Fuehrer: lets bring Federal Republic of Germany to an end

[Heresson]

This is what Germany should be today if there was any justice in the free world:

That wouldn't satisfy Ben, though: Prussia, Eastern Pomerania and entire Silesia wouldn't be german.

Is this before, or after he dismembered Poland? I'm shocked to see anyone who considers himself a Pole to suggest that Stalin was better for Poland then the Western allies. We went to war to save you folks, while Stalin annexed, and held all of eastern Poland.

If not the Allies, Poland would become ally of Hitler at the cost of Gdansk, which didn't really belong to Poland anyway, and would have gotten half of Ukraine if it really wonted. Alliance with Poland would have been better for Poland - but worse for the world.
Polish aim in 1939 was to prevent the war and sustain its territory. Neither of these goals was achieved thanks to the alliance, and the Allies, especially Americans, have shown a lot of perjury when it comes to dealing with eastern borders of Poland, promessing Poland support of its 1939 borders while having already signed agreements with Stalin on keeping the eastern borderlands in USSR, and at the same time opposing against giving Poland german territory.
Also, the Allies in 1939 had german plans of war against Poland, but London decided not to pass them to Warsaw, because it could make it change its attitude.

While you folks lost all of the east, over half your territory. Lower Silesia is a tiny, tiny area compared to half of Belarus and western Ukraine. That's like someone taking all the meat and leaving you candy to compensate.

True, and in fact polish gouverment in exile in London didn't want Lower Silesia, not Western Pomerania for the precisely expressed reason that there are too many Germans there: it wanted
- Prussia
- entire Upper Silesia
- Slupsk/Stolp out of Western Pomerania, but I'm not sure of this one
and some villages over Major Poland's borders.
But it was decided the way it was, mostly because of American and British lack of strong will to oppose Stalin in this points, and nothing can be done about it anymore. I am myself from Podole region (voivodship Tarnopol) in modern Ukraine. It used to be halfly polish before the war. Nowdays there are close to none Poles living there, just like in Lwow, which used to be only 15% Ukrainian, and nowdays is something like 95%. That is why I would never change the border with Ukraine now, perhaps except for some tiny changes - border cities of Zolkiew and Belz I'd give to Poland because of their historical value for Poles (Belz was left to Poland in 1945, but in the 50s large coal deposits were found there and USSR forced territorial exchange - they got important railroad and coal deposits, we got useless mountains).
Belarus and Lithuania are a different matter, because there are still regions with polish majority - in the rural areas, as citizens of cities were expelled. But even there I'd hesitate to change the border, I'd gladly see a polish autonomy there: to be exact, apart from Grodno I'd give the polish areas to Lithuania, and make it give autonomy to them and its own polish areas.
The same, I wouldn't change Turkish-Armenian borders but to give uninhabited Ani ruins and several villages on Ararat slope to Armenia, because it's too late to change anything, and the same I wouldn't wipe out Israel, even though its creation was based on perjury and expulsion of completely innocent - unlike Germans - Palestinian people.

Yes, but he also did not say, stuff the Russian goose with Polish territory. Do you honestly believe that if it were the west who occupied Poland and not Russia, that you would not have gotten eastern Poland back? I'm surprised that you would accept a 'recompense' rather then the rightful return of Polish territory. Why do you blame the west for what they could not do, rather then the Russians for what they chose to do.

Churchill agreed on stuffing USSR with polish territory and they only opposed the case of Lwow, in which matter they did as much as to appeal to Stalin's benevolence. In another words, they agreed to cutting Poland by half, but didn't want to agree to give it recompensation.

Protestant Prussians, yes, Masurians were the German Catholics. Most of East Prussia was overwhelmingly German Protestant, moreso then the rest of Germany, and particularly in the North.

No. Again, Masurians were protestants. Warmiaks were catholic.
look at this map

As you see, Prussia is protestant except for Warmia /Ermeland, which is almost completely catholic, and, to a lesser extent, Powisle region.
The reason was that Warmia remained a bishopric duchy in Poland.

Still, it does not change the result that the majority of the people, 85 percent even in the tiny areas you have specified preferred German administration to Poland, when given the democratic option. Also note, that the corridor was not given the option of plebiscite. It wasn't about 'national self determination', but everything about political expediency.

The plebiscite in Masuria-Warmia-Powisle was as democratic as votings in Zimbabue under Mugabe.
I don't know if Poland would have won the voting in what you call The Corridor, but probably - yes it would. It was only granted out of Western Prussia / Pomerania / Pomerellen the bits that had a polish majority according to german census, and polish national movement was there much stronger than in Masuria, Warmia or even Upper Silesia.

I don't believe that Poland has any claim to Pomerania, but it's a serious question as to what to do with 'Greater Poland' from Posen to the corridor. I also don't believe they have a claim to Warmia, but Masuria is a different matter too.

By Pomerania do you mean Eastern Pomerania (= Gdansk Pomerania = Pomerellen = Western Prussia) or Western Pomerania?
When it comes to Gdansk Pomerania, these areas were inhabited by polish tribes since early medieval times - it is not known who inhabited these lands before, and the area was under polish control since X century until the start of XIV, and again in 1410 and since 1454 until 1772 (1792 when it comes to Gdansk and Torun), and again since the end of ww1. This gives quite a good historical claim.
And the areas given to Poland after ww1 had polish majority according to german census, which gives a good ethnical claim as well.

When you folks declared war on Russia? Tough. Poland thought they might carve extra territory in the East from Russia and were defeated.

No. Poland obtained information about soviet planned offensive (Soviet Russia wanted to support the revolution in Germany and Poland was in the way), so it attacked first, perhaps saving Europe from communist rule.
It didn't want territories for itself: its ally in the Ukraine was Ukrainian Republic, and it was Ukrainians that Poles captured Kiev (a border treaty with Ukrainians was already settled on Zbrucz). Also, later on, Poland did not want to acquire territories east to Zbrucz, which shows clearly it didn't have intentions on expanding further east.

We don't know much about my great-grandmothers' side of the family. Is Krossa a Polish name? As I said I have nothing against Poles, but it doesn't justify ethnic cleansing.

I don't know, it may be. It doesn't mean anything in polish, not anything I know, but it doesn't sound really german.
Anyway, these are not Poles that are responsible for flight and expulsion of Germans, but Allies and USSR. Blame them.

Yes, you should be thankful that Germany did not do the same to you in the territory they took after the partition. Imagine if Poles were treated the same way as Germans in Pomerania and East Prussia. We'd not be talking about a race of Poles anymore. I don't hold Poles responsible, rather I hold the Russians but Poland should return Pomerania and East Prussia to Germany as a sign of amity.

Germany did what it could to lower the number of Poles, and it was highly succesful in many cases. It didn't act through expulsions - no-one thought of that during that times, it wasn't possible yet.
But indeed Germany did engage in expulsions of Poles during ww2.
USSR as well.

I don't see any reason why Poland should return anything to Germany.
First, "the Corrdor" was majorly polish since pre-X century until nowdays, and Germans have no right to it. For the rest, polish presence was also strong, these lands were also parts of Poland for some time, and today are clearly polish. Also, Poland will not get any lands in return. Amity? Would Germany return Berlin to Poland because it was once inhabited by our tribes and was taken without right by Askanian Brandenburg? Will USA give Texas back to Mexico, Louisiana back to France, 13 states back to UK, all everything back to Indians? It's too late for that, even if it was right. What do you imagine would happen to people inhabiting these lands?

Yes, but it is their decision to retain the territory. In this they are no better then the Germans, Russians and Austrians who occupied Poland.

Nope: polish gouverment in exile was not recognised by USSR since Katyn case was revealed, and the Allies eventually betrayed it and accepted USSR-nominated communist gouverment, and it was the one which accepted the new borders. In fact, the question of the borders was the reason why the London polish gouverment couldn't settle a deal with Soviets.
Poles didn't have much to say. There was an official "plebiscite" concerning the acceptance of new borders in post-ww2 Poland, and, obviously, the line supported by communist won, but I doubt that if Poles would be given liberty they'd be willing to swap Lwow for Wroclaw, Wilno for Szczecin.
Maria Theresa, Joseph, Frederic II, Frederic Wilhelm III or who was that, and Katherine II had completely free will in the matter of partages, also, they had little or none historical or ethnic basis for their conquests, and they weren't attacked by Poland in the first place.

What right do you have to take territory away from people just because another people took it away from you? As I've said, Poland has claim to the east and ought to receive the east. Poland should voluntary return Pomerania and East Prussia to Germany as a sign of amity.

That would be probably the first case of this kind in the history: a national state giving up large chunk of its internationally recognised territory, inhabited in 99% by people of its nationality, with a place in its history,
for amity of another nation which was so kind to it during ww2 and earlier on.

There's no evidence for it, unfortunately. Teutonic Knights predate Poland, and Lithuania which formed afterwards. The homeland of the knights is in Culmerland which is now in Poland, and I doubt any Pole would claim they have more right to the territory then the Germans who settled there when there was nothing.

