are no authochtone Poles inside German territory anymore today. The official formulation is, that there are people with German citizenship and who are of Polish ancestry. Most of them were born in Poland and it seems as if it is enough to qualify as German if someone in their family once had a German sheperd j/k. Those do not claim special minority rights.
In fact, those that do claim the rights of an authochtone minority - a minority like the Frisians, Sorbs or Danes - are Poles without German passport. They are migrants aswell. And they have a nice lobby over in Poland, a nationalist lobby that plays its card very well when it comes to pissing off Germans. The lobby they have in Gemrnay is totally marginalized and mostly externally controlled by their home country. Fair enough.


1) Sinti and Roma are not autochtonic in Germany, yet they have minority rights. Poles at least used to be autochtonic in some areas of Germany (Lebus land), though, obviously, current Poles in Germany are not their offspring.
2) There is a thing called german state identity, and it was used by Germany to force Poland to agree on emmigration to Germany in the 50s and 70s., along with lets-reconnect-families action. Some of them self-identified as Germans, some as Poles. I think it's silly that Germany for decades played such card, and doesn't live up to its consequences.
3) Poles live in western Germany (Rheinland) for about 200 years now. Isn't that enough to treat them differently than Vietnameese?
4) Germans are "immigrants" in Poland as well, but they have immigrated since 775 years ago, not 200. So are Russians in Poland. Yet they have minority rights.

In Poland, a population has minority rights if it's inhabiting current borders of Poland for at least 100 years, but in fact it is stretched to include also pre-ww2 minorities. And Poland's minority rights give minorities no 5% barrier when it comes to elections, which actually means it's easier to get there when You're a minority than a majority. Of course, Romania is even better - Poles there are tiny minority, living there for 150 years or so, clearly immigrants, though only to a specific region. And they have their own representative in the parliament.


Examples could be flying an airplane, working as a police officer, or a complicated process of production at a machine. When you refill a shelf at Aldi or work at the cash desk, you can talk whatever you like, allthough i would consider it a bit rude, but whatever. Those laws are not made to discriminating poor Poles, Turks or whoever but for safety and ensuring the easy function of a work process.


Why is it rude to speak your own language?
And it's not about safety or whatever. If there are two medicians discussing a procedure, isn't it better to let them do it in a language they know the best?
Of course, if they speak next to the patient, they should explain what they are saying.


About the Jugendamt claim, i don't have a clue. Never heard of it, but i am interested in it, if you can provide a link. Besides, my impromptu opinion: sounds like a hyped boulevard event, caused by a crazy judge.


In fact, it was a common practice by Jugendamt, and not only Poles are complaining about it Sorry, in polish, I may translate if You insist.

http://www.nto.pl/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070317/REPORTAZ/70316008
http://media.wp.pl/kat,8131,wid,10293940,wiadomosc.html?ticaid=168f1
etc


The museum thingie sounds interesting, too. But your claim of a proud - sounds like that's another distoted perception of you - display of looted art can be brought against Poland aswell. See the Berlinka treasury in Krakow. What about an exchange? Oh and a link would be cool, too again. Because if your right, i am in for supporting Polish claims.


Their legal status is completely different, sorry. According to the rules made by Allies at the end of the war, everything found east of Odra-Nysa line was to become polish property along with the land itself. If Germans hadn't hidden Berlinka in Lower Silesia, it would have never been in polish hands now. It's not as if Poles took it from Berlin. In fact, I believe that Gierek made a horrible mistake giving Bach's, beethoven's and Mozart's most fameous partitures to Germany.
One of the most notable examples in Germany is the cathedral treasury of Plock, displayed at museum in Nurmberg.

Yes, Poland had a state before, and a specific culture and language. But even that was intertwined with german culture.


Huh? How is polish culture more intertwined with german than, let say, german with french one?


But while Poland does have a long history, several other european states' "ancient roots" are a joke - even down to the claims eventually made by the western states, trying to identify with roman-era tribes...


Germans, French, English, Turks were making many dubious "we are teh ancient nation" claims as well.


I claim that "national identities" were imposed top-down, and that the majority of the peasant population could have easily have fallen to any of the contending sides. Local elites did had distinct cultures, peasants had little in the way of culture - at least little that they were allowed to keep by the modern states anyway.

Of course, but that applies to EVERY place in the world.

Sorbs aren't undergoing a revival. They're dieing out. "Freedom for Sorbs" was more of a joke thread than reality

I read up a bit on the topic about the Jugendamt's practices on how they advice family courts how to handle with custody battles. The case you mention is that of Miroslaw Kraszewski, right? It seems that the German mother became the sole custody for the child. The judges then ruled, that Kraszewski is only allowed to talk to his son only in the presence of a third person, because the judges insinuated that he tried to manipulate the child against the mother with the goal of alienating the child from her. That is what i read about this special case and ffs, i'll never know what really happened there.

But what is mentioned aswell in reports of this case, is that the general rulings in custody battles, where one part of the parents is German and another non-German, nearly always favour the German part. So it looks like there is indeed unjust at work. But not explicitly directed towards the Poles. Anyway, concerned parents petitioned at the EU parliament and so far the committee didn't rule in favour of one party. It said, that the practices of the JA could be interpreted as discriminating practices of individual JA staff members, but that the complexity and diversity of the petitioned cases make it impossible to judge about them, until now.

heres a link to a polish statement, found on the site of Kraszewski's lawyer:
http://www.karin-jaeckel.de/aktuelles/aktuelles2008Februar_original.html

2) There is a thing called german state identity, and it was used by Germany to force Poland to agree on emmigration to Germany in the 50s and 70s., along with lets-reconnect-families action. Some of them self-identified as Germans, some as Poles. I think it's silly that Germany for decades played such card, and doesn't live up to its consequences.
3) Poles live in western Germany (Rheinland) for about 200 years now. Isn't that enough to treat them differently than Vietnameese?
4) Germans are "immigrants" in Poland as well, but they have immigrated since 775 years ago, not 200. So are Russians in Poland. Yet they have minority rights.

In Poland, a population has minority rights if it's inhabiting current borders of Poland for at least 100 years, but in fact it is stretched to include also pre-ww2 minorities. And Poland's minority rights give minorities no 5% barrier when it comes to elections, which actually means it's easier to get there when You're a minority than a majority. Of course, Romania is even better - Poles there are tiny minority, living there for 150 years or so, clearly immigrants, though only to a specific region. And they have their own representative in the parliament.



The only Poles that live here since ages - the Ruhrpolen - simply don't define themselves as Poles. They have no and don't want any connection to the Polish state or the Polish people. It really is easy as that. And it is like that since the beginning of the 20th century. Look at Walter Kempka, Hitler's chauffeur, to bring an extreme example, Hans Jeschonnek - Luftwaffen chief of staff in the 3rd Reich, Albin Sawatzki - responsible for the production of the Tiger Panzer, Kurt Nowak - theologian, Walter Nowak - CDU member, Walter Kempowski- literarian, countless German football players like Fritz Szepan, Stan Libuda, ernst Kuzzora, Jürgen Grabowski, Tim Borowski. That list is endless and none of them would claim to be Polish or to need any minority rights. Your modern ultra-nationalist Liga Polskich Rodzin and the PiS label them as Poles. Recently. And without asking them, while they have long mixed with the "authochtone Germans" and developed their own identity ages ago. Wake up. They can't be seperated from any "ordinary" German with a "ordinary" name like Hans Müller. THe other Poles, that came here during the cold war or shortly after the fall of communism are indeed migrants. Why should they have more rights than an Arab?

There is no 5 % hurdle for minorities in Germany, too.




Why is it rude to speak your own language?
And it's not about safety or whatever. If there are two medicians discussing a procedure, isn't it better to let them do it in a language they know the best?
Of course, if they speak next to the patient, they should explain what they are saying.

My example of rudeness is related to the cashier in the supermarket. It is simply my perception. When there are 2 Germans with knowledge of English and someone who can't understand German, but English, i consider it to be rude to speak German as long as it isn't unavoidable. That's courteously. You don't exclude someone unless you willingly want to or have to. And how did a medician get a German work permittance if he isn'T able to be flawless in German? He has to work with other Germans, his transcrpits are, were and will be German, his clients are mostly German and so on. And it is a tale that a Doc with a Turkish background isn't allowed to speak Turkish to a Turkish patient, who doesn't have profound knowledge of German. This would indeed be unreasonable.


In fact, it was a common practice by Jugendamt, and not only Poles are complaining about it Sorry, in polish, I may translate if You insist.

http://www.nto.pl/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070317/REPORTAZ/70316008
http://media.wp.pl/kat,8131,wid,10293940,wiadomosc.html?ticaid=168f1
etc




I adressed that and can agree that people should keep an eye on that.


Their legal status is completely different, sorry. According to the rules made by Allies at the end of the war, everything found east of Odra-Nysa line was to become polish property along with the land itself. If Germans hadn't hidden Berlinka in Lower Silesia, it would have never been in polish hands now. It's not as if Poles took it from Berlin. In fact, I believe that Gierek made a horrible mistake giving Bach's, beethoven's and Mozart's most fameous partitures to Germany.
One of the most notable examples in Germany is the cathedral treasury of Plock, displayed at museum in Nurmberg.

Cool, so when i find a purse with 1000 € and keep it, allthough i know it belongs to XY, makes me right? Well, if you think it was a mistake to give the partitures back, it looks as if i were right about my assumptions about you being a barrater or a litiguous person. And that what you call Berlinka today is a dead pledge for conflicts to come. And btw, i couldn't find anything about that catedral's treasure. So i can'T object to that, sorry.

Sorbs aren't undergoing a revival. They're dieing out. "Freedom for Sorbs" was more of a joke thread than reality

Yeah a bad joke, backed up with that racist video, you distanced yourself from when you realized that it was racist. And dying out...wtf? You are dramatizing again with that phrasing and you know it. Liek i said in the other thread, the Sorbs get more money than any other minority group, the prime minister of Sachsen is a Sorb, the yhave their own Radio/TV stations, bilinguality, Institutions at the Uni, Sorabistik as an academical masters degree, a party, freedom of speech, movement, religion, expresion etc.

Why didn't you never mention, that Poland expelled Sorbs living in newly gained territories after WW2? Why don't you mention that Poland is and was "polonizing" the remaining Sorbs after WW2 and before? Where are the sorbish schools in PL?

The Sorbs are indeed undergoing a transformational process. A process that started hundreds of years before and is hard to revert. Maybe one should forbid the use of the pill and intermarriage between Sorbs and Germans to stop them from dying out...
Ah well, it's easy to point the fingers at others, especcially when the evil Germans sit next to you...

Yeah a bad joke, backed up with that racist video, you distanced yourself from when you realized that it was racist. And dying out...wtf? You are dramatizing again with that phrasing and you know it. Liek i said in the other thread, the Sorbs get more money than any other minority group, the prime minister of Sachsen is a Sorb, the yhave their own Radio/TV stations, bilinguality, Institutions at the Uni, Sorabistik as an academical masters degree, a party, freedom of speech, movement, religion, expresion etc.

