"Germanness" in 19th century German history

Population density in East-Central Europe in years 1910 (Austria) - 1911 (Prussia, Russia):



======================================

Carolus I said:

Afaik the linguistical frontier in Silesia corresponded more or less to the religious frontier. Lower Silesia was German-speaking and Protestant, while Upper Silesia was mainly Polish-speaking and Catholic.

Click to expand...

Indeed. This map shows the percent of Roman Catholics around years 1900 - 1910:



Description:

And this map shows Polish pupils as percent of all pupils in Prussian schools by region in years ca. 1905 - 1914:

Shame really how the area was ethnically cleansed of Germans like that. Even ignoring the new Oder border when it came to the wealthy city of Stettin.

Sure but that was during the mid-20th century, not during the 19th century.

Large % of Polish settlers who re-populated those areas came from Kresy (areas which became part of the USSR after WW2 and were to a large degree, but not thoroughly, ethnically cleansed of Poles). But I have no idea where did Czechoslovakia take the manpower to repopulate the Sudetenland from.

Here is the territorial origin of population of former German territories given to Poland after WW2, in 1950:

Autochthons are locals, who lived in those territories (as citizens of Germany) already before WW2. Ethnically Polish / West Slavic.

Phalanx300 said:

the wealthy city of Stettin.

Click to expand...

The wealthy pile of rubble formerly known as Stettin, you mean ???

Here is how Stettin looked like soon after the defense collapsed and the Red Army conquered it:





https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQtJ8ChI7HU

Most of Germans from Stettin did not have to be deported, but escaped before the Red Army on their own.

Population of the city was:

1939 (pre-war) - over 380 thousand inhabitants
Late April 1945 - 6 thousand inhabitants (less than 2% of pre-war pop.)
Late May 1945 - 84 thousand inhabitants (around 22% of pre-war pop.)

The increase from April to May was due to the returns of Germans who had previously fled from the Red Army.

But even after that the population was still just 22% of pre-war level, because only some part of the population decided to return.

In other parts of Pomerania, majority of Germans had also escaped (or got evacuated by German administration) before military operations ended.

According to A. Kilnar, "Repatriacja Niemców z Ziem Zachodnich" (published in 1961), when the Red Army handed over Pomerania to Polish administration in July 1945, many regions had only a small fraction of their pre-war population size - he gives examples from several counties:

Gryfino (Greifenhagen) county - 10% of pre-war population size
Szczecin (Stettin) county - 13%
Stargard (Stargard in Pommern) - 17%
Wałcz (Deutsch Krone) - 20%
Choszczno (Arnswalde) - 23%
Trzcianka (Schönlanke) - 25%

Of course if some more Germans attempted to return, they were being stopped along the new border after that (July 1945).

But due to mass flight and evacuations during the war, much of the ethnic cleansing had already been accomplished before the last bomb exploded.

Organized deportations began later.

Polish census of 14.02.1946 counted the following number of Germans (those to be deported):

In areas annexed from Germany after WW2:

2,076,000 (including 1,239,300 in Lower Silesia - Wroclaw Voivodeship - and 474,300 in Western Pomerania - Szczecin Voivodeship)

That included 719,900 urban population and 1,356,100 rural population.

In other regions of Poland: 212,300

During the next several months, most of those Germans were deported.

On 15.09.1946 there were:

856,000 Germans still residing in Poland (including 418,000 in Wroclaw Voivodeship and 249,000 in Szczecin Voivodeship)

This doesn't include, of course, Non-German former citizens of Germany who were given Polish citizenship and were allowed to stay (see post #43).

Can't really justify destroying 1000 years of history in a region. Got to hate similar events in history such as Greeks being removed of Asia Minor.

As many as 1000 years? Nope.

1945 minus 1000 years is year 945, which is too early for Germans in these regions.

In year 945 German-speaking regions did not yet extend eastward beyond the Elbe river.