What? Are you kidding? TK were found during III crusade, the siege of Acre. 1191, if I'm not mistaken. Poland was christianised in 966, which means that it must have existed quite some time before - in fact we know the names of 4 earlier dukes (3 of the Piast dinasty, and one being the last of previous dinasty). That means that Poland is at least 2,5 century older than Teutonic Knights. I don't know about Lithuania, but the kingdom of Mendog in Lithuania existed well in half of XIII century, so I doubt TK are older than Lithuania itself.
"Culmerland" is Ziemia Chelminska (Chelm = Kulm), which is the very piece of Masovia that Conrad of Masovia gave to TK as a fief. This is basic history Ben. TK did found Torun (Thorn), but Chelm is an old polish city. If you do not know the history of this area and how TK came there, about voivod Krystian, abotu Dobrzyn monks, I can inform you.

[uote]
Note the title 'Masuria'.
[/quote]

Conrad of MASOVIA. Masovia is one of oldest provinces of Poland. Citizens of Masovia are called Masovians or Masurs. Southern part of Prussia was settled by TK and Albrecht by people from Masovia, Masurs, and is therefore called Masuria.

He was a younger son of Frederick Barbarossa, emperor of the Germans, one of the Conradines.

Nope, Conrad of Masovia was of polish royal Piast dinasty, the masovian line of it.

That's a lie.

No it isn't. It's a common knowledge but to german propaganda which wants to inflate the number of expelled by counting all the population of these areas prior to the war into it.
Do you think Germans eagerly awaited soviet conquest? Or that
Really, Ben, I've written a thesis about Warmiaks and Masurians, and earlier I've read a selection of documents on Masuria in 1945, which are internal papers of polish authorities. It's a sad story really, and it doesn't show Soviet army, polish local "authorities" or polish citizens in favourable light, but one of the points is that most of the population already fled, was evacuated, or was killed during war.
I've read these documents for the seminary of profesor Borodziej, who is a big specialist in german history, is I think valued there and can not be accused of nationalist tendencies. In fact, he is accused of something opposite.

I frown upon Poles justifying ethnic cleansing. I think it's a terrible position when the ovens were on Polish territory. It makes me think Poles have forgotten history.

It's the later expelees and their fellowmen that were building these ovens, Ben. Do not forget that.
I do justify these expulsions, and I justify expulsions of my own grandparents from Ukraine. It was unfair, harsh, cruel, but it turned out to spare us further trouble and it's too late to change it anyway.

Your map shows just the opposite, that East Prussia and Pomerania were majority German. Greater Poland is majority Polish, but is the land south of Pomerania, and west of the Vistula.

Do you distinguish between present and past tense? Of course, western Pomerania, Lower Silesia, nothern Prussia etc were definitely german in when the map was made. That's why they remained german then. Nowdays, however, they are 99% polish, and northern Prussia is Russian, so how do you imagine Poland or Russia resigning of them, and handing them to Germany? What do you think should happen with people inhabiting them?

Warmia, one part of East Prussia, was more German then Pole. Pomerania, was NEVER Polish until after the Second world War. Same with Ducal Prussia, in the East.

Warmia, as we've already settled, was in polish hands for 4 centuries, and its southern edge was majorly polish-speaking.
Western Pomerania was polish in X, XI, XII centuries, and even later on it remained in hands of polish dinasty (until XVII century). It was a polish fief for some time again in XV century, and in the beginning of XVI century, it offered to be polish fief again, but the king died and Poland had another stuff to do. It was originally polish-speaking, and turned nearly completely german-speaking in the course of history, I don't know when exactly, but I suppose somewhere in XVI century.

The core of Eastern Pomerania was, as I've mentioned, polish speaking for its entire history, and was in polish souvereinity apart for 1308 or so - 1454 and 1772-1919.

Things are different now. Like it or not, people are going to start seriously questioning what to do with the exclave, that Russians have no right to occupy. This will reopen the issues of Pomerania, Warmia and Silesia.

Fortunatelly, I believe most Germans have better knowledge of reality and better knowledge of history than you do, and nothing of this sort will happen.
If it was indeed what is happening, that'd mean Kaczynski brothers are completely right, and I certainly hope it is not so.

Understandable given the history of those who stayed in Germany is different from the diaspora. The diaspora did not participate nor was responsible for the holocaust, and yet have ties to the east. However, just because there is no desire now, doesn't change the issues surrounding these areas, particularly with the exclave.

The diaspora has a new land to live in, and has nothing to do with this topic.
I don't care what our diaspora thinks about our Ukrainian border. As far as I'm concerned, they can dream of polish Kiev. It's exactly as likely as german Olsztyn, Wroclaw, Szczecin.

Well, (eastern) prussia, or parts of it, being an exclave certainly cannot be a post WW2-issue, right? I mean it was an exclave for a lot of times in the past - the only thing that changed about that is, that it is now a russian exclave (the northern half at least), while before it was a german exclave. So ´exclave´ cannot be the problem here.

It is a difference, because Russia does not have direct border with Lithuania and Poland but through this exclave, and it has no territorial claims towards lands on the way to it, while Germans - like our dear Ben - do.

Unimatrix: Germans could stay if they declared polish nationality - that they will be loyal polish citizens, or if they were specialists needed for some reason. There were people of completely german culture, not knowing polish language, who were declaring polish nationality and were let stay, and sometimes even polish-speaking and polish-patriotic ex-citizens of Germany were treaten as germans and urged to leave. It depended much on local authorities. As I've mentioned in one thread already, the situation in post-war Poland was a complete mess and chaos, and communists, lacking proper support, were letting anyone willing to the administration, with all the consequences.

Jews have a claim to Israel.

There were around as many Poles in Lower Silesia than Jews in Palestine prior to zionism. Much more Poles in Prussia than Jews in Palestine prior to zionism.
A tiny bit of Palestine (not entire land!) was Jewish 1900 years earlier. Yet they do have a claim, and Poland does not have a claim to Pomerania, Warmia, or Silesia that were polish in much more recent times? lol

[Ben Kenobi]

Can you please edit that image?

If not the Allies, Poland would become ally of Hitler at the cost of Gdansk, which didn't really belong to Poland anyway, and would have gotten half of Ukraine if it really wonted. Alliance with Poland would have been better for Poland - but worse for the world.

You would have been dismembered just the same, alliance or no alliance. Except now, Hitler would have had peace and no war with France and Britain.

Polish aim in 1939 was to prevent the war and sustain its territory. Neither of these goals was achieved thanks to the alliance, and the Allies, especially Americans, have shown a lot of perjury when it comes to dealing with eastern borders of Poland, promessing Poland support of its 1939 borders while having already signed agreements with Stalin on keeping the eastern borderlands in USSR, and at the same time opposing against giving Poland german territory.

Well, I'm not among those who reject Polish claims to Eastern Poland. Historically, that's been Polish for most of it's history.

Also, the Allies in 1939 had german plans of war against Poland, but London decided not to pass them to Warsaw, because it could make it change its attitude.

Thank Chamberlain, "peace in our time" for that.

True, and in fact polish gouverment in exile in London didn't want Lower Silesia, not Western Pomerania for the precisely expressed reason that there are too many Germans there: it wanted
- Prussia
- entire Upper Silesia
- Slupsk/Stolp out of Western Pomerania, but I'm not sure of this one

Wow, that's really realistic. Why don't they have a demand for eastern Poland? If I were the Allies and I saw Poland demanding all that territory while France and Britain returned to status quo, I'd be very unimpressed.

But it was decided the way it was, mostly because of American and British lack of strong will to oppose Stalin in this points, and nothing can be done about it anymore. I am myself from Podole region (voivodship Tarnopol) in modern Ukraine. It used to be halfly polish before the war. Nowdays there are close to none Poles living there, just like in Lwow, which used to be only 15% Ukrainian, and nowdays is something like 95%.

I did a research project on that. Ukraine beyond the Carpathians belongs to Hungary. The rest of Western Ukraine is all Catholic, and should go to Poland. Makes more sense to me to unite according to creed.

That is why I would never change the border with Ukraine now, perhaps except for some tiny changes - border cities of Zolkiew and Belz I'd give to Poland because of their historical value for Poles (Belz was left to Poland in 1945, but in the 50s large coal deposits were found there and USSR forced territorial exchange - they got important railroad and coal deposits, we got useless mountains).

even though its creation was based on perjury and expulsion of completely innocent - unlike Germans - Palestinian people.

Expulsion? Bull****! The Palestinians along with every other Arab immediately invaded and were defeated. If they had left well enough alone, they'd have their own state by now. They left Israel voluntarily.

Churchill agreed on stuffing USSR with polish territory and they only opposed the case of Lwow, in which matter they did as much as to appeal to Stalin's benevolence. In another words, they agreed to cutting Poland by half, but didn't want to agree to give it recompensation.

Churchill was firmly against shifting Poland West, but, as you said, the west was unwilling to go to war over it as they should have done.

No. Again, Masurians were protestants. Warmiaks were catholic.
look at this map

Hmm, I stand corrected. I wasn't aware of that small strip of Catholics.

The reason was that Warmia remained a bishopric duchy in Poland.

Including Allenstein. Interesting. Explains why my family was Catholic.

The plebiscite in Masuria-Warmia-Powisle was as democratic as votings in Zimbabue under Mugabe.