Why didn't you never mention, that Poland expelled Sorbs living in newly gained territories after WW2? Why don't you mention that Poland is and was "polonizing" the remaining Sorbs after WW2 and before? Where are the sorbish schools in PL?

The Sorbs are indeed undergoing a transformational process. A process that started hundreds of years before and is hard to revert. Maybe one should forbid the use of the pill and intermarriage between Sorbs and Germans to stop them from dying out...
Ah well, it's easy to point the fingers at others, especcially when the evil Germans sit next to you...



Basicalt what I read over here and some of my friends have been to Germany. God knows how/why an article on Sorbs ended up in a New ealand newspaper but it did.

Basicalt what I read over here and some of my friends have been to Germany. God knows how/why an article on Sorbs ended up in a New ealand newspaper but it did.

That is quite nice. This way they draw attention to their struggle and on the other side, it shows that even in war torn central europe coexistance was and is possible.

If one asks me personally, i'd grant them every cent they could get. The 16 mil they get alltogether from the federal Bund and the Länder/states doesn't sound much compared to whatever pointless bureaucratic programs they support otherwise.

This is another quite balanced view on their issues:

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11632788

Of course, but that applies to EVERY place in the world.

The why spend so many pages arguing over percentages on a century-old classification of "german" and "polish" population? Things turned up as they did, might have been different, but what is done is done. Really, this Poland vs. Germany discussion seemed too heated, at times at least. I'm surprised that eastern europe (or central, or whatever you wish) can't get over the ethic minorities issues...

That is quite nice. This way they draw attention to their struggle and on the other side, it shows that even in war torn central europe coexistance was and is possible.

If one asks me personally, i'd grant them every cent they could get. The 16 mil they get alltogether from the federal Bund and the Länder/states doesn't sound much compared to whatever pointless bureaucratic programs they support otherwise.

This is another quite balanced view on their issues:

http://www.economist.com/world/europe/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11632788


As I said several friends o mine have been to modern Germany. Wasn't entirely positive as they found some things about Germany they didn't like or German cultural norms they found odd or even offensive but for the most part they liked Germany. Same thing can be apaplied to any country in the world though. My mother used to run a back pckers here and alot of Germans would stay there. Most were nice, some were . .. .. .. .. .. .. .s but thats not to different from my own country.

The only Poles that live here since ages - the Ruhrpolen - simply don't define themselves as Poles. They have no and don't want any connection to the Polish state or the Polish people. It really is easy as that. And it is like that since the beginning of the 20th century. Look at Walter Kempka, Hitler's chauffeur, to bring an extreme example, Hans Jeschonnek - Luftwaffen chief of staff in the 3rd Reich, Albin Sawatzki - responsible for the production of the Tiger Panzer, Kurt Nowak - theologian, Walter Nowak - CDU member, Walter Kempowski- literarian, countless German football players like Fritz Szepan, Stan Libuda, ernst Kuzzora, Jürgen Grabowski, Tim Borowski. That list is endless and none of them would claim to be Polish or to need any minority rights. Your modern ultra-nationalist Liga Polskich Rodzin and the PiS label them as Poles. Recently. And without asking them, while they have long mixed with the "authochtone Germans" and developed their own identity ages ago. Wake up. They can't be seperated from any "ordinary" German with a "ordinary" name like Hans Müller. THe other Poles, that came here during the cold war or shortly after the fall of communism are indeed migrants. Why should they have more rights than an Arab?


Uh, some, perhaps even most, of Poles there has assimilated to Germans, and it's quite natural, You know. There are dozens of people of german origin here who do not feel German at all, many more than people claiming to be german. Ex-prime minister Miller, ex-vice-prime-minister and vice-marshall of the parliament Lepper (originally Loepper), to name a few. Bah, Giertych, leader of LPR party that You have yourself mentioned, undoubtly has german roots, as his surname indicates (it is a bit polonised, though), and leader of pre-ww2 polish quasi-fascist party was named Mosdorf. Very polish name indeed.
But that doesn't mean some of the people of german descent, or of polish one, do not feel German. Some, most of Ruhrpolen consider themselves German? Fine. But not all. And there's a continuation of polish presence there.
Current "german minority" in Poland are in fact almost entirely people of polish descent, people who in 1945 declared polish nationality or their parents or grandparents did. Real Germans were either assimilated, or fled after ww2, or were expelled then, or emmigrated during 50s and 70s.

And I've already answered your questions:
These immigrants in the 50s and 70s were de facto invited by Germany (Poland didn't want to let them go, but agreed to it in exchange for a big loan), and as "Germans" - people of german state identity. According to the then-law of Germany, people who were citizens of Germany before 1945 (or even before ww1!) and their offspring were citizens of Germany. Other german jurists claimed even that all people borned in 1937 borders of Germany are german citizens... Anyway, Germany considered them its citizens regardeless of the fact they were living in current borders of Poland and weren't ethnic Germans, most even couldn't speak german in the 70s. They would be and theoretically were a polish minority in Germany in Masuria, Ermland or Silesia. Why would they lose the possibility of being a polish minority in Germany by moving to another region of it?
Also, Arabs were never inhabiting any region of current Germany as autochtones. Poles did. Also, Poland is Germany's neighbour.

Apart from that, Poles had a minority status prior to Hitler. Germany lost the polish-inhabited lands (though not all originally polish-inhabited ones), and this is an excuse for not granting Poles minority status.
I would compare it to the status of Karaims or Armenians in Poland. As I've mentioned, minorities should be living in the current borders of Poland for at least 100 years. That's why Vietnameese have no minority status, though they are very numerable.
Now Karaims were recognised minority in pre-ww2 Poland and they've been living in Poland for centuries. But Poland lost all the Karaim centres after ww2, and today Karaims are people who moved to current Poland with Poles from the lost lands after ww2. So in fact they should have no minority rights. Yet they do. Armenians could say there were Armenians in Kazimierz or Tomaszow Lubelski in XVI century, but I don't think these particular armenian colonies survived to XX century. polish armenians are Armenians from lost territories in the east, who were transfered to western Poland after ww2. So they shouldn't really have minority rights. Yet they do. Moreover, these armenians are utterly polonised and rarely of pure armenian blood. They do not differ from Poles but perhaps with darker eyes and hair, and sometimes by going to armenian-catholic church.

This brings us to another question. As I've mentioned, polish Armenians are utterly polonised. My hometown, Gliwice (Gleiwitz) became the largest centre of polish armenians after ww2. There are only 50 families or so who still are armenian (but that means religious identity), and more people of some armenian blood. I am 1/8 armenian. Polish armenians emmigrated from Armenia in XI century and onward, moved through Crimea, got turkised there (spoke the language of Cumanians), in Poland they entered church union with Rome, and their religious rituals are almost undistinguishable from latin ones today.
They got polonised too. Have polish surnames etc. Most dissolved into polish society and the ones that survive are tiny remains. What do they have in common with current armenian immigrants, differing completely in language (armenian), religion (armenian-orthodox), looks (much darker), history?
Yet, no-one claims these armenian immigrants should not have minority rights. No-one asks an Armenian if he's descendant of the Armenians living in Poland/Ukraine for 1000 years, or is he a fresh immigrant. And if a german immigrated to Poland, he would be able to use minority rights, though he would be immigrant too. I see no reason why Poles should not be treaten this way apart from german nationalism.


There is no 5 % hurdle for minorities in Germany, too.


But Poles are not recognised as a minority, so it doesn't help Poles much.


My example of rudeness is related to the cashier in the supermarket. It is simply my perception. When there are 2 Germans with knowledge of English and someone who can't understand German, but English, i consider it to be rude to speak German as long as it isn't unavoidable. That's courteously. You don't exclude someone unless you willingly want to or have to. And how did a medician get a German work permittance if he isn'T able to be flawless in German? He has to work with other Germans, his transcrpits are, were and will be German, his clients are mostly German and so on. And it is a tale that a Doc with a Turkish background isn't allowed to speak Turkish to a Turkish patient, who doesn't have profound knowledge of German. This would indeed be unreasonable.


Of course in such case they should try speaking german, but You can't force good manners on people by law restrictions.


Cool, so when i find a purse with 1000 € and keep it, allthough i know it belongs to XY, makes me right?


If You bury a treasure in your land, and this land is sold to someone with all its posessions, the person who got the land owns the treasure...
Anyway, Poland didn't make these rules, Allies did. It is part of international laws, so Germany should accept that.
If Germany could arrange an exchange, buying Ossolineum from Ukraine and handing it over in exchange for Berlinka, Poland would likely agree.
If Germany resurrected thousands of objects of art, archives etc it's deliberately destroyed, Poland would probably be glad to return it as well.

Why didn't you never mention, that Poland expelled Sorbs living in newly gained territories after WW2? Why don't you mention that Poland is and was "polonizing" the remaining Sorbs after WW2 and before? Where are the sorbish schools in PL?


There weren't that many of them, and they were simply overlooked. Poland expelled many ethnic Poles as well. It was a time of complete chaos here, You know. Polish communist party was given power, while it was newly formed and without any true cadres, support or actual power.

The why spend so many pages arguing over percentages on a century-old classification of "german" and "polish" population?


uh, because a border had to be led... somewhere, and Adler is questioning the sollution reached after ww1?


Things turned up as they did, might have been different, but what is done is done.


It's not me who is angry at post-ww1 border and keeps saying that in every thread, but Adler.


I'm surprised that eastern europe (or central, or whatever you wish) can't get over the ethic minorities issues...

Where are You from?

Zardnaar, I want to add that I wuv germans very much :nod:

Yes, I am questioning the solution after ww1. And from a legal pov even the solution of 1945 is highly questionable. So yes, the Poles should get minority rights. In the areas east of the Oder-Neiße. All of these international treaties are void, as they are legalizing a crime against humanity. The right of annexation was disbanded before ww2. Thus every action leading to a legalization of an annexation has to be void. Thus the staus of these arteas are still these: They are under Polish resp. Russian administration, but still parts of the German Reich, which was never disbanded and never accepted as such the loss of these areas. It is not able to act, but it still exist. So you could even be a German as well.
Anyway, back to topic: The Ruhrpolen came in the middle of the 19th century. They were totally assimilated. And only old jokes are left, who see them not as Germans. Today no one sees in Schalke a Polish club! That days are over a long time ago. These people were integrated and I hardly believe that there are any who wants to be Poles. The same can be said, for some Germans in Poland. But here not all.
And yes, alll of German origin can enter Germany. And what is German origin? Indeed all, who are of German nationality. Including those people, who went to Russia in the 16th century. But also those, who got the passport. So an Ethiopian, who got the German pass and goes back to Ethiopia. His children are Germans, too! In contrast to the Poles the Germans are not a singularity of origin. Not only Germanic, but also Slavic and Baltic tribes were incorporated. But as Panslavist you can't accept that.
Also: There were no national states in Central Europe before the middle/end of the 19th century. These states were feudalistic until then. And until the middle/end of the 18th century there was no idea of a nation at all. Thus the claiming of these areas being Polish or German is highly problematic. But when the national states were formed you could draw lines. And exactly the right of self determination was abused in 1919.
If Poles living in German area in big numbers for a certain time, they could get minority rights. IF they still identify of being Pole or Polish German. That does not happen.
And to go back to times before about 1850, claiming other German land Polish, is highly questionable. As the Goths were settling in the Danzig area, I could claim that, too. Indeed if we were consequent, we had to give all of Europe back to the Neanderthal people!