Areas between the Elbe and the Oder and east of the Oder were Slavic at that time.

similar events in history such as Greeks being removed of Asia Minor.

Click to expand...

Or Turks being removed from former European provinces of the Ottoman Empire.

Or Bulgarians being removed from areas given to Greece after WW1.

Domen said:

As many as 1000 years? Nope.

1945 minus 1000 years is year 945, which is too early for Germans in these regions.

In year 945 German-speaking regions did not yet extend eastward beyond the Elbe river.

Areas between the Elbe and the Oder and east of the Oder were Slavic at that time.

Click to expand...

Interesting you keep trying to justify the ethnic cleansing of such an large area. German presence in Silesia and Pommerania "about" 1000 years ago can't be denied. If you want to play that game I could simply argue that Germanic tribes inhabited the area before the Slavs migrated there.

German presence in Silesia and Pommerania "about" 1000 years ago can't be denied.

Click to expand...

750 - 600 years and later is not "about 1000 years ago". And they lived side by side with other ethnic groups during most of that time.

The process of Germanization of population in these two provinces you mentioned was gradual, and was never fully completed.

Interesting you keep trying to justify the ethnic cleansing of such an large area.

Click to expand...

Interesting you read between the lines, and find there things that aren't there, since I didn't justify anything, I just called for accuracy.

The only justification for that would be "an eye for an eye" or "for they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind".

On the other hand, the ethnic cleansing of eastern Polish territories from Poles could not be justified even by such primitive principles.

If you want to play that game I could simply argue that Germanic tribes inhabited the area before the Slavs migrated there.

Click to expand...

This is actually disputed, because there is simply not enough convincing evidence to determine this for sure.

In ancient times this region was too far away from the literate and civilized world, as the result of which there is shortage of sources.

Check for example:

http://books.google.pl/books?id=tVH...Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=strabo elbe river&f=false

(...) Strabo writes that tribes beyond the Elbe River are unknown because the Romans never advanced that far (7.2.4). In the exhaustively researched geographical books of his Natural History, Pliny the Elder also implies that one cannot expect to know much about places where the Roman army has never been. (...)

Click to expand...

This map illustrates, how little did Ancient geographers and writers know about this part of Europe (it shows all places for which Claudius Ptolemy in his "Geography" listed coordinates - we can see the Mediterranean Sea and the Black Sea, but in Eastern and Northern Europe a lot of unknown territories):

http://www.e-perimetron.org/Vol_6_4/Isaksen.pdf



Germanic tribes certainly migrated across this area, but whether they were the majority of inhabitants, or how long did they live here, is disputed.

For example in Silesia there lived Celtic tribes, rather than Germanic.

Let's also add that during the Bronze Age and the Early Iron Age this region was almost certainly not inhabited by Germanic speakers. Only during times when the Roman Republic existed, archaeological cultures which are assumed by scholars to be Germanic start to appear in this region.

Moreover, those tribes were East Germanic tribes, while ancestors of Germans belonged to the West Germanic ethno-linguistic group.

Equating ancient East Germanic tribes with Germans is like saying that Romanians are in fact French. Or something like this.

Interesting point of view is presented by this 1993 essay by Pieter M. Judson, "Inventing Germanness in the Habsburg Monarchy":

http://www.cas.umn.edu/assets/pdf/WP932.PDF

"We will never accomplish our mission until all social strata of the people take an active part, until those who inhabit the German palaces as much as those who inhabit German peasant huts, make a claim to their Germanness."

The essay suggests that German identity among inhabitants of the Habsburg Monarchy who spoke West Germanic dialects started to appear after 1880. Before that vast majority of those people didn't identify as Germans, and even those who did couldn't agree as to the definition of "German".

Very interesting article. Certainly highlights quite how consciously artificial ethno-nationalistic categories are. I'm especially intrigued by the point about language, where the author points out that most people didn't see themselves as having a single language, but used several as convenience dictated - until the census-takers made them pick one. To be honest it's a much-needed antidote to all of the discussions about 'Germans', 'Slavs', 'Europeans' and the like that treat those categories as unchanging concepts with static meanings.