The plebescite was conducted in a fair matter. The real scandal is that the corridor did not receive the same vote. Just because Poland made some insanely bad decisions, such as invading Russia, doesn't mean that the vote wasn't fair. Perhaps if Poland were wise enough to not get involved in these things, people would have been more inclined to accept their administration.

I don't know if Poland would have won the voting in what you call The Corridor, but probably - yes it would. It was only granted out of Western Prussia / Pomerania / Pomerellen the bits that had a polish majority according to german census, and polish national movement was there much stronger than in Masuria, Warmia or even Upper Silesia.

Lost in the mists of time, unfortunately. It is against the Allies credit that they did not grant the area a plebescite. They had nothing to lose by conducting one.

By Pomerania do you mean Eastern Pomerania (= Gdansk Pomerania = Pomerellen = Western Prussia) or Western Pomerania?

Referring to Pomerania entirely. See the map I drew.

When it comes to Gdansk Pomerania, these areas were inhabited by polish tribes since early medieval times - it is not known who inhabited these lands before, and the area was under polish control since X century until the start of XIV, and again in 1410 and since 1454 until 1772 (1792 when it comes to Gdansk and Torun), and again since the end of ww1.

And the Knights occupied the east side of the river. I honestly am not sure what to do with the area that you are speaking of. I don't want East Prussia to be an exclave, but at the same time it deprives Poland of access to the sea. There were areas of slight majority of Poles right along the Baltic, but very thin.

No. Poland obtained information about soviet planned offensive (Soviet Russia wanted to support the revolution in Germany and Poland was in the way), so it attacked first, perhaps saving Europe from communist rule.

It didn't want territories for itself: its ally in the Ukraine was Ukrainian Republic, and it was Ukrainians that Poles captured Kiev (a border treaty with Ukrainians was already settled on Zbrucz). Also, later on, Poland did not want to acquire territories east to Zbrucz, which shows clearly it didn't have intentions on expanding further east.

Occupying Kiev is considerably farther east. In any case the East Prussians wanted to remain German.

Anyway, these are not Poles that are responsible for flight and expulsion of Germans, but Allies and USSR. Blame them.

I do, but Poland occupies their land willingly and so is complicit.

Germany did what it could to lower the number of Poles, and it was highly succesful in many cases. It didn't act through expulsions - no-one thought of that during that times, it wasn't possible yet.
But indeed Germany did engage in expulsions of Poles during ww2.
USSR as well.

Outright depopulation? No, and be very thankful for it.

I don't see any reason why Poland should return anything to Germany.

They are complicit in ethnic cleansing, in accepting territory cleansed of Germans.

First, "the Corrdor" was majorly polish since pre-X century until nowdays, and Germans have no right to it. For the rest, polish presence was also strong, these lands were also parts of Poland for some time, and today are clearly polish.

Those lands had rejected Polish rule by Plebescite. They had every opportunity to join Poland, and refused to do so. It was only after that they had been cleansed that the land went to Poland.

Also, Poland will not get any lands in return. Amity?

Yes, amity. Poland would get land from Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine to compensate.

Would Germany return Berlin to Poland because it was once inhabited by our tribes and was taken without right by Askanian Brandenburg?

Was everyone in that land a Pole?

Will USA give Texas back to Mexico,

Texas was settled by Texans who rebelled against Mexico, and joined America voluntarily.

Louisiana back to France,

They purchased Louisiana fair and square from France who sold it to the USA.

Did Poland pay Germany for the lands that she took?

13 states back to UK

Ceded to them by the UK after the end of the Revolutionary War.

All everything back to Indians?

Won through war.

Where did Poland defeat Germany and earn a claim to those lands?

It's too late for that, even if it was right. What do you imagine would happen to people inhabiting these lands?

Occupying which lands? Pomerania and East Prussia? The Poles would hop across the border if they didn't want to stay, and Germans would return.

Nope: polish gouverment in exile was not recognised by USSR since Katyn case was revealed, and the Allies eventually betrayed it and accepted USSR-nominated communist gouverment, and it was the one which accepted the new borders.

You've said it yourself that the Polish govt in exile demanded land from Germany.

Poles didn't have much to say. There was an official "plebiscite" concerning the acceptance of new borders in post-ww2 Poland, and, obviously, the line supported by communist won, but I doubt that if Poles would be given liberty they'd be willing to swap Lwow for Wroclaw, Wilno for Szczecin.
Maria Theresa, Joseph, Frederic II, Frederic Wilhelm III or who was that, and Katherine II had completely free will in the matter of partages, also, they had little or none historical or ethnic basis for their conquests, and they weren't attacked by Poland in the first place.

I'm not defending the partition. Frederick II fought against everyone who attempted to wipe Prussia off the map.

That would be probably the first case of this kind in the history: a national state giving up large chunk of its internationally recognised territory, inhabited in 99% by people of its nationality, with a place in its history, for amity of another nation which was so kind to it during ww2 and earlier on.

It's a stench that rots and corrupts the entire nation of Poland, their complicity with ethnic cleansing. You know, some Polish people get it. They preserve the German history of the region because they understand what value it is to us. Others change all the names again and try to obliterate history. Didn't the Russians do that to you?

What? Are you kidding? TK were found during III crusade, the siege of Acre. 1191, if I'm not mistaken. Poland was christianised in 966, which means that it must have existed quite some time before - in fact we know the names of 4 earlier dukes (3 of the Piast dinasty, and one being the last of previous dinasty).

Who? Piast the wheelwright who had a never ending store of bread?

The first real king of Poland was Przmeyzl II. You were a fief of the HRE prior.

That means that Poland is at least 2,5 century older than Teutonic Knights.

Duchy of Poland originates from when Otto III, HRE who granted Miezko I the duchy of Poland in 982 after his conversion to Christianity.

I don't know about Lithuania, but the kingdom of Mendog in Lithuania existed well in half of XIII century, so I doubt TK are older than Lithuania itself.

The Teutonic Knights are older then both the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania. The reason this has to be true is because they were invited by the HRE to settle in Culmerland. This only makes sense if Poland was a fief to the Holy Roman Empire, which they were when the Knights were invited.

"Culmerland" is Ziemia Chelminska (Chelm = Kulm), which is the very piece of Masovia that Conrad of Masovia gave to TK as a fief. This is basic history Ben. TK did found Torun (Thorn), but Chelm is an old polish city. If you do not know the history of this area and how TK came there, about voivod Krystian, abotu Dobrzyn monks, I can inform you.

I am aware of the history of the area. Now you assert the bull**** that they faked papal dispensation which is a lie fostered by Polish nationalists who don't understand their own history.

The Holy Roman Emperor had to approve of the Teutonic Knights being granted Culmerland, because Poland was a fief of the HRE. "We recognize the fact, that this land is included in the realm of the Empire". This is the Golden Bull of Rimini which Frederick II Barbarossa issued.

I stand corrected on the familial ties. I'm pretty sure that he is related to the German emperor as well, but I'll have to check that.

Nope, Conrad of Masovia was of polish royal Piast dinasty, the masovian line of it.

I stand corrected.

No it isn't. It's a common knowledge but to german propaganda which wants to inflate the number of expelled by counting all the population of these areas prior to the war into it.

Makes sense to use peace-time numbers, no?

Do you think Germans eagerly awaited soviet conquest?

Do I think Poles awaited soviet conquest? You might want to be careful what you suggest.

[qutoe]
Really, Ben, I've written a thesis about Warmiaks and Masurians, and earlier I've read a selection of documents on Masuria in 1945, which are internal papers of polish authorities.
[/quote]

And I've done one on the Knights. Was awhile ago, but I don't mind pulling out my research again.

It's a sad story really, and it doesn't show Soviet army, polish local "authorities" or polish citizens in favourable light, but one of the points is that most of the population already fled, was evacuated, or was killed during war.

So that justifies Poland occupying those lands? Thank God the Germans were obviously kinder on the Poles. I'd hate to see you saying that those lands are German because the Russians killed all the Poles.

It's the later expelees and their fellowmen that were building these ovens, Ben. Do not forget that.
I do justify these expulsions,

Wow, ok. I cannot believe a Pole, who's nation has suffered to such a great degree would justify such an action.

I justify expulsions of my own grandparents from Ukraine. It was unfair, harsh, cruel, but it turned out to spare us further trouble and it's too late to change it anyway.

Expulsions are wrong wherever they occur. This is complete Stockholm syndrome. You are so used to Soviet oppression, that you sympathise with your conquerers.

Do you distinguish between present and past tense? Of course, western Pomerania, Lower Silesia, nothern Prussia etc were definitely german in when the map was made.

So if all the Poles were to be wiped out the land that the Poles now occupy would be definitely German? Yes or no?

That's why they remained german then. Nowdays, however, they are 99% polish, and northern Prussia is Russian, so how do you imagine Poland or Russia resigning of them, and handing them to Germany? What do you think should happen with people inhabiting them?

They should stay if they want to stay, they should leave if they want to leave.

Western Pomerania was polish in X, XI, XII centuries, and even later on it remained in hands of polish dinasty (until XVII century). It was a polish fief for some time again in XV century, and in the beginning of XVI century, it offered to be polish fief again, but the king died and Poland had another stuff to do. It was originally polish-speaking, and turned nearly completely german-speaking in the course of history, I don't know when exactly, but I suppose somewhere in XVI century.

You don't know when exactly?