Adler

Yes, I am questioning the solution after ww1. And from a legal pov even the solution of 1945 is highly questionable. So yes, the Poles should get minority rights. In the areas east of the Oder-Neiße. All of these international treaties are void, as they are legalizing a crime against humanity. The right of annexation was disbanded before ww2. Thus every action leading to a legalization of an annexation has to be void. Thus the staus of these arteas are still these: They are under Polish resp. Russian administration, but still parts of the German Reich, which was never disbanded and never accepted as such the loss of these areas. It is not able to act, but it still exist. So you could even be a German as well.


:dance:
But once, when Teh German Reich will be able to act...
it will make Adler a happy person by getting Teh Reich back to its pre-ww1 borders, right?
:dance:

Btw, I forgot to mention: You kept claiming that administrative regions should be treaten as a whole, and as Germany got 60% support in Upper Silesia as compared to 40% of Poland, entire Upper Silesia should go to Germany... By analogy, You were forced to admit that these rules applied, entire Major Poland / Posen province should go to Poland.
But there's another province like that, and it is Bohemia and Moravia. You keep claiming in your posts that Sudetenland should go to Germany after ww1, because it was ethnically german... And there's some right in it - my rules applied. But there is no administrative / historical region as Sudetenland. These are parts of Bohemia and Moravia. So, your own rules applied (treating historical / administrative regions as a whole), they should remain in Czech hands? I'd like to see you get out of that one. Germany could at best count on Opawa/Opava/Troppau Silesia, if your rules were applied.


Anyway, back to topic: The Ruhrpolen came in the middle of the 19th century. They were totally assimilated. And only old jokes are left, who see them not as Germans. Today no one sees in Schalke a Polish club! That days are over a long time ago. These people were integrated and I hardly believe that there are any who wants to be Poles. The same can be said, for some Germans in Poland. But here not all.


Uh, how do You know there are NO RuhrPolen who consider themselves a polish minority?


And yes, alll of German origin can enter Germany. And what is German origin? Indeed all, who are of German nationality. Including those people, who went to Russia in the 16th century. But also those, who got the passport. So an Ethiopian, who got the German pass and goes back to Ethiopia. His children are Germans, too! In contrast to the Poles the Germans are not a singularity of origin. Not only Germanic, but also Slavic and Baltic tribes were incorporated. But as Panslavist you can't accept that.


I am not a Panslavist... You seamingly do not know what that means.
It's very nice that you apply to Germany both nation - ethnos and nation - demos rules... Poles are not of singular origin as well... And according to our constitution, all citizens of Poland are Poles too... so there. Germans are a nation of germanic culture... I don't see germans learning about their slavic or baltic forefathers, or learning polabian, polish or sorbian as part of their heritage. Politics of Germany towards its slavic citizens were always to make them speak german and deny their slavic, esp. polish, origin.


Also: There were no national states in Central Europe before the middle/end of the 19th century. These states were feudalistic until then. And until the middle/end of the 18th century there was no idea of a nation at all. Thus the claiming of these areas being Polish or German is highly problematic.


Uh, it's not that easy... There was a national feeling in some cases... but it was very, very rare. Nation is both something obiective (language, customs, origin) and subiective (self-consciousness), and it is very hard to balance these two factors. There is also another factor, as being loyal to some state. polish "nation" existed prior to XVIII/XIX century, but majority of it was not aware of their own identity, and the same can be applied to any other nation.
There is a definite link between the obiective and the subiective factor, though... Polish national feeling was borned in Upper Silesia, which still spoke polish, and not in Lower Silesia, where only a couple of polish-speaking villages were left. Most of the people were obviously not aware of their identity. And Germany had a definite advantage here, teaching kids at schools that they are german and germanic.


But when the national states were formed you could draw lines. And exactly the right of self determination was abused in 1919.


It was abused in respect to both sides... In Upper Silesia, a lot of areas voting majorly for Poland were left to Germany, and a couple of majorly german cities were left to Poland. And You don't know what would happen in a plebiscite in Pommerania.
And a plebiscite is not necessarily the best choice. As I've mentioned, these areas were ruled by Germany and subject to german and anti-polish propaganda and anti-polish actions for last 100 years.


If Poles living in German area in big numbers for a certain time, they could get minority rights. IF they still identify of being Pole or Polish German. That does not happen.


It does, though not always.


And to go back to times before about 1850, claiming other German land Polish, is highly questionable. As the Goths were settling in the Danzig area, I could claim that, too. Indeed if we were consequent, we had to give all of Europe back to the Neanderthal people!


Goths only moved through there, according to one of the theories. They did not live any trace.

It's not me who is angry at post-ww1 border and keeps saying that in every thread, but Adler.

Ok, ok, but it seems to me that your discussion so far has been pointless, no one (I hope :scared:) in interested in changing borders any more, so why continue to argue them?


Where are You from?

Portugal, I guess we were lucky to be right at a corner of Europe. Only one bad neighbour to worry about, and we settled borders very early. :D

Well, there is an old dispute, but we've already waited two centuries over that one, can wait a couple more until Spain breaks apart by itself. :D Damn Napoleon, had to make a mess all over Europe back then...

On second thought, I guess I understand your argument, complaining about borders can be somewhat fun. It's the plebiscites and percentages talk that make it look scary - those complaints actually seem serious!

Ok, ok, but it seems to me that your discussion so far has been pointless, no one (I hope :scared:) in interested in changing borders any more, so why continue to argue them?


Uh,
Yes, I am questioning the solution after ww1. And from a legal pov even the solution of 1945 is highly questionable. (...) All of these international treaties are void, as they are legalizing a crime against humanity. The right of annexation was disbanded before ww2. Thus every action leading to a legalization of an annexation has to be void. Thus the staus of these arteas are still these: They are under Polish resp. Russian administration, but still parts of the German Reich, which was never disbanded and never accepted as such the loss of these areas. It is not able to act, but it still exist.


As You see, Adler claims Teh Reich (Germany) still exists in its pre-ww1 borders.

Oh, btw Adler, my mother and my sister were borned in pre-ww2 Germany, and I was borned on the way there (my mother couldn't wait), in the polish bordertown in the middlewar times, belonging to Germany before ww1...
So we're all German :dance:



Portugal, I guess we were lucky to be right at a corner of Europe. Only one bad neighbour to worry about, and we settled borders very early. :D


My knowledge of history of Portugal is about like this:
duchy of Oporto (Portus Cale) established. Conquest of moorish lands, including Lisbon with help of crusaders. Portugal acquires Braganca. The end of history, apart from that Portugal had an union with Spain, and our king was vice-roy of Portugal briefly. He was captured on the way there by the French and, sadly, because of that we never had polish-portuguese union even for a while :shame:
But, anyway, that means Portugal has safe borders and no-one questions them... and that its state borders are considered nationality borders as well. Well, that's not the case of central / eastern Europe. Polish proverb says "a full person will not understand a hungry one". Or whatever.

What's that dispute? It can not be any substantial part of Portugal, is it.
When it comes to Poland, there was little of its territory that wasn't claimed by another nation.


On second thought, I guess I understand your argument, complaining about borders can be somewhat fun. It's the plebiscites and percentages talk that make it look scary - those complaints actually seem serious!

I'm not complaining. Poland lost a lot of its former territory. It could have been much bigger... Well, it used to be 2,5 times bigger 240 years ago... But it's not bad. It could've been much, much more and I think it's a shame many Poles do not know about it. Poland could be like Armenia or even worse.

Uh, some, perhaps even most, of Poles there has assimilated to Germans, and it's quite natural, You know. There are dozens of people of german origin here who do not feel German at all, many more than people claiming to be german. Ex-prime minister Miller, ex-vice-prime-minister and vice-marshall of the parliament Lepper (originally Loepper), to name a few. Bah, Giertych, leader of LPR party that You have yourself mentioned, undoubtly has german roots, as his surname indicates (it is a bit polonised, though), and leader of pre-ww2 polish quasi-fascist party was named Mosdorf. Very polish name indeed.
Indeed and you describe the equivalent to what I wrote about the descendants of the first large Polish emigration wave to Germany in the late 19th century. Neither Miller, Lepper etc. themselves, nor a German would connect these guys to Germany, like you wouldn’t connect Dariusz Rosati to Italy.
But that doesn't mean some of the people of german descent, or of polish one, do not feel German. Some, most of Ruhrpolen consider themselves German? Fine. But not all. And there's a continuation of polish presence there.

I still don’t see any evidence, that the descendants of the Ruhrpoles are a reason for the legitimation of a status as a national minority. Where do you find evidence, that members of this group actually define themselves as Poles? The term Ruhrpole is outdated, when it comes to labeling the descendants of the Ruhrpoles. The descendants don’t even inscribe themselves into that term. The only remaining traditional Polish organization that one can connect to the Ruhrpoles –the “Bund der Polen in Deutschland” - had 400 members in 2002, down from 60k in the Weimarer Republik. BdPiD was founded in 1922 in Berlin, disbanded in ’39 and reemerged in 1950 and sees itself as a representation of all Poles in Ger, so they are not a special Ruhrpolen organization. And the state of Poland didn’t subsidize the Bund in the communist time, iirc. All in all, there are 2 clubs left which were founded before 1959. The old Polish clubs, messes, meetings, unions etc. from the turn of the century are all long gone. They were either left and abandoned due to the assimilation processes, migration to France and the repatriation of Poles after ww1, or last but not least disbanded by the Nazis. Polish cultural and political legacy of the old emigration isn’t visible in the Ruhr area anymore. Thus, claiming “continuation of Polish presence there”, a connection between Ruhrpolen and today’s Poles, is a very debatable historical and political construct on which in my opinion one can’t profoundly reason pro minority status.
But what makes reasoning for minority rights based on the Ruhrpolen even vaguer, is that especially they, but also other groups of “Polonia” are getting instrumentalized by a nationalist Polish initiative.
Look at when all those Polonia Organizations were founded, who now claim national minority status. Most of them were founded in the 90s, after the decline of communism, when national polish “consciousness” and symbols in Poland were no subjects of suppression anymore. People of Polish nationality or connected to Poland didn’t lobby for minority rights and Polishness or the promotion of Polish symbols before the fall of communism, although there was no open or covert suppression of it in Germany. They didn’t feel the need to it and I bet, that equal rights in general were not as developed as they are today. Anyway, look at the sites of those new founded clubs and read their language. It’s mostly aggressive declarations of “Polishness”. I don’t see why a state should fund those clubs. Suddenly a growing group of Poles tries to establish these anachronistic structures and organizations.
But the decline of communism also revealed a lie of the Polish communist party and its state. They propagated this idea that Poland is a state of a single homogenous people. Minority rights were no topic, so the government closed down the German language schools, clubs and institutions. The democratic Poland acted and granted these rights as a compromise in ’91, not only because they were generous. Poland tried to correct a mistreatment and needed Germany as a spokesperson for its political and economic link-up with Western Europe. Nowadays you seem to have some political troubles with those remaining Germans. And under the last Polish government the relations with Germany became complicated, too. In the Polish perception the Preußische Treuhand claims, the Ostsee Pipeline, the planned centre for expellees, a trend in German history research projects to analyze events like Dresden, Hamburg, the displacements etc. all look like Germany is developing a dominant revisionist understanding of its history and a reemerging nationalism. But Poland doesn’t see that those topics represent only a limited part of many options, opinions and trends inside the german society. So Poland under Kaczynski & co wants to strengthen Polish identity anyway, sees the need to revise its foreign policy towards Germany to tackle their reemerging nationalism and looks for leverages aginst Germany. The perceived discrimination of the Polonia in Germany – represented through claims that Polish language at work is forbidden and the one with the father who is not allowed to speak in Polish with his kids, while they are supervised by a social-worker – comes handy. And when I said that the very heterogeneous groups of German-Poles and Poles in Ger are instrumentalized, then these are further reasons for it