That national categories are not unchanging and static, but fluent and possible to shape, was recognized since the very beginning of history of nationalism.

Hence the main goal of German nationalists was to turn as many people as possible into Germans (and to reassure Germanness among those who already could be considered Germans), the main of goal of French nationalists was to turn as many people as possible into French (and to reassure Frenchness), etc.

Something that was considered static - race - was incorporated into nationalist discourse only later, especially by the Nazis. Though even the Nazis did not measure skulls of those who already considered themselves to be Germans - they did that only with potential candidates for new Germans, since their goal was to improve the racial "fabric" of the German nation according to their ideals - hence for example the project of Lebensborn to produce more "Aryan" children, or the enterprise of kidnapping "racially Aryan" children from occupied territories (including Poland) and giving them for adoption to childless couples in Germany.

The Nazis did also try to exterminate disabled and mentally ill Germans, but not "non-Aryan" ones (in such case Hitler would need to exterminate himself).

Flying Pig said:

I'm especially intrigued by the point about language, where the author points out that most people didn't see themselves as having a single language, but used several as convenience dictated - until the census-takers made them pick one.

Click to expand...

Well - many people spoke more than one language, but usually considered only one of them as their "native", "main" or "mother" tongue. And ethnicity was defined mostly by main language (what I write at the moment is also a continuation of our off-topic from the thread about Native Americans).

For example Georg Gottlieb Dittmann in his "Beitrage zur Geschichte der Stadt Thorn", published in 1789, wrote about a Protestant pastor from the city of Toruń, whose name was Christoph Haberkant (he became a Protestant pastor in the Holy Cross Church of the Old Town of Toruń in 1763):

"Auch war er ein sehr guter Pole; schrieb und redete rein und zierlich polnisch."

In English:

"He was a very good Pole; he wrote and spoke pure and sophisticated Polish."

==============================

Check also for example this publication:

Otton Andrzej Steinborn, "Polskość Torunia w ubiegłem 700-leciu" ("Polishness of Thorn during the last 700 years"), Toruń 1933.

Otton Andrzej Steinborn (1868 - 1936) was a Polish dermatologist and mayor of Toruń during the Inter-War period.

Domen said:

Well - many people spoke more than one language, but usually considered only one of them as their "native", "main" or "mother" tongue. And ethnicity was defined mostly by main language (what I write at the moment is also a continuation of our off-topic from the thread about Native Americans).

For example Georg Gottlieb Dittmann in his "Beitrage zur Geschichte der Stadt Thorn", published in 1789, wrote about a Protestant pastor from the city of Toruń, whose name was Christoph Haberkant (he became a Protestant pastor in the Holy Cross Church of the Old Town of Toruń in 1763):

"Auch war er ein sehr guter Pole; schrieb und redete rein und zierlich polnisch."

In English:

"He was a very good Pole; he wrote and spoke pure and sophisticated Polish."

==============================

Check also for example this publication:

Otton Andrzej Steinborn, "Polskość Torunia w ubiegłem 700-leciu" ("Polishness of Thorn during the last 700 years"), Toruń 1933.

Otton Andrzej Steinborn (1868 - 1936) was a Polish dermatologist and mayor of Toruń during the Inter-War period.

Click to expand...

It seems to me that one word from the German phrase was forgotten in the translation.

Could anybody possibly clarify what the German word "auch" means?

'Also'.

If ethnicity is a question of language and language, then how are we supposed to explain, for example, the Irish? Does Domen propose that the Irish are actually a very rare people, and that most of those going by the label are simply confused Englishmen?

It seems to me that one word from the German phrase was forgotten in the translation.

Click to expand...

Indeed, thanks for noticing.

BTW - he was not a local but was actually born in Gilgenburg (Dąbrówno) in Ducal Prussia (East Prussia), and only later came to Toruń.