Yet you can tell me chapter and verse of when it was Polish.

The map already posted shows that Pomerania was German in the earliest portions of the HRE. End of story.

[qutoe]
The core of Eastern Pomerania was, as I've mentioned, polish speaking for its entire history, and was in polish souvereinity apart for 1308 or so - 1454 and 1772-1919.
[/quote]

So the majority of recorded history states that Eastern Pomerania was German? That's end of story too.

The diaspora has a new land to live in, and has nothing to do with this topic.

It's our family history too. You think erasing history helps anyone?

I don't care what our diaspora thinks about our Ukrainian border. As far as I'm concerned, they can dream of polish Kiev. It's exactly as likely as german Olsztyn, Wroclaw, Szczecin.

Right, dismiss reasonable claims by appealing to the unreasonable. I've drawn out exactly what my argument is, at least have the decency to address my argument and not some straw man.

Unimatrix: Germans could stay if they declared polish nationality - that they will be loyal polish citizens, or if they were specialists needed for some reason.

WTF?

Germans have to declare Polish nationality in order to remain in Poland? That's garbage. Germans have very long and old claims even to areas like Kulmerland. They have every right to remain Germans even in the heart of Poland, just as Poles have in Germany.

There were people of completely german culture, not knowing polish language, who were declaring polish nationality and were let stay, and sometimes even polish-speaking and polish-patriotic ex-citizens of Germany were treaten as germans and urged to leave. It depended much on local authorities. As I've mentioned in one thread already, the situation in post-war Poland was a complete mess and chaos, and communists, lacking proper support, were letting anyone willing to the administration, with all the consequences.

I don't see why they would have to declare 'Polish nationality', unless it was to fuel the propaganda that these areas were '99' percent Polish.

There were around as many Poles in Lower Silesia than Jews in Palestine prior to zionism. Much more Poles in Prussia than Jews in Palestine prior to zionism.

A tiny bit of Palestine (not entire land!) was Jewish 1900 years earlier. Yet they do have a claim, and Poland does not have a claim to Pomerania, Warmia, or Silesia that were polish in much more recent times?

They don't, and Jews would be the first to say so. They have a claim older and more compelling then the so-called Palestinians, who have never owned the land anywhere in recorded history. Please, tell me when prior to the creation of Israel that the Palestinians owned the land.

[Unimatrix11]

Heresson, please resize that map.

[ahasverus]

Re. the western allies not giving german lands away. Denmark was offered Schleswig and IIRC Holstein, that historically were danish, and turned them down, not wanting to add to our german minority.

[Heresson]

You would have been dismembered just the same, alliance or no alliance. Except now, Hitler would have had peace and no war with France and Britain.

Not necessarily, not very likely. Poland was considered one of the stronger states of Europe and was perceived as an useful ally against USSR, which was Hitler's true goal, much more useful than Romania, Bulgaria etc - both for relative strenght and for geographic location. Hitler did oversee forceful italianisation of Germans in South Tyrol, so he might have well overseen some german minority in Poland, especially since there was a sizeable polish minority in Germany as well. Poland was many times lured to alliance, especially by Goering, who had a habit of hunting in Poland.

Wow, that's really realistic. Why don't they have a demand for eastern Poland? If I were the Allies and I saw Poland demanding all that territory while France and Britain returned to status quo, I'd be very unimpressed.

Oh, they did. The official version was that they wanted Eastern Poland PLUS Opole/Oppeln, Prussia and perhaps Slupsk/Stolp.

lol that's pretty general, hard to discuss it. Anyway, why isn't Wilno/Vilnius polish? And why Czerniowce is?

Expulsion? Bull****! The Palestinians along with every other Arab immediately invaded and were defeated. If they had left well enough alone, they'd have their own state by now. They left Israel voluntarily.

Uh, I won't get into a deep discussion, but in this case you see a nation having a historical claim from around 1900 years before, immigrate to a land and get half of it, and, after a lost war, they lose another quater of it, yet in the case of Poland, you seem to believe it'd be right in fact that Poland, after being attacked by Germany and treaten the way it was, to GIVE Germany territory (access to Prussia)? lol. What a consistence.

And indeed, it is very likely Palestinians just said: Hell, we got bored of our heimat, lets all pack our things in a couple of ours and go" lol.
Palestinians sometimes were expelled outright, sometimes fled fearing Jews, in which massacres such in Dayr Yassin and israeli whisper propaganda in which jewish neighbours were "warning" Arabs they'd be slaughtered played a big role. Israel needed lands for colonisation. What a very fortunate coincidence Palestinians left it for them.
And why did Israel confiscate this property and hand it over to its people, if it didn't want to take it? Why did it refuse from the very beginning until today the people that fled right to return?
In fact, Palestinian situation is in some cases very similar to the western lands of Poland, except for that Poles didn't start a war against Germans
etc, and that Israel usually did not expell the few remaining Arabs, that haven't fled during the war, while Poland mostly did. In both cases, however,
it is about a land which is both a recompensation and a distant historical claim, and the profit was taken out of flight of most of population during the war.

The plebescite was conducted in a fair matter. The real scandal is that the corridor did not receive the same vote.

The administration was left in the hands of one of the sides, and the stronger one. Political opponents were beaten, harassed, killed. The voting cards were printed in the way to assure victory of one side, and the time for voting was chosen at the time most unconvenient for one side. And you call that fair?
Oh, Germany would have probably won anyway, but not in such proportions and not everywhere.
I do not mention that for generations Masurians and Warmiaks were under german school system, subject of german propaganda, in which Masurians and Warmiaks were Germanic Tribes etc. Sort of like Kurds were "highland Kurds" for many years in turkish propaganda. A plebiscite seem fair, but only seem, because it gives one side, until then dominant, a tremendous bonus of
having trained citizens, influenced them etc. A fair sollution could be to give a land to an international administration for a decade or two at least, and then to conduct a plebiscite. And even then, it wouldn't be fully fair, because it was only after over a century of forceful germanisation of these lands that people were given a choice.

When it comes to the plebiscite in the Pomerania ("the corridor"), why was it so necessary? Was there a plebiscite in Hulczinsko or in clearly german Sudetes or even czech-speaking regions given to Czechoslovakia? Poland was already treaten much less favourably by Allies than Czechoslovakia, not only in this case.

Also, "the corridor" was given to Poland for another reason, that is to connect it to the sea. In the times of closed borders and lack of air transport, that was essential. Still, Poland had to build railroads linking its centers with the shore, and build its own port city.
But without this short strip of coast Poland could not function, precisely because of attitude of Germany which, as soon as it could, started a so-called "zoll (trade duties? imports? I forgot a word) war" against Poland, in hope to crush its economy and cause fall of the state.
For Poland, this was essential.
Now, again: these lands were essential for life of Poland, were polish-speaking and were polish for definite most of their history. Indeed, it was an outrage to assign them to Poland.
I know, I know, they separated Prussia from the rest of Germany, but Prussia started as a german exclave, and was such for most of its history, also, it had no economic importance whatsoever, and the free transport of goods from it to Poland was granted. So what's the big problem?

Just because Poland made some insanely bad decisions, such as invading Russia, doesn't mean that the vote wasn't fair. Perhaps if Poland were wise enough to not get involved in these things, people would have been more inclined to accept their administration.

How Poland could not get involved? Soviets treated themselves as a start of a worldwide revolution, and they fought it is starting NOW. Only the battle of Warsaw changed their mind.

Occupying Kiev is considerably farther east. In any case the East Prussians wanted to remain German.

But they are gone, new inhabitants want to remain in Poland.

I do, but Poland occupies their land willingly and so is complicit.

It's hardly an occupation when it's accepted internationally and is so for 64 years.

Outright depopulation? No, and be very thankful for it.

They did start. Milions of Poles were sent to Germany for slave labour, remaining were sometimes treaten as Germans, and 1,5mln or so were expelled to GG, with their houses being taken for Germans, especially for the ones "expatriated" from Baltic States.
And in GG itself depopulation of Zamosc region has started, and filling with german settlers. One of these settlers had a son which is current president of Germany, I believe.

They are complicit in ethnic cleansing, in accepting territory cleansed of Germans.

When TK captured Gdansk (Danzig), they massacred the entire polish population and settled it with Germans. After ww2 Germans fled or were expelled. Which cleansing counts more?
You could go back in history. Now it might have been fairer if Palestinians weren't expelled from Israel, Armenians and Greeks and Assyrians weren't slaughtered or expelled from Turkey, Turks expelled from Greece and Bulgaria, and in the X century Arabs from Cilicia, whatever, but it happened so,
and it's simply to late to change anything.

Those lands had rejected Polish rule by Plebescite. They had every opportunity to join Poland, and refused to do so. It was only after that they had been cleansed that the land went to Poland.

Actually, much of the population declared polish nationality and stayed, until later on, especially in Warmia (your home region), which remained a relative majority of indigenous polish population in comparison to other groups until the 70s.
I've already told much about this plebiscite, so I won't repeat it again.

Yes, amity. Poland would get land from Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine to compensate.

lol, very likely. Ask Saras if he'd leave Wilno/Vilnius and give it back to Poland in a sign of amity towards Poland.

Was everyone in that land a Pole?