Anyway, Germany considered them its citizens regardeless of the fact they were living in current borders of Poland and weren't ethnic Germans, most even couldn't speak german in the 70s. They would be and theoretically were a polish minority in Germany in Masuria, Ermland or Silesia. Why would they lose the possibility of being a polish minority in Germany by moving to another region of it?
Here one should point at another aspect, which I believe makes the Polish claim unreasonable through the eyes of the German state and public. The term, interpretation and the status of a national minority is a matter of the various nations. There is no binding under international law of how to exactly define a national minority and what practices are needed to protect them. It’s all up to the states. So the German state, alongside most of all others, says the crucial factor for granting minority status is that a minority needs to be traditionally bound to a specific settlement area in current Germany, like the Frisians to Friesland, the Sorbs to the Lausitz and the Danes to Schleswig. So these are the areas, where a Dane has the right to go to Danish speaking school, the courts are bound to use Danish language when needed, a supply of Danish speaking media has to be ensured etc. A national minority is an indigenous people of a certain area. The Sinti and Roma are the big exemption and their case is unique in the whole of Europe, btw. So, if one thinks that Polish tradition, language and cultre in the Ruhr valley faded away and is not a traditional settlement area of Poles, then there aren’t any of these traditional settlement areas needed for minority status left in current Germany. And again, I don’t think that Germany recognizes the Ruhr valley as a traditional Polish settlement area, because of a few hundred members of a nationwide club and a maximum of 120 years of settlement.
If parts of today Silesia were part of Germany, then the Poles had indeed easily justifiable claims. (Don’t panic, it’s just an example) But the minority rights were bound to that region and were not to be expanded over the whole territory.





I would compare it to the status of Karaims or Armenians in Poland. As I've mentioned, minorities should be living in the current borders of Poland for at least 100 years. That's why Vietnameese have no minority status, though they are very numerable.
Now Karaims were recognised minority in pre-ww2 Poland and they've been living in Poland for centuries. But Poland lost all the Karaim centres after ww2, and today Karaims are people who moved to current Poland with Poles from the lost lands after ww2. So in fact they should have no minority rights. Yet they do. Armenians could say there were Armenians in Kazimierz or Tomaszow Lubelski in XVI century, but I don't think these particular armenian colonies survived to XX century. polish armenians are Armenians from lost territories in the east, who were transfered to western Poland after ww2. So they shouldn't really have minority rights. Yet they do. Moreover, these armenians are utterly polonised and rarely of pure armenian blood. They do not differ from Poles but perhaps with darker eyes and hair, and sometimes by going to armenian-catholic church.

This brings us to another question. As I've mentioned, polish Armenians are utterly polonised. My hometown, Gliwice (Gleiwitz) became the largest centre of polish armenians after ww2. There are only 50 families or so who still are armenian (but that means religious identity), and more people of some armenian blood. I am 1/8 armenian. Polish armenians emmigrated from Armenia in XI century and onward, moved through Crimea, got turkised there (spoke the language of Cumanians), in Poland they entered church union with Rome, and their religious rituals are almost undistinguishable from latin ones today.
They got polonised too. Have polish surnames etc. Most dissolved into polish society and the ones that survive are tiny remains. What do they have in common with current armenian immigrants, differing completely in language (armenian), religion (armenian-orthodox), looks (much darker), history?
Yet, no-one claims these armenian immigrants should not have minority rights. No-one asks an Armenian if he's descendant of the Armenians living in Poland/Ukraine for 1000 years, or is he a fresh immigrant. And if a german immigrated to Poland, he would be able to use minority rights, though he would be immigrant too. I see no reason why Poles should not be treaten this way apart from german nationalism.

That sounds like generous politics on paper. But I wonder how those rights come to practice. So does that mean an Armenian has the right to go to a state funded Armenian speaking school anywhere in the country? Do the Karaim have state funded tv stations anywhere in the country accessible? Bilingual road signs? Well, I guess that is not the case. The Poles in Germany are widely spread and there are no real traditional centres of Polish culture and language in current Germany. So where should one apply the minority rights?
If Germany grants the Poles the status of a minority it needs a better reason, because otherwise Germany would have to grant the same rights to a lot of other groups sooner or later. And other European states would get into that dilemma in the near future, too. What about all the migrants from all over the world in Germany, Poland and other countries? Consider the large migration of work forces all over the world due to globalization and wait for 50 years until half of Europe needs to grant those rights to any migrant community that settled in a more or less non-specific region and lived there for a century. Besides, do the Poles make the same claims towards other countries like France or Britain or the USA, too? Accepting the claims would mean a too great financial and social burden to bear in implementing the rights and would set a far reaching precedent in regards of the many other national minorities that now live in Germany. If you have a tip how to finance all that in all of Germany and probably in Europe, the state might be a bit more open to those demands.
And one should question what actually would change for Poles, if they had the status of a national minority. The already granted rights de facto equal the main proclamation of the protection of minority rights: the ban on discrimination. No one hinders Polish speakers to open up language schools, clubs etc. And many of them are funded by the state as well. And no, afaik German migrants and migrants in general are not allowed to join minority groups in Poland or other according states.

Of course in such case they should try speaking german, but You can't force good manners on people by law restrictions.

Like I said, they are not forced by law to speak German in the cashier example.

If You bury a treasure in your land, and this land is sold to someone with all its posessions, the person who got the land owns the treasure...
Anyway, Poland didn't make these rules, Allies did. It is part of international laws, so Germany should accept that.
If Germany could arrange an exchange, buying Ossolineum from Ukraine and handing it over in exchange for Berlinka, Poland would likely agree.
If Germany resurrected thousands of objects of art, archives etc it's deliberately destroyed, Poland would probably be glad to return it as well.

I initially answered to your rant about Germany and objected against your Germany-“proudly shows”-looted-art-statement and tried to remind you, that such a “proud” display takes place in Poland, too. Btw, the land was not really sold, but seized and annexed. So well, your analogy is as flawed as mine. Anyway, it's good to see that you are open to making deals when it comes to how to deal with the topic.

There weren't that many of them, and they were simply overlooked. Poland expelled many ethnic Poles as well. It was a time of complete chaos here, You know. Polish communist party was given power, while it was newly formed and without any true cadres, support or actual power.

Some sources say there were 15k in PL. But the commuinst were not really fond of acknowledging or even supporting minorities, but whatever. PL is not the great patron of Sorbs like it wants to portray itself and like I said in the other thread, they gave a . .. .. .. . about them until the upcoming of panslavist ideas in the 19 th century.

I don't support a revision of the border, btw.

My knowledge of history of Portugal is about like this:
duchy of Oporto (Portus Cale) established. Conquest of moorish lands, including Lisbon with help of crusaders. Portugal acquires Braganca.

Actually Bragança was already part of the original duchy, and only a small interior city. Its dukes, in title, just happened to be large landowners with holdings all over the kingdom, second only to the king - eventually they got the crown, after 1580, when even the nobles in Portugal got fed up with being ruled by an incompetent king who never left his hideout in Madrid. It's also funny that the person who most encouraged the duke to take the crown was his spanish wife. Better queen for a day than vassal for a lifetime. Out Theodora...


The end of history, apart from that Portugal had an union with Spain


Hey, it was just a personal union, the kingdoms were separate! That union version is just spanish slander! :mad:


and our king was vice-roy of Portugal briefly. He was captured on the way there by the French and, sadly, because of that we never had polish-portuguese union even for a while :shame:

What?! Now that is weird, I never heard of it. Who was that guy,and when did it happen?


But, anyway, that means Portugal has safe borders and no-one questions them... and that its state borders are considered nationality borders as well. Well, that's not the case of central / eastern Europe. Polish proverb says "a full person will not understand a hungry one". Or whatever.

Ok, I understand that borders are a sensitive issue there. I didn't knew that there were now minority claims on both sides of the German-Polish border. With both being part of the EU that kind of thing seems pointless.


What's that dispute? It can not be any substantial part of Portugal, is it.
When it comes to Poland, there was little of its territory that wasn't claimed by another nation.


A small town (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Olivenza) in the south that the spanish failed to return after the Napoleonic Wars. The ungrateful bastards, we even lent them a hand with kicking the french out of the Peninsula. Officially the "new" border is not yet recognized there. I guess we'll just have take revenge by grabbing Galiza if Spain ever falls apart. :D

Sorry for hijacking the thread from the polish-german discussion, but I'm curious about that polish claimant to the portuguese throne.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_II_Casimir

here You go, innominatu

Indeed and you describe the equivalent to what I wrote about the descendants of the first large Polish emigration wave to Germany in the late 19th century. Neither Miller, Lepper etc. themselves, nor a German would connect these guys to Germany, like you wouldn’t connect Dariusz Rosati to Italy.


My point exactly. The fact that majority Germans remaining in Poland are assimilated ones does not mean there are no Germans feeling part of german nation.



I still don’t see any evidence, that the descendants of the Ruhrpoles are a reason for the legitimation of a status as a national minority. Where do you find evidence, that members of this group actually define themselves as Poles?


Where do you have an evidence that NONE do?


BdPiD was founded in 1922 in Berlin, disbanded in ’39 and reemerged in 1950 and sees itself as a representation of all Poles in Ger, so they are not a special Ruhrpolen organization. And the state of Poland didn’t subsidize the Bund in the communist time, iirc.


Because there was a split in the organisation and Poland supported only its own faithfull ones?


Polish cultural and political legacy of the old emigration isn’t visible in the Ruhr area anymore. Thus, claiming “continuation of Polish presence there”, a connection between Ruhrpolen and today’s Poles, is a very debatable


Rheinland was also the place where Poles emmigrated in 70s... and do now. There is continuous polish presence there, though not necessarily genetic continuation.


Look at when all those Polonia Organizations were founded, who now claim national minority status. Most of them were founded in the 90s, after the decline of communism, when national polish “consciousness” and symbols in Poland were no subjects of suppression anymore. People of Polish nationality or connected to Poland didn’t lobby for minority rights and Polishness or the promotion of Polish symbols before the fall of communism,


and that proves - what?


although there was no open or covert suppression of it in Germany.