More about him (from the same 1789 book):

Traitorfish said:

If ethnicity is a question of language and language, then how are we supposed to explain, for example, the Irish?

Click to expand...

The case of the British Isles is so strange that I'm not even trying to explain it!

When discussing Germannness we are talking about the Continent, not some strange islands...

Anyway - when it comes to Irish language - it was the main language in Ireland until some point between the late-18th and mid-19th centuries.

Only later English language started to be spoken by vast majority of the island's inhabitants.

Why haven't the Irish people started to identify as English people after changing their language to English ??? This is a mystery. Perhaps you could explain this to me. Also why haven't the Scottish people started to identify as English after replacing Gaelic by Scots and standard English? Any ideas?

Percent of people speaking Welsh in Wales has also declined during the 19th - 20th centuries - yet many of English-speakers identify as Welsh - why?

Perhaps there is something specific about it - maybe English-speakers have a stronger sense of Britishness, a sort of Pan-British identity?

While these who continue to speak Celtic languages have a weaker sense of Pan-Britishness and a stronger sense of local "Celticness"?

==============================

Or maybe Britain is a case similar to Switzerland - where language is not that important:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=13660735#post13660735

Carolus I said:

IMO there are two different conceptions of nation:

1. the homogenous nation state. I think the first nation state of this kind was the French Republic. I would like to refer to it as the "French model". The principle of this state is: one state, one nation, one language. All minorities had to be assimilated. In France for example there are numerous authochtons minorities: the Bretons, Catalans, Alsatians and Corsicans etc and various dialects of French. Not to mention those ethnical groups and languages in the French TOM/DOM (Territories and Departments oversea - Overseas departments and territories of France - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia )
2. the multilingual and multiethnical state, e. g. Switzerland/La Suisse/Schweiz/Svizzera/Helvetica. The Swiss nation consists of three nationalities (German-, French- and Italian-speaking). I would like to refer to a it as the "Swiss model".


German, French, Russian and other nationalists wanted to create homogenous nations by assimilating their minorities (French model). After WW1 Polish, Czech nationalists pursued the same policy within their newly formed national states.

The Austrian approach followed the Swiss model: one state, several nations, several languages with a broad autonomy to the different groups.

Click to expand...

Anyway - English people identify as English, and not as pre-Celtic ancient inhabitants, Celtic-speaking Britons, Latin-speaking Romans, 5th century Romano-Britons, French Normans, Scandinavian Vikings, Danes, etc. - to name few groups who contributed to the variety of ancestries of modern English people.

And why do they identify as English and not as all other groups mentioned? Because they speak English.

So at least in this case the importance of language is confirmed also in the British Isles.

Majority of Scottish people voted against independence.

Polls show that majority of Welsh people are also against independence.

Northern Ireland (Ulster) prefers to be part of Britain, not of the Republic of Ireland.

So it seems that "Scottish", "Welsh", "Ulsterian" are more like regional identities within the Pan-British identity - similar to "Bavarian", "Thuringian", "Westphalian", "Rhinelandish", etc. within the German identity - rather than ethnicities on their own.

All of this only seems to confirm my point that speaking one language strengthens ethnic unity.

"Scottish" and "Welsh" identities today are more like regional identities within the British ethnicity (I know you probably think that British ethnicity does not exist - but I am now officially challenging this idea), and not really fully separate ethnicities.

Only the Republic of Ireland is the opposite case. But given that official language of this Republic is Irish, and that they are trying hard to make Irish a widespread language again - for example they are teaching it at schools -, it seems that they have never really accepted the fact that their country is overwhelmingly English-speaking - i.e. the memory about their Irish-speaking past continues to exist, even though they forgot the language. A similar case would be East Germans suddenly claiming that they are not Germans, but Slavic Wends who got unfairly Germanized...

Yes, in this sense the Irish are "English in denial", because they are rejecting their English linguistic heritage, and trying to become Irish-speaking again.

what the hell are you even talking about.