Once - yes, although you could argue if the tribe settling there (Stodoranie) can be counted as polish, because usually it is counted, with other tribes behind Odra/Oder as a separate group - Polabians, very closely related to Poles, but not being polish, although for example in XVI century a reknown german by culture, polish by choice intellectual, considered them polish,
and today they are inspiration for polish goth, nationalist etc groups. It's pretty complicated. The lands of Berlin itself were part of Stodoranie tribe rule, and later part of duchy of Kopanica (Kopenick, nowdays a quarter of Berlin), which was sort of a vassal of duchy of Major Poland in XII century.
The leader of it, Jaksa, engaged in a war of succession of Brenna/Branibor/Brandenburg against Askanian dinasty from the Northern March, which resulted in Askanians capturing Brenna, renaming it to Brandenburg and forming the state of Brandenburg. Not only did Jaksa lose Brenna, but also his own duchy and had to shelter in Poland.
Anyway, we can not ask Polabians if they are Poles or not, because they are extinct, and as they never developed a nationhood, and Poles are, with Kashubians, the closest relatives, I with some doubt can count them as polish.

Texas was settled by Texans who rebelled against Mexico, and joined America voluntarily.

But did Mexico give it up voluntarily?

[quote]
They purchased Louisiana fair and square from France who sold it to the USA.

From Napoleon, an usurper.

Did Poland pay Germany for the lands that she took?

In fact, these lands are treated as war reparations, so sort of yes.

Ceded to them by the UK after the end of the Revolutionary War.

Voluntarily?
After all, Germany ceded Silesia, Pomeranias and Prussia as well.

Won through war.

Where did Poland defeat Germany and earn a claim to those lands?

Poland is counted on the winning side of ww2. Polish units were among the ones capturing Berlin, may I remind you.

Occupying which lands? Pomerania and East Prussia? The Poles would hop across the border if they didn't want to stay, and Germans would return.

If we're talking about pre-ww2 Germany plus Pomerania to connect it to Prussia, it's about
Lubusz region - 1mln
West Pomerania - 1,7 mln
(Eastern) Pomerania - 2,2mln
Masuria and Warmia - 1,4 mln
Opole - 1mln
Lower Silesia - 2,9mln
parts of (Upper) Silesia - 1mln at least
additional parts of Major Poland - 0,5 mln?

around 12 mln people? a third of Poland? Do you imagine them "hopping across the border"? Where to?
You might add to that 1mln of Russians from Kaliningrad, and a couple hundred thousands of Lithuanians from Klajpeda/Memel.

You've said it yourself that the Polish govt in exile demanded land from Germany.

Yes, but it didn't want to expell Germans from them.

I'm not defending the partition. Frederick II fought against everyone who attempted to wipe Prussia off the map.

Did Maria Theresa try to wipe Prussia off the map when he attacked her?
Did Poland try to wipe Frederic off the map?
Frederic was a militant, scruppleless person with no morality when it comes to state affairs.

It's a stench that rots and corrupts the entire nation of Poland, their complicity with ethnic cleansing. You know, some Polish people get it. They preserve the German history of the region because they understand what value it is to us. Others change all the names again and try to obliterate history. Didn't the Russians do that to you?

If Poles start to speak about german presence in this region, it is precisely because they start to feel assured there and the fear that the Germans will come back and force them out is almost gone. Not because they want Germans back and want to leave themselves.

Who? Piast the wheelwright who had a never ending store of bread?
The first real king of Poland was Przmeyzl II. You were a fief of the HRE prior.

Occasionally we were fief of Holy Roman Empire, like half of Europe - sometimes entirely, sometimes of a part of territory. What's the big deal about it? Also, not all our kings and princes prior to Przemysl were.
Przemysl was one of our weakest kings, actually. Our first crowned king, Boleslaw I, ruled current territory of Poland, parts of current Eastern Germany
up to Laba/Elbe, current Czech Republic, Slovakia, and captured Kiev as well,
not to mention leading succesful wars against HRE. And you do not treat him as a real king?

Duchy of Poland originates from when Otto III, HRE who granted Miezko I the duchy of Poland in 982 after his conversion to Christianity.

Uh, Otton III met and crowned Boleslas I, in year 1000.
And I didn't know you need to be christian to exist as a state. And I didn't know Mieszko wouldn't rule Poland without imperial approval.
Ben, stop it. You're being funny.

The Teutonic Knights are older then both the Kingdom of Poland and Lithuania. The reason this has to be true is because they were invited by the HRE to settle in Culmerland. This only makes sense if Poland was a fief to the Holy Roman Empire, which they were when the Knights were invited.

The Holy Roman Emperor had to approve of the Teutonic Knights being granted Culmerland, because Poland was a fief of the HRE. "We recognize the fact, that this land is included in the realm of the Empire". This is the Golden Bull of Rimini which Frederick II Barbarossa issued.

BEN. Who's been telling this mindless stuff to you?
TK obtained Chelmno from Conrad, and to get independent from him, and secure their "rights" over it, perhaps they did receive grant from emperor, I don't know, but if they did, certainly not from Barbarossa, because he was
dead already when TK were founded, not to mention when they appeared in Poland.


TK have already tried to do the same - create a souvereign country in Hungary, for which they were expelled. Unfortunatelly, Conrad didn't do the same.
wikipedia supports my claim:
"They were expelled in 1225 after allegedly attempting to place themselves under Papal instead of Hungarian sovereignty"
They've simply did the same in Poland later on - but with emperor, not pope,
and succesfully.

The emperor was according to the roman law the supreme authority, which was much or less accepted through Europe. As elsewhere, it had more or less direct consequences in Poland, depending on current state of affairs. The emperors' right of interference in polish affairs was many times disputed, and sometimes they were succesful, sometimes not. Przemyslaw II, from imperial perspective, was no less subject to the HRE than Conrad of Masovia. The title of king doesn't change much, because emperor rules also over kings.

Makes sense to use peace-time numbers, no?

If you talk about "flight and expulsion" - yes. If about "expulsion" - no. And in the first case, only if you count out the victims of war - both soldiers on front and civilians. Germans had tendency of counting entire population of pre-ww2 as expelees, and all that they missed after ww2 - have they perished during ww2, remained in Poland, emigrated elsewhere, or weren't counted in Germany - as victims of expulsion.

Do I think Poles awaited soviet conquest? You might want to be careful what you suggest.

Poles were nominally allies of USSR, weren't at war at them, had no guilty conscience towards them, did not associate with the regime that was to fall (german nazi one), and, most importantly, had no-where to flee.
Also, the fate of (Eastern) Prussia was the worse of all the territories captured by Red Army, because it was the first "german" territory captured by it.

[qutoe]
And I've done one on the Knights. Was awhile ago, but I don't mind pulling out my research again.

Please do, tell me at which university and what were your primary and secondary sources.

So that justifies Poland occupying those lands? Thank God the Germans were obviously kinder on the Poles. I'd hate to see you saying that those lands are German because the Russians killed all the Poles.

They were not necessarily much nicer.
Just today

http://wyborcza.pl/1,88975,6558185,Branka_Armii_Czerwonej.html?as=2&ias=6

I've read the story of this lady, which was taken by Red Army in their march to Berlin, systematically raped by anyone willing, then let go, then again captured by soviet soldiers, again taken by them and raped systematically, forced to go to USSR with them, denied return etc.
She eventually returned in 1998.

Expulsions are wrong wherever they occur. This is complete Stockholm syndrome. You are so used to Soviet oppression, that you sympathise with your conquerers.

Ben, is this a giant joke on me?
Expulsions may be wrong, but what you now propose to "fix it" is another expulsion of innocent men, including my family. How am I supposed to like it?

So if all the Poles were to be wiped out the land that the Poles now occupy would be definitely German? Yes or no?

If Poland attacked Slovakia, took part of its population for slave labour, another part exterminated, another resettled, the children it'd take to bring up as Poles, would destroy Bratislava to the ground etc, and after that Slovakia with Hungarian help would regain limited freedom, it'd be forced to give up its southern counties to Hungary, but would receive Zakopane and Nowy Sacz out of Poland as recompensation, expelling local Poles, I wouldn't dare to complain... Oh, I'm sure polish emigration in USA, which comes largely from this region, would mind.

It is somewhat different in German case, because Germans started the war and did what they did, but if Germans won the war, left GG as puppet polish state (which they didn't want to do probably though), and after many decades transformed into a democracy etc, and after a 100 years Poland would demand return of - now completely German - Major Poland for example, I'd say it should not be done, because it's too late for that and it can't be done. If they did demand return of Major Poland and resettling with Poles after lets say 10 years, I'd say: surely.
And if Germans left NOTHING out of Poland after ww2, and during this time there was continually polish gouverment in exile etc, I'd consider carving out some reservates for Poles even after 100 years, but depending on size of the population willing to return. Was it to be a couple counties, a couple of villages... but certainly not entire pre-ww2 Poland, because one has to be realistic and take into account passing of time.

In fact, I've already answering this question when speaking about Armenians.

[Heresson]

They should stay if they want to stay, they should leave if they want to leave.

How are Germans to return if Poles are not to leave?
And where's the right of self-determination of people in this case?

You don't know when exactly?

Yet you can tell me chapter and verse of when it was Polish.