One may disagree with that. Lack of recognition of polish minority may be treated as suppression.


I don’t see why a state should fund those clubs.


German minority's former leader, mr Kroll, had many outrageous claims that I find untolerable, yet he was tolerated and german minority gets all the rights it should get.


Nowadays you seem to have some political troubles with those remaining Germans.


I don't think so. As I've mentioned, mr Krall was an idiot, but fortunatelly the leader of german minority has changed because even Germans found him too agressive. The "problems" are few. For example, lately there was a case of a war monument established, which commemorated local citizens who died in ww1 and ww2 fighting on german side. OK. But there was an iron cross on both parts of the monument, ww1 and ww2 ones, while iron cross is forbidden in Poland if associated with ww2, because it's treaten as a nazi symbol. Therefore, the iron cross of the ww2 part of the monument is to be removed, and german minority leaders approved of that.

It's german minority that has problems, because people are abandoning it. Krall claimed at least 0,5 mln Germans, and also claimed that all Silesians, Kashubs etc are germans, which would mean +2,5mln Germans in poland, while only 150 thousands people declared german nationality. The political influence of german minority continues to decline, as seen through their election results: from 7 parliamentary sits through 4, 2 for a long time and now 1.


And under the last Polish government the relations with Germany became complicated, too. In the Polish perception the Preußische Treuhand claims, the Ostsee Pipeline, the planned centre for expellees, a trend in German history research projects to analyze events like Dresden, Hamburg, the displacements etc. all look like Germany is developing a dominant revisionist understanding of its history and a reemerging nationalism. But Poland doesn’t see that those topics represent only a limited part of many options, opinions and trends inside the german society. So Poland under Kaczynski & co wants to strengthen Polish identity anyway, sees the need to revise its foreign policy towards Germany to tackle their reemerging nationalism and looks for leverages aginst Germany. The perceived discrimination of the Polonia in Germany – represented through claims that Polish language at work is forbidden and the one with the father who is not allowed to speak in Polish with his kids, while they are supervised by a social-worker – comes handy. And when I said that the very heterogeneous groups of German-Poles and Poles in Ger are instrumentalized, then these are further reasons for it


Well, Germany helps nationalists in Poland doing moves that have to antagonise Poles... Both the pipeline (I remind You that originally Russians wanted to by-pass Ukraine by going through Belarus and Poland, but Poland didn't want that, because it would mean more influence of Russia in Ukraine - and only then Russia invented the Baltic pipeline, to by-pass BOTH Ukraine and Poland, and Germany gladly agreed, though it had to be seen as a stab in the back to Poland defending Ukraine), the centre for the vertrieben (it would have been much less controversial had Steinbach not have been involved - a daughter of occupational german officer borned in a house of an expelled polish family as leader of the expelled is extremly bac PR), german presidents and chancellors meeting with Steinbach, lack of condemnation to the PT, etc... Poles have good reasons to be angry at all that, though Kaczynskis are overusing it for political gains, obviously. For them even current prime minister is a German or something.


So the German state, alongside most of all others, says the crucial factor for granting minority status is that a minority needs to be traditionally bound to a specific settlement area in current Germany, like the Frisians to Friesland, the Sorbs to the Lausitz and the Danes to Schleswig. So these are the areas, where a Dane has the right to go to Danish speaking school, the courts are bound to use Danish language when needed, a supply of Danish speaking media has to be ensured etc.


Well, in Poland a recognised minority has its rights in all the areas it occupies or would occupy, as long as it reaches certain quota. I understand german position in this case, but I think it's not quite fair, it can be seen as a minimalistic one.


A national minority is an indigenous people of a certain area. The Sinti and Roma are the big exemption and their case is unique in the whole of Europe, btw.


polish case is unique in Germany.


That sounds like generous politics on paper. But I wonder how those rights come to practice. So does that mean an Armenian has the right to go to a state funded Armenian speaking school anywhere in the country? Do the Karaim have state funded tv stations anywhere in the country accessible?
Bilingual road signs?


There are too little Armenians or Karaims to do that, and they are too dispersed. A minority has to be 20% in municipality to get all this... apart from tv, of course.


Well, I guess that is not the case. The Poles in Germany are widely spread and there are no real traditional centres of Polish culture and language in current Germany. So where should one apply the minority rights?


where they reach 20%


If Germany grants the Poles the status of a minority it needs a better reason, because otherwise Germany would have to grant the same rights to a lot of other groups sooner or later.


That's not true. As I've mentioned:
1) Poles were a recognised minority until ww2
2) Part of territory of Germany was inhabited by Poles before it became german.
3) Part of current territory of Germany used to be part of Poland.
You can't say that about Turks, Arabs, Portuguese, Kurds, Chineese or any other nation in the world. Polish case it unique. Of course, there is hardly a genetic link between Poles living in Lebus / Lubusz 800 years ago and Poles living in Bonn now, but if there was, that would be a completely clear case for Poles. It is not, and that's why it isn't completely obvious.


Do the Poles make the same claims towards other countries like France or Britain or the USA, too?


No, because
1) Poles weren't inhabiting USA, France or UK before current dwellers
2) Poles were not a recognised minority there before
3) No part of UK, France of USA was ever part of Poland.



I initially answered to your rant about Germany and objected against your Germany-“proudly shows”-looted-art-statement and tried to remind you, that such a “proud” display takes place in Poland, too.


Poles didn't invade Germany, loot Berlinka and transport it to Poland. They found it on their territory. Quite an obvious difference.


Btw, the land was not really sold, but seized and annexed. So well, your analogy is as flawed as mine.


No it isn't. Poland didn't seize these lands. They were seized by USSR and transphered to Poland in exchange for the territories east to Bug river, much bigger, may I add. And Germany sold these lands - for peace.


Some sources say there were 15k in PL. But the commuinst were not really fond of acknowledging or even supporting minorities, but whatever. PL is not the great patron of Sorbs like it wants to portray itself and like I said in the other thread, they gave a . .. .. .. . about them until the upcoming of panslavist ideas in the 19 th century.

You are quite wrong... Again, people ruling Poland directly after ww2 were people found on the streat by communists, too few themselves to fill the positions. I don't think they even knew who Sorbs were, just like they weren't mostly aware who Masures, Warmiaks, Silesians, Slowincians are... I've been going through documents of year 1945 concerning east Prussia. It is a horrible lecture, but it shows well the complete lack of power of polish general authorities, and complete lack of any knowledge of the area by the people who were accidentally chosen to rule it. There was a terrible difference between the official approach and the actual one... and it was not delibatory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_II_Casimir

here You go, innominatu

Good for him, he wouldn't have lasted two years - we had our own little defenestration in 1640. :D

He had bad luck and bad press. His initials were ICS (Ioannes Casimirus Rex - John Casimir, the King), which were often read as Initium Calamitatis Regni - The Start of the Disasters
of the Kingdom...

Had he ruled Portugal, the Indian tribes of inner Amazonia would have probably revolted, swam through ocean and established their rule in Lisbon.

Where do you have an evidence that NONE do?[…] Rheinland was also the place where Poles emmigrated in 70s... and do now. There is continuous polish presence there, though not necessarily genetic continuation.

I tried to redraw the connection between today’s migrants and the Poles from back then. The nearest thing to a cultural and linguist legacy that qualifies for supporting your claim is the BdPiD.
I never said there are NONE. But again, 400 people from a nationwide club is not enough to claim that today’s migrants are somehow culturally, linguistically and traditionally connected to the migrants from back then, whose "Polishness" faded away. I haven’t seen any supporting evidence for your construct from you.
and that proves - what?
It shows the context that produces these claims und thus leads to further understanding of the matter.
One may disagree with that. Lack of recognition of polish minority may be treated as suppression.
Then 99% of the world is suppressing the Poles. If they were suppressed, then why do political asylum seekers, like solidarnosc members go to a place where they experience suppression again?
Well, Germany helps nationalists in Poland doing moves that have to antagonise Poles... Both the pipeline (I remind You that originally Russians wanted to by-pass Ukraine by going through Belarus and Poland, but Poland didn't want that, because it would mean more influence of Russia in Ukraine - and only then Russia invented the Baltic pipeline, to by-pass BOTH Ukraine and Poland, and Germany gladly agreed, though it had to be seen as a stab in the back to Poland defending Ukraine), the centre for the vertrieben (it would have been much less controversial had Steinbach not have been involved - a daughter of occupational german officer borned in a house of an expelled polish family as leader of the expelled is extremly bac PR), german presidents and chancellors meeting with Steinbach, lack of condemnation to the PT, etc... Poles have good reasons to be angry at all that, though Kaczynskis are overusing it for political gains, obviously. For them even current prime minister is a German or something.
I am no expert about the pipeline controversies. Bypassing Ukraine and Poland means lesser transfer fees and might lead to cheaper gas in Ger. That’s good for them, isn’t it? In the end, all countries do what fits them and is good for them first. When Ukraine had its troubles with the Russians and the Russians lowered the pressure in the pipeline, it was Poland and Germany and Western Europe that suffered. Ukraine simply sucked the remaining gas in the pipes so there was not enough left to go to the West. Nordsteam is making that scenario obsolete.
About the centre and Tante Steinbach: I will probably repeat what other German private and official people said. She and her claims were nearly unknown over here. She is a marginal figure on the political scene and does in no way represent a dominating opinion about the topic. She represents an isolated and extreme political position. Poles need to keep that in mind, just like the Germans need to marginalize her claims and the claims of the PT furthermore. Besides, what should the Germans do until Poles acknowledge their efforts in marginalizing their positions?
There are too little Armenians or Karaims to do that, and they are too dispersed. A minority has to be 20% in municipality to get all this... apart from tv, of course.[…] where they reach 20%
But then you are really wasting your time. Just show me one area with 20% Polish minority in Germany.
That's not true. As I've mentioned:
1) Poles were a recognised minority until ww2
2) Part of territory of Germany was inhabited by Poles before it became german.
3) Part of current territory of Germany used to be part of Poland.
You can't say that about Turks, Arabs, Portuguese, Kurds, Chineese or any other nation in the world. Polish case it unique. Of course, there is hardly a genetic link between Poles living in Lebus / Lubusz 800 years ago and Poles living in Bonn now, but if there was, that would be a completely clear case for Poles. It is not, and that's why it isn't completely obvious.

See, this Lebusland example doesn’t prove anything. Claiming rights on these territorial arguments is useless.The Romans owned German territory, yet Italians would hardly claim today’s migrants are a continuation of that. The French owned territory inside today’s USA. All they need to do is find some old french buildings, influence on Cajun cuisine, a few French speaking people and they can fabricate French claims…
Poles didn't invade Germany, loot Berlinka and transport it to Poland. They found it on their territory. Quite an obvious difference.
Of course they didn’t invade anything. But they keep something to which they obviously don’t have any connection to – original writings of the Deutschlandlied?- and belongs to someone else.