The map already posted shows that Pomerania was German in the earliest portions of the HRE. End of story.

Lord, so was northern Italy. Does that mean it was ethnically german?

Look at the list of pomeranian dukes:

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

Casimir, Wartislav, Swantibor, Boguslaw, Wislaw, Jaromir etc are all polish names.
City names of Pomerania are polish mostly.

http://www.halat.pl/slowianie.jpg

Here you have a map of Western Slavs in X century

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Polska_960_-_992.png

Poland under Mieszko I

http://ingner.files.wordpress.com/2007/11/boleslaw_chrobry_mapa.jpg

Here you have a map of Poland under Boleslaw I

http://piastowie.kei.pl/piast/mapy/3.jpg

Poland under Boleslaw III


[qutoe]
So the majority of recorded history states that Eastern Pomerania was German? That's end of story too.
[quote]

What majority of recorded history? Do you mean politics or ethnic? Even you yourself admitted there was a majorly polish stretch of land there. And it was even more so before the partages and decades of german education.

It's our family history too. You think erasing history helps anyone?

Oh, but cultivate it, talk about it, whatever, just don't expect the political affiliation of this land shall be changed, and population expelled, because someone in the diaspora wills it.

Right, dismiss reasonable claims by appealing to the unreasonable. I've drawn out exactly what my argument is, at least have the decency to address my argument and not some straw man.

What was it, again?

WTF?
Germans have to declare Polish nationality in order to remain in Poland? That's garbage. Germans have very long and old claims even to areas like Kulmerland. They have every right to remain Germans even in the heart of Poland, just as Poles have in Germany.

It was about german citizens. German citizens were expelled, and the ones from them could remain who received polish citizenship, but it was primarily reserved for those who declared polish nationality.
NSDAP members were excluded from this opportunity.
Of course, You could expect something better, but keep in mind it is end of war, and people seek vengeance for german deeds. Which is not fair, but sort of natural. After the experience of ww2, and especially after what german minority has been doing in 1939 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selbstschutz etc), it was hard to imagine something different. Obviously, yes, if it was done today, we'd expect something more civilised, because we've moved forward and because we do not know the experience of war.

It's funny that you mention Poles in Germany. In fact, the polish minority ceased to be recognised under Hitler somewhere in 1939 and even today Poles are not recognised as a full-right polish minority in Germany, based upon
that polish areas were lost in ww2.

I don't see why they would have to declare 'Polish nationality', unless it was to fuel the propaganda that these areas were '99' percent Polish.

No-one ever claimed they were. I say NOWDAYS they are, and you can not ignore it.

They don't, and Jews would be the first to say so. They have a claim older and more compelling then the so-called Palestinians, who have never owned the land anywhere in recorded history. Please, tell me when prior to the creation of Israel that the Palestinians owned the land.

Palestinians are a branch of Arabs, and Arabs were in rule there for quite a long time.

[Ben Kenobi]

Not necessarily, not very likely.

The Czechs had a stronger army then Poland, and would have made a far better stand against Hitler. It's doubtful, according to Hitler's archives that he would have had the force to break the Czech fortifications in the Sudetenland.

Honestly, if the West didn't go to war over Poland, you would have been annexed and left to dry as Czechoslovakia had been abandoned.

Poland was considered one of the stronger states of Europe and was perceived as an useful ally against USSR, which was Hitler's true goal, much more useful than Romania, Bulgaria etc - both for relative strenght and for geographic location.

He wanted Lebensraum, especially in the East. After the first world war with Tannenburg and Hitler's memories of the defeat of the Teutonic Knights, there is no way he would avoid dismembering Poland, and erecting a monument to Tannenburg. I think you fail to understand the depth of hate Hitler had towards the Poles. Hitler saw the Poles as simply a road bump, not allies against the Russians. Look at what Hitler did to the Ukrainians and the Lithuanians? He didn't spare them, and he was willing to ally with Russia against Poland.

I'd make the argument that he hated the Russians less then he did the Poles.

Hitler did oversee forceful italianisation of Germans in South Tyrol, so he might have well overseen some german minority in Poland, especially since there was a sizeable polish minority in Germany as well.

And after Gruenwald, you think he would have signed another Pact of Steel? No, not with Poland.

lol that's pretty general, hard to discuss it. Anyway, why isn't Wilno/Vilnius polish? And why Czerniowce is?

You could make a case for either going either way. You have to draw a border somewhere, and since Vilnius is the capital of Lithuania, I think it's somewhat more important to the Lithuanians then it is to Poland.

Uh, I won't get into a deep discussion, but in this case you see a nation having a historical claim from around 1900 years before, immigrate to a land and get half of it, and, after a lost war, they lose another quater of it

When did Israel lose a war?

yet in the case of Poland, you seem to believe it'd be right in fact that Poland, after being attacked by Germany and treaten the way it was, to GIVE Germany territory (access to Prussia)? lol. What a consistence.

You've stated that in the case of Poland, after being attacked, and occupied by the Russians has no claim to compensation of the east? No consistancy whatsoever.

The point is that Stalin wanted Poland to be compensated solely by German territory, and not Russian. I don't see why the east should be treated any different then the west, and why Poland has a greater claim to Germany then France or Britain, or even the USA who defeated Germany.

I would rather see Poland be restored ante-bellum.

Palestinians sometimes were expelled outright, sometimes fled fearing Jews, in which massacres such in Dayr Yassin and israeli whisper propaganda in which jewish neighbours were "warning" Arabs they'd be slaughtered played a big role. Israel needed lands for colonisation. What a very fortunate coincidence Palestinians left it for them.

There were 500 people in Jerusalem, the capital of the Jews in 1800. Tell me about ethnic cleansing, when the same is done to Mecca.

And why did Israel confiscate this property and hand it over to its people, if it didn't want to take it?

Unlike Poland, they were attacked and victorious. Poland was occupied by Russia who invaded and defeated Germany. Poland has a claim to be restored antebellum, but not to be given additional territories.

Why did it refuse from the very beginning until today the people that fled right to return?

They left of their own accord. The swore they would not be ruled by Jews, and now they want compensation for their losses? Not going to happen.

In fact, Palestinian situation is in some cases very similar to the western lands of Poland, except for that Poles didn't start a war against Germans

And the fact that the Germans were ethnically cleansed, whereas the Palestinians were not. The Jews did not depopulate territories they captured. According to your logic, they should have killed all the Palestinians, just like the Russians did against the Germans.

it is about a land which is both a recompensation and a distant historical claim, and the profit was taken out of flight of most of population during the war.

They chose of their own free will to leave. They have no claim whatsoever. Germans do have a claim as they were forcibly exiled from their homeland. If Poland doesn't want to be responsible for these claims, then they ought to abandon the German territory that they occupy.

If Poland claims that Russia gave them no choice, that is fine. They should have handed over the territory once they regained their freedom.

The administration was left in the hands of one of the sides, and the stronger one.

So might makes right? In that case, the partition was justified because the administration was left in the hands of the stronger powers.

Political opponents were beaten, harassed, killed. The voting cards were printed in the way to assure victory of one side, and the time for voting was chosen at the time most unconvenient for one side. And you call that fair?

The population rejected on an overwhelming basis, to become part of Poland. This is the reverse of other plebescites. You yourself have cited that Poland was in a foolish war against Russia that would lead others to doubt their safety in Poland.

Oh, Germany would have probably won anyway, but not in such proportions and not everywhere.
I do not mention that for generations Masurians and Warmiaks were under german school system, subject of german propaganda, in which Masurians and Warmiaks were Germanic Tribes etc. Sort of like Kurds were "highland Kurds" for many years in turkish propaganda.

My family again is from that area, they are Catholic and German like the Bavarians, did not speak Polish. German education system was considered to be far superior to the Polish system. You seem to claim that these are Poles who were oppressed in Germany, rather then Poles who felt they had more opportunities in Germany.

A fair sollution could be to give a land to an international administration for a decade or two at least, and then to conduct a plebiscite.

Other plebescites went against Germany.

You've evaded the issue that the corridor was not given a plebescite, nor was it given over to an international organisation. Would you agree with me that it would have been more appropriate to transfer the corridor to international administration?

When it comes to the plebiscite in the Pomerania ("the corridor"), why was it so necessary?

For the same reason as the others, national self-determination.

Was there a plebiscite in Hulczinsko or in clearly german Sudetes or even czech-speaking regions given to Czechoslovakia? Poland was already treaten much less favourably by Allies than Czechoslovakia, not only in this case.

They were part of Austria, not part of Germany. They would not have been transferred to Germany in any case. The same question might be asked of Opole, and Austrian Galicia which was transferred to Poland.

Also, "the corridor" was given to Poland for another reason, that is to connect it to the sea.

Yes, in defiance of national self-determination. Perhaps a plebescite would have gone against Germany. We have no way of knowing now.

But without this short strip of coast Poland could not function, precisely because of attitude of Germany which, as soon as it could, started a so-called "zoll (trade duties? imports? I forgot a word) war" against Poland, in hope to crush its economy and cause fall of the state.

Why not trade with Hungary, or Czechoslovakia? Hungary is landlocked and much weakened then Poland, as were the Czechs, and you don't see them complaining about their lot. The Czechs did far more with what they were given then the Poles.

Now, again: these lands were essential for life of Poland, were polish-speaking and were polish for definite most of their history.

Except when they were German for the majority.

I know, I know, they separated Prussia from the rest of Germany, but Prussia started as a german exclave, and was such for most of its history, also, it had no economic importance whatsoever, and the free transport of goods from it to Poland was granted. So what's the big problem?

Historically Koenigsberg was the capital of Prussia, it had been settled by Germans, and ruled by Germans for centuries. Perhaps originally it was not valuable, but as time passed it grew increasingly prosperous.

How Poland could not get involved? Soviets treated themselves as a start of a worldwide revolution, and they fought it is starting NOW. Only the battle of Warsaw changed their mind.

Poland should not have gotten involved in the Russian revolution.

But they are gone, new inhabitants want to remain in Poland.

Only because they were slaughtered and expelled.

It's hardly an occupation when it's accepted internationally and is so for 64 years.

Morally, they are complicit in the actions of the Soviets. An independent nation would do well to free themselves of the burdens they did not request.

They did start.

Thankfully they did not have the opportunity to finish. Please, Heresson, I know it is difficult, but to occupy land conquered by the Russians should be morally offensive to any Pole.

When TK captured Gdansk (Danzig), they massacred the entire polish population and settled it with Germans.

Does that justify Poles acting in the same manner?

After ww2 Germans fled or were expelled. Which cleansing counts more?

It's not a matter of which was worse. Are Poles as evil as Germans? You are better then that. Ethnic cleansing is always wrong.

simply to late to change anything.

no, it is never too late to do what is right.

Actually, much of the population declared polish nationality and stayed, until later on, especially in Warmia (your home region), which remained a relative majority of indigenous polish population in comparison to other groups until the 70s.

I've already told much about this plebiscite, so I won't repeat it again.

Only because your government insisted that they do in order to remain. That is bull****, and I know you know so. Declaring that the population is 99 percent Polish when Germans were required to declare 'Polish' nationality simply means that to be Polish is meaningless. You might as well be German lite.

lol, very likely. Ask Saras if he'd leave Wilno/Vilnius and give it back to Poland in a sign of amity towards Poland.

I'm not asking him too.

Once - yes, although you could argue if the tribe settling there (Stodoranie) can be counted as polish, because usually it is counted, with other tribes behind Odra/Oder as a separate group - Polabians, very closely related to Poles, but not being polish,

Thank you end of story.

Anyway, we can not ask Polabians if they are Poles or not, because they are extinct, and as they never developed a nationhood, and Poles are, with Kashubians, the closest relatives, I with some doubt can count them as polish.

Seems Polish is a catch all bin. Germans who happen to live in the east along the Vistula are "Poles", Prussians are Poles, Polabians are Poles, Russians, Lithuanians, Galicians, all Poles.

But did Mexico give it up voluntarily?

The Texans who were subjects of Mexico rebelled. It would be no different if Kattowice declared themselves to no longer be Poles.

From Napoleon, an usurper.

Still purchased, at a fair price to both.

In fact, these lands are treated as war reparations, so sort of yes.

So they didn't pay a dime. Thank you.

Voluntarily?

Yes, they signed a treaty.

After all, Germany ceded Silesia, Pomeranias and Prussia as well.

After an unconditional surrender. Did the US occupy Britain and force them into an unconditional surrender in the Revolutionary war? Great Britain offered them a treaty which the US accepted.

Poland is counted on the winning side of ww2. Polish units were among the ones capturing Berlin, may I remind you.

Which is why Poland was enslaved to Russia for the following 4 centuries? Russia was victorious. Poland was not.

If we're talking about pre-ww2 Germany plus Pomerania to connect it to Prussia, it's about
Lubusz region - 1mln
West Pomerania - 1,7 mln
(Eastern) Pomerania - 2,2mln
Masuria and Warmia - 1,4 mln
Opole - 1mln
Lower Silesia - 2,9mln
parts of (Upper) Silesia - 1mln at least
additional parts of Major Poland - 0,5 mln?

around 12 mln people? a third of Poland? Do you imagine them "hopping across the border"? Where to?

Well, that's what happened in 1945, except you'd take that 12 million and kill half of them. They could stay if they wished, leave if they wished. More merciful then the treatment the Germans received.

Yes, but it didn't want to expell Germans from them.

They still accepted the 'gift' from the Soviets. I was baffled when the Polish government did not return those lands to Germany once they were free after 4 decades of occupation by the Russians.

Frederic was a militant, scruppleless person with no morality when it comes to state affairs.

He indeed successfully fought off everyone to preserve his state.

If Poles start to speak about german presence in this region, it is precisely because they start to feel assured there and the fear that the Germans will come back and force them out is almost gone. Not because they want Germans back and want to leave themselves.

Or perhaps they recognise that they are superior to the Russians to the north who simply destroyed everything?

And you do not treat him as a real king?

The point being that the land was ceded with the permission of the Holy Roman Emperor.

Uh, Otton III met and crowned Boleslas I, in year 1000.

You'll have to check your history again, you are wrong. Miezko was granted the Duchy.

And I didn't know Mieszko wouldn't rule Poland without imperial approval.

He was defeated by them and then converted.

BEN. Who's been telling this mindless stuff to you?

It is the history of the Teutonic Knights. Perhaps mindless to you, but it is the truth.

TK obtained Chelmno from Conrad, and to get independent from him, and secure their "rights" over it, perhaps they did receive grant from emperor, I don't know, but if they did, certainly not from Barbarossa, because he was dead already when TK were founded, not to mention when they appeared in Poland.

Again, they were granted the land, as Conrad wished to defeat the pagan Prussians to the North. The Knights were granted Culmerland as their own territory so that they could do so by Conrad. Perhaps a foolish move, but Conrad didn't have a choice. The Knights demanded it for their services.

TK have already tried to do the same - create a souvereign country in Hungary, for which they were expelled. Unfortunatelly, Conrad didn't do the same.

Unfortunately he did just that. He granted Culmerland as a fief of the Knights, subject only to the Pope with the permission of Frederick Barbarossa in the bull I already quoted. The reason he needed the permission of Frederick is because the land was not his to grant, as Conrad was a fief of the Holy Roman Emperor.

The emperor was according to the roman law the supreme authority, which was much or less accepted through Europe. As elsewhere, it had more or less direct consequences in Poland, depending on current state of affairs. The emperors' right of interference in polish affairs was many times disputed, and sometimes they were succesful, sometimes not. Przemyslaw II, from imperial perspective, was no less subject to the HRE than Conrad of Masovia. The title of king doesn't change much, because emperor rules also over kings.

Yes, but a King has greater rights with respect to his own territory then a Duke.

If you talk about "flight and expulsion" - yes. If about "expulsion" - no.

You've brought up 12 million in your favour, I feel I should have the same right as you.

Poles were nominally allies of USSR, weren't at war at them, had no guilty conscience towards them, did not associate with the regime that was to fall (german nazi one), and, most importantly, had no-where to flee.

You were enslaved by Russia until you got your freedom.

Also, the fate of (Eastern) Prussia was the worse of all the territories captured by Red Army, because it was the first "german" territory captured by it.

Yes, so be very thankful that you did not receive the same treatment, or you would not be here today.

Please do, tell me at which university and what were your primary and secondary sources.

You first. You brought this up.

Ben, is this a giant joke on me?
Expulsions may be wrong, but what you now propose to "fix it" is another expulsion of innocent men, including my family. How am I supposed to like it?

Where did I say 'expulsion'? I explicitly said that those who wanted to stay and live in Germany could live in Germany with all the benefits thereof. If they wished, and only if they wished, they could leave to return to Poland.

It is somewhat different in German case, because Germans started the war and did what they did, but if Germans won the war, left GG as puppet polish state (which they didn't want to do probably though), and after many decades transformed into a democracy etc, and after a 100 years Poland would demand return of - now completely German - Major Poland for example, I'd say it should not be done, because it's too late for that and it can't be done. If they did demand return of Major Poland and resettling with Poles after lets say 10 years, I'd say: surely.

So 20 years is too short? You've only been free for 20 years, Heresson.

And if Germans left NOTHING out of Poland after ww2, and during this time there was continually polish gouverment in exile etc, I'd consider carving out some reservates for Poles even after 100 years, but depending on size of the population willing to return. Was it to be a couple counties, a couple of villages... but certainly not entire pre-ww2 Poland, because one has to be realistic and take into account passing of time.

Poles have a right to their land. They deserve the right to live in freedom and peace.

[Ben Kenobi]

How are Germans to return if Poles are not to leave?

Gee, I dunno. You live together, as neighbours.

And where's the right of self-determination of people in this case?

Where's the right to self-determination in ethnic cleansing?

Lord, so was northern Italy. Does that mean it was ethnically german?

So you are claiming that Pomerania was not ethnically German?

Casimir, Wartislav, Swantibor, Boguslaw, Wislaw, Jaromir etc are all polish names.
City names of Pomerania are polish mostly.

Koslin is Polish?

Kolberg is Polish?

Stettin is Polish?

What majority of recorded history? Do you mean politics or ethnic? Even you yourself admitted there was a majorly polish stretch of land there. And it was even more so before the partages and decades of german education.