No it isn't. Poland didn't seize these lands. They were seized by USSR and transphered to Poland in exchange for the territories east to Bug river, much bigger, may I add. And Germany sold these lands - for peace.
I know the story. Still, calling it “sold for peace” is an euphemism.
You are quite wrong... Again, people ruling Poland directly after ww2 were people found on the streat by communists, too few themselves to fill the positions. I don't think they even knew who Sorbs were, just like they weren't mostly aware who Masures, Warmiaks, Silesians, Slowincians are... I've been going through documents of year 1945 concerning east Prussia. It is a horrible lecture, but it shows well the complete lack of power of polish general authorities, and complete lack of any knowledge of the area by the people who were accidentally chosen to rule it. There was a terrible difference between the official approach and the actual one... and it was not delibatory.
Nah, come on. There were cultural and political struggles about those minorities and territories for centuries. And now you say that the Poles didn’t have any clue and awareness about Silesians, Kashubs etc.? While I agree, that the “simple” Poles who were expelled and transferred from their eastern settling grounds to Silesia and so on might not be aware of the history of their new land, I don’t agree that the ruling classes were clueless. The Germans for example were not allowed to speak German in public, the schools, media etc. were closed down by the communist. Not only because of revanchism, but because of the one-state-one-people-policy as well. And discrimination based on this principle was deliberate. And it included discriminating the Sorbs.

I tried to redraw the connection between today’s migrants and the Poles from back then. The nearest thing to a cultural and linguist legacy that qualifies for supporting your claim is the BdPiD.
I never said there are NONE. But again, 400 people from a nationwide club is not enough to claim that today’s migrants are somehow culturally, linguistically and traditionally connected to the migrants from back then, whose "Polishness" faded away. I haven’t seen any supporting evidence for your construct from you.


The members of a polish organisation are obviously less rare than Poles themselves. But even if 1% or less of original Ruhrpolen were still considering themselves Poles, that's still enough not to neglect them. How many Sorbs are there, and how many people of sorbish origin?


It shows the context that produces these claims und thus leads to further understanding of the matter.


I still don't know what are You trying to prove by that.


Then 99% of the world is suppressing the Poles. If they were suppressed, then why do political asylum seekers, like solidarnosc members go to a place where they experience suppression again?


because they were supressed in Poland as well, and in Germany at least they could get richer?
And again, You still fail to see the difference between Poles in Germany and anywhere else. Poland didn't own any part of USA or Brazil. Poles were never an autochtonic population there, or a recognised national minority.


I am no expert about the pipeline controversies. Bypassing Ukraine and Poland means lesser transfer fees and might lead to cheaper gas in Ger. That’s good for them, isn’t it? In the end, all countries do what fits them and is good for them first.


Poland did not, it chose to help Ukraine first. Or lets put it this way: Poland decided that keeping strong Ukraine and getting a bit more expensive oil is better for them than selling Ukraine to Russia. But Germany wants to sell Poland and Ukraine for cheaper oil, and You can not expect one to like that.


When Ukraine had its troubles with the Russians and the Russians lowered the pressure in the pipeline, it was Poland and Germany and Western Europe that suffered.


Wasn't that what Belarus did, not Ukraine?


Nordsteam is making that scenario obsolete.


But it also allows Russia to exert more pressure on Poland, Belarus and Ukraine.


About the centre and Tante Steinbach: I will probably repeat what other German private and official people said. She and her claims were nearly unknown over here. She is a marginal figure on the political scene and does in no way represent a dominating opinion about the topic. She represents an isolated and extreme political position. Poles need to keep that in mind, just like the Germans need to marginalize her claims and the claims of the PT furthermore. Besides, what should the Germans do until Poles acknowledge their efforts in marginalizing their positions?


If she is isolated, why do german chancellors and presidents attend lectures made by her organisation? Why don't they pressure BdV to change their leader?


But then you are really wasting your time. Just show me one area with 20% Polish minority in Germany.


Perhaps there are none, but it's not about direct gains, but about general sense of justice and respect from german gouverment.


See, this Lebusland example doesn’t prove anything. Claiming rights on these territorial arguments is useless.The Romans owned German territory, yet Italians would hardly claim today’s migrants are a continuation of that. The French owned territory inside today’s USA. All they need to do is find some old french buildings, influence on Cajun cuisine, a few French speaking people and they can fabricate French claims…


Italians aren't direct continuation of Roman Empire. Louisiana was a colony.


Of course they didn’t invade anything. But they keep something to which they obviously don’t have any connection to – original writings of the Deutschlandlied?- and belongs to someone else.


germans keep a lot of stuff they have no connection to in their museums. Ishtar gate or altar from Pergamon for example.


I know the story. Still, calling it “sold for peace” is an euphemism.


If one starts a war in explicit wish to get enormous territorial gains, kills many millions of people, etc he should not be suprised at that after the war, he is not treated with courtesy.


Nah, come on. There were cultural and political struggles about those minorities and territories for centuries. And now you say that the Poles didn’t have any clue and awareness about Silesians, Kashubs etc.? While I agree, that the “simple” Poles who were expelled and transferred from their eastern settling grounds to Silesia and so on might not be aware of the history of their new land, I don’t agree that the ruling classes were clueless. The Germans for example were not allowed to speak German in public, the schools, media etc. were closed down by the communist. Not only because of revanchism, but because of the one-state-one-people-policy as well. And discrimination based on this principle was deliberate. And it included discriminating the Sorbs.

You should be aware of two things You seem to be missing. First, communists were not "ruling classes" in Poland. "Ruling classes", by which I mean intelligentsia, clergy, etc, had little to say in post-war Poland. And communist "ruling classes" were simply exterminated by Stalin. I've read soviet documments (translation) concerning forming of polish communist cadres as they were entering Poland. They were complaining that there are simply no suitable people, no willing to cooperate, and if they are, they are Jews.
I've also read documents from Eastern Prussia in 1945 concerning establishing polish administration there, and again, it seems even those people, whom soviet officers were considered without any skills, unsuitable for any offices, etc, were complaining themselves they could not find anyone good to send to this region, and if they do, they don't want to go there. And if someone is skilled, he wants to go there to rob, plunder etc, and not to establish "people's rule". Communists had NO cadres in Poland - due to pre-war persecutions, great purge with hit polish communist party very heavily, as it was as a whole disbanded and exterminated, and german occupation. People who were sent at least to Warmia and Masuria were mostly people looking for personal gain with no knowledge of the region whatsoever. Most of them simply treated Masurs and Warmiaks as Germans. Especially Masurs, because they were protestants, and, obviously, a protestant is a german.

Of course, there was polish intelligentsia. Parliamentarist Burski, a Masur, and other Masur and Warmiak activists, Polish Western Union (PZZ). But they had no influence on communistic authorities, and even when they had, the general authorities had little influence on local ones.

Why? There were no automobiles. Railroad connections were not active, and railroad tracks were often destroyed by war and / or dismantled by Soviets. People appointed for offices in Warmia-Masuria were waiting weeks for a train to get them there. I recall a letter sent to the authorities in a very important matter. It took a month for it to get to Warsaw, and a month until a reply arrived. The militia was helpless, and much of it signed to it just to gain profit by robbing local people anyway. The power of local polish authorities relied on their relations with soviet army, because they had no money, no army, no militia, no food, nothing sent themselves.

It was a complete chaos. As I've mentioned, everything relied on local authorities, their skills and knowledge, and, due to a horrible deficit of cadres for communist party, they didn't have much good people to send there. Some were actually caring about local population, some were simply sending everyone to Germany as Germans, regardless of their actual identity.

If Sorbs were expelles in 50s, 60s, 70s, it could've been a deliberate action. if they were expelled in the first year or two after the war, it was simply due to the fact they were treaten as Germans.

The members of a polish organisation are obviously less rare than Poles themselves. But even if 1% or less of original Ruhrpolen were still considering themselves Poles, that's still enough not to neglect them. How many Sorbs are there, and how many people of sorbish origin?
But how do you want to redraw this connection, if you don’t have any direct data from the ones that might be your target-group? Like I said, the BdPiD is the closest connection I could find. Unless someone arranges a census asking “are you a descendant of the first Polish migration wave and if so, do you still feel culturally/traditionally connected to them?”, you can’t construct a connection in any other way, except my example.
I still don't know what are You trying to prove by that.
I try to explain again, although my English skills are at the limit. So be nice.
If someone makes a statement about anything, he does so with a certain background, experiences, goals etc. I tried to position the ones who make the claims on a social or political map. I tried to draw a landscape out of which those claims are coming from and pointed out the agenda behind those claims. This position is marked by Polish-German political tensions, domestic problems with the German minority inside Poland, promoting a certain Polish identity and so (see above). I also said that the members of the minority groups are instrumentalized by the Polish right wingers. No matter if it is the Poles in Ger, or the Germans in PL. It is not ordinary Marcin Kowalewski that does the claims –at least that’s how I see it -, but a group with certain political interests and a quasi monopole on identity policies. I think that adding this fact to a discussion adds some value to it and helps when it comes to weighing (!) arguments and their credibility.
because they were supressed in Poland as well, and in Germany at least they could get richer?
And again, You still fail to see the difference between Poles in Germany and anywhere else. Poland didn't own any part of USA or Brazil. Poles were never an autochtonic population there, or a recognised national minority.
And I thought they were here to organize resistance.
And Poles never “owned” a part or settled permanently in the FRG. They were never “autochthones” in the Ruhr valley.
Poland did not, it chose to help Ukraine first. Or lets put it this way: Poland decided that keeping strong Ukraine and getting a bit more expensive oil is better for them than selling Ukraine to Russia. But Germany wants to sell Poland and Ukraine for cheaper oil, and You can not expect one to like that.[…] But it also allows Russia to exert more pressure on Poland, Belarus and Ukraine.
Poland could still connect to the new pipeline. It’s 50 km or less behind the border.
Wasn't that what Belarus did, not Ukraine?
I’m quite sure it was Ukraine. I checked it and all papers state so, too. So why should Ger or PL trust Ukraine?
If she is isolated, why do german chancellors and presidents attend lectures made by her organisation? Why don't they pressure BdV to change their leader?
Because the expellee organization she has become president of is indeed a large organization and has a certain influence. Should one completely ignore an organization that still represents 5 mil (I don’t know exact numbers) expellees? No, they haven’t done anything legally wrong and if you keep on debating with them, you can probably change their stands.
And there are demands for her demission, coming from large parts of the Greens, SPD, student’s organizations, unions etc. But she is backed by the CDU as long as she doesn’t step completely over the line, since the CDU/CSU was always the party representing the interests of the expellees. This way expellees are contained and don’t drift to the far right for 50 years now.
Perhaps there are none, but it's not about direct gains, but about general sense of justice and respect from german gouverment.
Again, Poles are not victims of an institutionalized discrimination. When they suffer from disadvantages, they are not the only group that does so. Poles can cultivate their language, Poles with a German passport can organize political parties, they can found clubs, listen to polish radio shows, read polish papers. And they get funding from the state. They just can’t sue for the fundings.
Anyway, instead of creating special rights for Poles, the state should be more aware about the disadvantages and troubles all migrant groups experience. Your example about the divorces showed the range of the problem. It doesn’t only concern Poles. Germany needs to accept its status as a country of immigration and should act accordingly in developing better policies as a whole. That won’t happen if the state grants another migrant group a special status and leaves the others behind.
Italians aren't direct continuation of Roman Empire. Louisiana was a colony.
And? Poles aren't a direct continuation either. And a colony means that the French actually owned some territory, unlike Poland. Plus they maintained their culture and became "autochthone" after 100 years.

Look, we should be aware again, that autochtone/indigenous or whatever are social constructs. And the status of a minority group is a contruct as well. It is man made and in our case it looks very arbitrary. That gives you the opportunity to ardently argue for Polish rights and me the chance to easily dismiss it.
If it will ever come to the granting of these rights, it is because of political struggles and bargains and not because of logical argumentations about the topic itself.

germans keep a lot of stuff they have no connection to in their museums. Ishtar gate or altar from Pergamon for example.
And guess who wants them back?
If one starts a war in explicit wish to get enormous territorial gains, kills many millions of people, etc he should not be suprised at that after the war, he is not treated with courtesy.
Yup, but you sounded like saying that the allies were courteous enough to sit at a table together with the Nazis and make a deal in which they sell some land for peace. That’s the euphemism part.
You should be aware of two things You seem to be missing. First, communists were not "ruling classes" in Poland. "Ruling classes", by which I mean intelligentsia, clergy, etc, had little to say in post-war Poland. And communist "ruling classes" were simply exterminated by Stalin. I've read soviet documments (translation) concerning forming of polish communist cadres as they were entering Poland. They were complaining that there are simply no suitable people, no willing to cooperate, and if they are, they are Jews.
I've also read documents from Eastern Prussia in 1945 concerning establishing polish administration there, and again, it seems even those people, whom soviet officers were considered without any skills, unsuitable for any offices, etc, were complaining themselves they could not find anyone good to send to this region, and if they do, they don't want to go there. And if someone is skilled, he wants to go there to rob, plunder etc, and not to establish "people's rule". Communists had NO cadres in Poland - due to pre-war persecutions, great purge with hit polish communist party very heavily, as it was as a whole disbanded and exterminated, and german occupation. People who were sent at least to Warmia and Masuria were mostly people looking for personal gain with no knowledge of the region whatsoever. Most of them simply treated Masurs and Warmiaks as Germans. Especially Masurs, because they were protestants, and, obviously, a protestant is a german.

Of course, there was polish intelligentsia. Parliamentarist Burski, a Masur, and other Masur and Warmiak activists, Polish Western Union (PZZ). But they had no influence on communistic authorities, and even when they had, the general authorities had little influence on local ones.

Why? There were no automobiles. Railroad connections were not active, and railroad tracks were often destroyed by war and / or dismantled by Soviets. People appointed for offices in Warmia-Masuria were waiting weeks for a train to get them there. I recall a letter sent to the authorities in a very important matter. It took a month for it to get to Warsaw, and a month until a reply arrived. The militia was helpless, and much of it signed to it just to gain profit by robbing local people anyway. The power of local polish authorities relied on their relations with soviet army, because they had no money, no army, no militia, no food, nothing sent themselves.
That’s interesting to read! I'll keep that in mind.
It was a complete chaos. As I've mentioned, everything relied on local authorities, their skills and knowledge, and, due to a horrible deficit of cadres for communist party, they didn't have much good people to send there. Some were actually caring about local population, some were simply sending everyone to Germany as Germans, regardless of their actual identity.

If Sorbs were expelles in 50s, 60s, 70s, it could've been a deliberate action. if they were expelled in the first year or two after the war, it was simply due to the fact they were treaten as Germans.
Spot on. Sorbs were indeed part of those that were expelled, since a good chunk of them served in the Wehrmacht. But some stayed, like some Germans stayed, too.
The discriminatory policies came in effect after the establishment of Poland as a communist state. These policies were in effect until the fall of the communists. Of course there were periods of liberalizations, like ’56 or later in the 70ies. All the minorities in the new territory were affected by polonization attempts.

It is the very first time I see Kalif commenting about history.I would say trust his knowledge:)

It is the very first time I see Kalif commenting about history.I would say trust his knowledge:)

Ama o hakli degil.

Ama o hakli degil.

Peki:)


XCL

But how do you want to redraw this connection, if you don’t have any direct data from the ones that might be your target-group?


do You?


Like I said, the BdPiD is the closest connection I could find. Unless someone arranges a census asking “are you a descendant of the first Polish migration wave and if so, do you still feel culturally/traditionally connected to them?”, you can’t construct a connection in any other way, except my example.


I don't need to. It doesn't matter if there are 400 Poles left, or 4000, the important part is that there are some. And even if there were none of the Ruhrpolen left, there were new ones, so the presence is continuous.


I try to explain again, although my English skills are at the limit.


So You think that
1) Poles in Germany were inspired by polish right-wing parties
2) that the acceptance of existance of german minority in Poland contributed to demands of recognition of polish minority in Germany?
It is probably true, but that doesn't change their situation at all.


And Poles never “owned” a part or settled permanently in the FRG. They were never “autochthones” in the Ruhr valley.


If FRG is Federal Republic of Germany, than You are obviously wrong. Lebusland was clearly inhabited and owned by Poland. Hinterpommern and much of Brandenburgia was owned by Poland as well. Territories up to Hannover and Hamburg were inhabited by Polabians, which are part of Lechitic group, could be and were (Nestor, Dantiscus) considered Poles during Middle Ages.


Poland could still connect to the new pipeline. It’s 50 km or less behind the border.


It would have been much more complicated, and would make Poland dependant on both Germany and Russia instead of just Russia, but it is possible. It would be much harder for Belarus and Ukraine, though.


I’m quite sure it was Ukraine. I checked it and all papers state so, too. So why should Ger or PL trust Ukraine?

Oh true, in Belarus case it was Russia who cut down the oil completely for both Belarus and Poland, to punish Belarus.
We can not "trust" that Ukraine will not do it again. but I understand them doing it.


Because the expellee organization she has become president of is indeed a large organization and has a certain influence. Should one completely ignore an organization that still represents 5 mil (I don’t know exact numbers) expellees? No, they haven’t done anything legally wrong and if you keep on debating with them, you can probably change their stands.
And there are demands for her demission, coming from large parts of the Greens, SPD, student’s organizations, unions etc. But she is backed by the CDU as long as she doesn’t step completely over the line, since the CDU/CSU was always the party representing the interests of the expellees. This way expellees are contained and don’t drift to the far right for 50 years now.


Uh, You claim on one hand that Steinbach is completely unimportant person, and isolated in Germany,
and, on the other hand, You claim that the organisation she presides is very big (5mln members), influential and has CDU support?
:lol:
Make up your mind.
Steinbach or Pavelka do not have to drift to the far right. They ARE far right.
Now don't get me wrong. I think polish responces are often too harsh and Steinbach actually did some pro-polish gestures, but they were regarded as cunning.


Again, Poles are not victims of an institutionalized discrimination. When they suffer from disadvantages, they are not the only group that does so. Poles can cultivate their language, Poles with a German passport can organize political parties, they can found clubs, listen to polish radio shows, read polish papers. And they get funding from the state. They just can’t sue for the fundings.


Why can't they, and Roma/Sinti can?
The overall attitude of german society seams not bad per se, but there seams to be allowance for factual discrimination of Poles. Poles are not discriminated by the general authorities in Germany, but by society which is anti-polish and lower administration sometimes. Now there's an anti-german attitude present in Poland as well, of course, but Germans have compensation for that in their minority rights.


That won’t happen if the state grants another migrant group a special status and leaves the others behind.


As I've already mentioned, there is a huge difference between Poles and Turks, Arabs etc in Germany. Poles were autochtonic population in some parts of Germany. Poland owned a part of Germany for some time. Poles were citizens of german states for last 1000 years. Poles had a status of a recognised minority until ww2. Germans have a national minority status in Poland. Poles emmigrated to Ruhr and elsewhere as citizens of Germany, not foreigners. You can't say that about any other group.

Btw, Poland agreed on german minority, while Germany promised that Poles in Germany will have all the rights of a national minority in Germany, except for being called one. So they do have a special status already, but it stays nominal.


And? Poles aren't a direct continuation either. And a colony means that the French actually owned some territory, unlike Poland. Plus they maintained their culture and became "autochthone" after 100 years.


They aren't autochtones, Indians are.


And guess who wants them back?


In Pergamon case it could be either Turkey (territorial) or Greece (it's their heritage). In Ishtar Gate case it'd be Iraq.


The discriminatory policies came in effect after the establishment of Poland as a communist state. These policies were in effect until the fall of the communists. Of course there were periods of liberalizations, like ’56 or later in the 70ies. All the minorities in the new territory were affected by polonization attempts.

Officially, all Germans were expelled after ww2, the only German citizens that were allowed to stay were the ones that declared themselves polish or those who were needed for economical reasons (this second group was let out of Poland in the 50s). Hence if they declared themselves to be polish, they were treated as such. Now communist rule made some horribles mistakes in their policies, obviously.

Ama o hakli degil.
Where? It’s not about right or wrong. I stated my opinion and tried to back it up.
do You? […]I don't need to. It doesn't matter if there are 400 Poles left, or 4000, the important part is that there are some. And even if there were none of the Ruhrpolen left, there were new ones, so the presence is continuous.
No, I don’t have any data and I already stated so and to show some kind of good will I tried to redraw the line by the only connection one could come up with. But you haven’t backed up your claims in any way. You say it is so, but added no evidence, dude. It is not my problem if you can’t feed your claims with any convincing data. You want rights, you need to prove the legitimization.
And the number does matter. Like you said giving rights to them should be based on their 20% presence. 400 Poles can never pass that limit. I don’t need to prove that there are none, you need to prove that there are some left in order to support your thesis of an ongoing polish presence, that connects and identifies with the old migration wave.
So You think that
1) Poles in Germany were inspired by polish right-wing parties
2) that the acceptance of existance of german minority in Poland contributed to demands of recognition of polish minority in Germany?
It is probably true, but that doesn't change their situation at all.
[…]If FRG is Federal Republic of Germany, than You are obviously wrong. Lebusland was clearly inhabited and owned by Poland. Hinterpommern and much of Brandenburgia was owned by Poland as well. Territories up to Hannover and Hamburg were inhabited by Polabians, which are part of Lechitic group, could be and were (Nestor, Dantiscus) considered Poles during Middle Ages

Correct, Just substitute the past-forms with the presence-forms.
It does, because it seems as if no Pole that is not acting out of anachronistic revanchism is actively supporting the claims. I don’t know if you identify with them, but I can understand that people feel the asymmetry in regards to German minority status in PL as unjust.
I can’t find any claims done by scholars like K. Karwat, A. Gras, A. Kalusa, Poweska, Pallaske who are respected and cited on both sides when it comes to German-Polish relations and migration history. (Sorry, but at some point one has to drop some names) Neither does the German-Polish Kopernikus think tank nor other academical groups back up those claims. They all point out the contructed element of the Ruhpolen argument .
And you agreed that the Lebusland example can’T help in backing up your claims.

[QUOTE] It would have been much more complicated, and would make Poland dependant on both Germany and Russia instead of just Russia, but it is possible. It would be much harder for Belarus and Ukraine, though. Oh true, in Belarus case it was Russia who cut down the oil completely for both Belarus and Poland, to punish Belarus.
We can not "trust" that Ukraine will not do it again. but I understand them doing it.
You forgot today’s dependency on Belarus and Ukraine as transit countries. Anyway, it’s your choice who to trust and who not. If germany doesn’t trust Ukraine, it’s her thing and is based on experience.

Uh, You claim on one hand that Steinbach is completely unimportant person, and isolated in Germany,
and, on the other hand, You claim that the organisation she presides is very big (5mln members), influential and has CDU support?

Make up your mind.
Steinbach or Pavelka do not have to drift to the far right. They ARE far right.
Now don't get me wrong. I think polish responces are often too harsh and Steinbach actually did some pro-polish gestures, but they were regarded as cunning.
Can’t you deal with a bit of ambivalence? It’s not black and white. First, she represents the interest of the expellees, thus she is important when it comes to affairs dealing with expellees. But where is it said that these expellees are somehow dominating the German discourse about its history, relationship between Poles and Germans and so on? They simply don’t, because they are contained by a larger front of parties, historians, unions etc.
The overall attitude of german society seams not bad per se, but there seams to be allowance for factual discrimination of Poles. Poles are not discriminated by the general authorities in Germany, but by society which is anti-polish and lower administration sometimes. Now there's an anti-german attitude present in Poland as well, of course, but Germans have compensation for that in their minority rights.
If one proves that there are practices of discrimination they will be tackled. What do you want, a perfect society without anyone feeling sentiments towards another? Cool, tell me, when you found it somewhere. I don’t see a real anti-polish tendency among wide ranges of the society. If there was, I wonder what kind of masochists were all those Poles that decide to stay here?
As I've already mentioned, there is a huge difference between Poles and Turks, Arabs etc in Germany. Poles were autochtonic population in some parts of Germany. Poland owned a part of Germany for some time. Poles were citizens of german states for last 1000 years. Poles had a status of a recognised minority until ww2. Germans have a national minority status in Poland. Poles emmigrated to Ruhr and elsewhere as citizens of Germany, not foreigners. You can't say that about any other group.
I answered to that at least about two times.
Again, minorities are social constructs just like autochthone etc. I am tired of agueing with you about your attempts to find a binding legitimization and definition, since it is rather a matter of power struggles and bargains than stringent argumentations.
They aren't autochtones.
Well, you said that after 100 years of settling in an area one becomes “autochthone”
Officially, all Germans were expelled after ww2, the only German citizens that were allowed to stay were the ones that declared themselves polish or those who were needed for economical reasons (this second group was let out of Poland in the 50s). Hence if they declared themselves to be polish, they were treated as such. Now communist rule made some horribles mistakes in their policies, obviously.
Then the Poles that came to Germany in the 50ies and 70ies declared to be Germans and thus theiy can’t identify themselves as a minority and as a continuation of Polish presence in Ger. The other political asylum seeking Poles kept on being Poles, of course??? Oh well…

No, I don’t have any data and I already stated so and to show some kind of good will I tried to redraw the line by the only connection one could come up with. But you haven’t backed up your claims in any way. You say it is so, but added no evidence, dude. It is not my problem if you can’t feed your claims with any convincing data. You want rights, you need to prove the legitimization.


Where did I make any quantity claims? I don't care how much Poles are there in Germany, that is not important.


And the number does matter. Like you said giving rights to them should be based on their 20% presence.


I'm not saying Poles should be getting these rights in any specific region, or that they are more than 20% in any specific region. I am claiming that there should be a rule that IF they are over 20% in any region, they should be getting these rights.
My claim, in general, is that Poles in Germany should have equal rights to those of Germans in Poland.


I don’t need to prove that there are none, you need to prove that there are some left in order to support your thesis of an ongoing polish presence, that connects and identifies with the old migration wave.


huh? Haven't You said yourself that the association of Poles in Germany still exists?


And you agreed that the Lebusland example can’T help in backing up your claims.


I did not. I only claimed that it is obvious there is no genetic continuation of polish presence there.


You forgot today’s dependency on Belarus and Ukraine as transit countries. Anyway, it’s your choice who to trust and who not. If germany doesn’t trust Ukraine, it’s her thing and is based on experience.


Of course. If Germany wants to act completely irresponsible and feed the russian bear with some countries only to get a bit cheaper oil, it is her choice, but Poland has every right to complain about it and make the northern stream project as difficult as it can get.


Can’t you deal with a bit of ambivalence?


I can, but You did not claim ambivalence last time, but complete isolation of Steinbach, which You now yourself said is not the case.
I guess You've ment she is isolated in her way of thinking, but the fact she is treaten as a valuable political ally makes her way of thinking look acceptable.
I do not think she represents Germany, but You should not be suprised someone is asking / complaining about her.


If one proves that there are practices of discrimination they will be tackled. What do you want, a perfect society without anyone feeling sentiments towards another? Cool, tell me, when you found it somewhere. I don’t see a real anti-polish tendency among wide ranges of the society. If there was, I wonder what kind of masochists were all those Poles that decide to stay here?


ones that like money or feel attached to both polish and german culture.


I answered to that at least about two times.


You keep comparing Poles to immigrants (from Middle East in German case mostly), so I am on and on pointing out the differences.


Again, minorities are social constructs just like autochthone etc. I am tired of agueing with you about your attempts to find a binding legitimization and definition, since it is rather a matter of power struggles and bargains than stringent argumentations.


I don't think that's the case. There's no power standing behind Roma, Sinti or Sorbs. You could say that's precisely the reason why they are accepted - they can be overlooked.


Well, you said that after 100 years of settling in an area one becomes “autochthone”


No, I've written that in Poland, one gets minority status after 100 years of settling in the current territory of Poland. That doesn't make anyone autochtonic.


Then the Poles that came to Germany in the 50ies and 70ies declared to be Germans and thus theiy can’t identify themselves as a minority and as a continuation of Polish presence in Ger. The other political asylum seeking Poles kept on being Poles, of course??? Oh well…

Again You have to remember that according to german law of these days, these people had heritary german citizenship. They didn't have to be ethnic german to leave. Some declared german nationality (but You don't know if it's ethnic, or state nationality), some did not. You didn't have to declare german nationality to leave Poland.

Where did I make any quantity claims? I don't care how much Poles are there in Germany, that is not important.

But you said that quantity matters in some way. The way I understand you, was that it doesn't matter to you if there are 400 or 40k Poles living as descendants in the Ruhr area. It would still be a legitimate number to claim the status in any case. I'd say 400 or 4k is a negligent number, 40k isn't.

My claim, in general, is that Poles in Germany should have equal rights to those of Germans in Poland.

See, you feel bad about the assymetrie in these relations and I can understand it. But fabricating a tradition won't help that cause. It just polarizes and pushes normal people like me away from your view.

huh? Haven't You said yourself that the association of Poles in Germany still exists?

I said that the best argument that could support your thesis was this organisation, that was refounded in 1956 (by a new immigrant), claimed to uphold traditional polish migration and always acted as a nationwide Polonia organization and has 400 members today. And I added that I think that this hardly proves anything. Still I haven't seen waterproof evidence why they could rightfully be declared as followers of the Ruhrpolen and thus be intrumentalized for your claims.

I can, but You did not claim ambivalence last time, but complete isolation of Steinbach, which You now yourself said is not the case.
I guess You've ment she is isolated in her way of thinking, but the fact she is treaten as a valuable political ally makes her way of thinking look acceptable.
I do not think she represents Germany, but You should not be suprised someone is asking / complaining about her.

I said that she and large parts of the organization represent an isolated opinion. It doesn't mean the members are not numerous. But their influence on producing opinions is rather small. So their opinions are isolated from the mainstream in my perception. Ask around in Germany who she is or what the PT is and you get 3% that know about them. Ask in PL and 90% know about them. Those that have to deal with the matter do contain and marginalize them. And I wasn't surprised, i tried to point out the disproportionality of attention she gets here and in PL.

I did not. I only claimed that it is obvious there is no genetic continuation of polish presence there.

True and neither that nor does a chunk of land that belonged to poland 600 years ago back up the claims. The Lebus example was appeared when you pointed out how Poland "exported" their minorities from the "old" Polish territories to today's land as a justification for why Germany should again grant the status to the Poles, eventhough Ruhrvalley doesn't qualify as a traditional settlement area and thus as a legitimate reason. That is when Lebus came into the debate as a substitutional autochthone area.

Of course. If Germany wants to act completely irresponsible and feed the russian bear with some countries only to get a bit cheaper oil, it is her choice, but Poland has every right to complain about it and make the northern stream project as difficult as it can get.

I don't really care about that pipeline matter and can't be arsed to argue for the German state's position on this topic, because don't feel too positive about it, too. I mentioned this topic to explain the heated context in which the debate about the minorities takes place, not to open up another battleground in this thread.

ones that like money or feel attached to both polish and german culture.

And here is another point why i am against the status of minority. One should realize that those claims polarize all the people involved and especcially those people of mixed identities. they already have a hard time. If Poland as a state under your last government and the likes of Radio Maria, PiS etc. tries to promote what they think is Polishness, they only hinder and restrict the people of hybrid identity. I already asked you to look into at what the supporters of minority status say. their Polishness means being catholic, conservative, pure Polish, antisemitic, antigerman etc. They promote absolute anachronistic images of Poland. They don't really respect any minorities themselves. They neglect a rich and fertile part of Polish culture and do nothing to promote Polish-German concilation, while this process has already started due to those people they are fighting about. So the Germans need to embrace those people more than now and the nationalists in Poland should stay away from them. To the benefit of all three included parties.

You keep comparing Poles to immigrants (from Middle East in German case mostly), so I am on and on pointing out the differences.

And I am still not able to see the difference, because of the non existing traditional connection between today'S migrants and the ones from the past, who in your claims have become autochthone polish settlers.

I don't think that's the case. There's no power standing behind Roma, Sinti or Sorbs. You could say that's precisely the reason why they are accepted - they can be overlooked.

You know the reasons why they are accepted. Because the German state thinks that by its definiton of what is a minority those groups qualify as minorities. I guess, that a certain feeling of guilt - in the case of the Roma and Sinti- leads to a special responsibility to grant them those rights, allthough they don't have a specific settlement area. The Sorb'S lobby is rather big, look at Tillich and other politicians on the länder level.

Again You have to remember that according to german law of these days, these people had heritary german citizenship. They didn't have to be ethnic german to leave. Some declared german nationality (but You don't know if it's ethnic, or state nationality), some did not. You didn't have to declare german nationality to leave Poland.

But the large part of them took the opportunity to declare themselves as Germans, when they knew that this would give them more advantages than staying in Poland as a "true" Pole, Silesian or German-Pole and suffer uder the communists. I know there were "normal" Poles among those migrants and didn't get German citizenship.