Yes a strip east of Lauenberg. Actually, that's in West Prussia, not Pomerania. Pomerania ends in Lauenberg.

You might as well say that England was German when George I was king.

What was it, again?

The map I drew.

It was about german citizens. German citizens were expelled, and the ones from them could remain who received polish citizenship, but it was primarily reserved for those who declared polish nationality.

Understandable, but you must understand this makes the statistics meaningless.

It's funny that you mention Poles in Germany. In fact, the polish minority ceased to be recognised under Hitler somewhere in 1939 and even today Poles are not recognised as a full-right polish minority in Germany, based upon that polish areas were lost in ww2.

Yes, but they are not required to become insta-Germans in order to stay.

No-one ever claimed they were. I say NOWDAYS they are, and you can not ignore it.

If the Germans who remained in Poland had to declare Polish nationality, then the statistics are meaningless.

Palestinians are a branch of Arabs, and Arabs were in rule there for quite a long time.

Ahh, so Arabs are all one people then, eh?

Why don't the Palestianians go live with their brothers in Jordan and Syria then?

[Heresson]

Czechs didn't have stronger army than Poland at all, but they've had the luck of having strong natural borders (mountains) with Germany, and having them fortified, while Poland had a much longer border going through flatlands. That's why it was easier to attack Poland.
But polish army was bigger, was the closest to Moscow, knew Soviets, could be used against Soviets, and Poland, unlike Czechoslovakia, was not USSR's ally at all.

Hitler's alliance with USSR was tactical.
Hitler did ally with Lithuanians and Ukrainians and used them against Soviets and Poles.
Mein Kampf isn't directed against Poland. Poland was tiny in comparison to lands he wanted to capture in USSR.

Wilno/Vilnius was the capital of Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which was a state of belarusian, and later polish language. The area around it and north to it as well as small area in Latvia are majorly polish. Wilno was a polish cultural centre, not Lithuanian. There were only 5% Lithuanians there before the war.

"When did Israel lose a war" - I am talking about Palestinians losing a war, hence "they".

You've stated that in the case of Poland, after being attacked, and occupied by the Russians has no claim to compensation of the east? No consistancy whatsoever.

I do not understand this sentence.

The point is that Stalin wanted Poland to be compensated solely by German territory, and not Russian. I don't see why the east should be treated any different then the west, and why Poland has a greater claim to Germany then France or Britain, or even the USA who defeated Germany.

I would rather see Poland be restored ante-bellum.

Poland got these territories because:

1) it was recompensation for the territories ceded to USSR
2) there was polish minority in these lands
3) these lands used to belong to Poland once

No other Ally had these reasons to get german territory.

There were 500 people in Jerusalem, the capital of the Jews in 1800. Tell me about ethnic cleansing, when the same is done to Mecca.

It is the case since the failed jewish uprising in the first century,
and also since the I crusade. Arabs are not to be blamed for that

Unlike Poland, they were attacked and victorious. Poland was occupied by Russia who invaded and defeated Germany. Poland has a claim to be restored antebellum, but not to be given additional territories.

Again, Poland was on the winning side of ww2, at least nominally. Polish army fought in the west and in the east. Polish army forced through the Pomeranian Wall and captured some parts of Berlin.

They left of their own accord. The swore they would not be ruled by Jews, and now they want compensation for their losses? Not going to happen.

Aren't you aware the same could be said about most of Germans that used to live in modern Poland?

And the fact that the Germans were ethnically cleansed, whereas the Palestinians were not. The Jews did not depopulate territories they captured. According to your logic, they should have killed all the Palestinians, just like the Russians did against the Germans.

Yes they did, at least sometimes. And Soviets did not kill all the encountered Germans. They did rape everyone, they killed many, but not everyone on the spot.

They chose of their own free will to leave. They have no claim whatsoever. Germans do have a claim as they were forcibly exiled from their homeland.

Most Germans fled before Red Army or was evacuated by german authorities before expulsions.
And many of the remaining were allowed to stay, but have chosen not to.

If Poland claims that Russia gave them no choice, that is fine. They should have handed over the territory once they regained their freedom.

Are you aware that it's not that simple: what shall be done to the people living there now? why shouldn't Poland get land from Germany after all Germany did to it, and after it lost its territory itself?

foolish war against Russia

Would you really like to see the United Soviet Europe in the 20s?

My family again is from that area, they are Catholic and German like the Bavarians, did not speak Polish.

I've never said that entire population was polish or polish-speaking. As you've seen on the map, it was divided.

German education system was considered to be far superior to the Polish system.

There was no polish system at this time, so you can hardly compare.

You seem to claim that these are Poles who were oppressed in Germany, rather then Poles who felt they had more opportunities in Germany.

Definitely Poles in Germany were better off than Poles in Russia, yet they were opressed as a minority by numerous ways. Read some on the subject.

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

basics

Other plebescites went against Germany.

(except for Saar)
precisely because not only was the administration not left in the hands of Germans, but it was given to the nations disputing the territory. That's exactly my point.

Would you agree with me that it would have been more appropriate to transfer the corridor to international administration?

Until a plebiscite? It is one of the options. I think giving the majorly polish parts to Poland was fair, and actually pro-german, as another option would have been restoring 1772 borders.

For the same reason as the others, national self-determination.

Power in democracy comes from the people, but you do not make referendums in every matter

They were part of Austria, not part of Germany. They would not have been transferred to Germany in any case. The same question might be asked of Opole, and Austrian Galicia which was transferred to Poland.

I did mention Hulczinsko as well, didn't I? It is the part of prussian Upper Silesia that Czechoslovakia got - without a plebiscite.
Opole was not given to Poland, it was part of the plebiscite area, voted for Germany and remained in Germany.

Why not trade with Hungary, or Czechoslovakia? Hungary is landlocked and much weakened then Poland, as were the Czechs, and you don't see them complaining about their lot. The Czechs did far more with what they were given then the Poles.

We had no common border with Hungary until 1938.
Czechoslovakia was in conflict with Poland about majorly polish, but strategically important region of Cieszyn Silesia.
Czechoslovakia is not as big as Poland, is not as close to the sea, and Germany (Prussia) wasn't as furious against it as against Poland.

Except when they were German for the majority.

Poland, as you can see on the map, has got almost only the parts that were majorly polish.

Historically Koenigsberg was the capital of Prussia, it had been settled by Germans, and ruled by Germans for centuries. Perhaps originally it was not valuable, but as time passed it grew increasingly prosperous.

And? It doesn't explain why it shouldn't have remained an exclave

Poland should not have gotten involved in the Russian revolution.

How shouldn't it have? How do you think the border between Poland and Soviet Russia was
supposed to be created? Do You also think that bolsheviks wouldn't support revolution in Poland?
And that to support the revolution in Germany, they'd have swam through the Baltic Sea?

Only because they were slaughtered and expelled.

64 years ago, in result of a war they started, by will of Stalin, not Poland.

An independent nation would do well to free themselves of the burdens they did not request.

It is hardly a moral burden. Poland didn't want the war, didn't start the war, didn't do nasty things like Germany during the war, didn't profit from the war.
Germany enthusiastically started the war, behaved badly, were punished, harshly, and you seem to think war started in 1945.

Thankfully they did not have the opportunity to finish. Please, Heresson, I know it is difficult, but to occupy land conquered by the Russians should be morally offensive to any Pole.

It isn't at all, at least not anymore.
Thanks to Germany my family has encountered a war, many members were killed, my grandma was taken to gulag or something like that, my grandfather encountered anti-jewish harassment probably (otherwise he wouldn't need attestations he's not a jew), they've lost their land (we still haven't received any recompensation for my grandma's property, USSR forced Poland to pay it, which it never did, now they're talking about paying it, but only 15% or so blah blah), expelled
from their homes, forced to settle in a foreign land and living in the fear of german retaliation, and living under stalinist communism, and now you expect me to say "sorry" to Germans, pack my things and settle I don't know where and leave my hometown with my entire family so that descendants of the people who started 1939 war, settled west in cosy german capitalism,
received recompensations for lost property from german gouverment etc were to live in my place?
Are you kidding?

Does that justify Poles acting in the same manner?

Again, Poland wasn't quite responsible, and in fact the biggest responsible are Germans
themselves. There is a proverb "he who saws rain harvests storm".

Ethnic cleansing is always wrong.

But again, to reverse the alleged ethnic cleansing of 1945 you'd have to make a new ethnic cleansing. And, as you've said, ethnic cleansing is always wrong.

it is never too late to do what is right.

I firmly believe Carthago was wronged by Romans. Should Italy pay recompensations to Tunisia?

Declaring that the population is 99 percent Polish when Germans were required to declare 'Polish' nationality simply means that to be Polish is meaningless. You might as well be German lite.

Ben, Ben, Ben. Poland didn't claim it was 99 percent polish then, I claim it is 99 percent polish now, and I base it on census.

Germans who happen to live in the east along the Vistula are "Poles", Prussians are Poles, Polabians are Poles, Russians, Lithuanians, Galicians, all Poles.

What? I never claimed Germans living along Vistula are/were Poles nor that Prussians are Poles
*(in fact I corrected your erroneous view that Prussians were slavic), nor Russians, nor Lithuanians are polish... you make this up.

The Texans who were subjects of Mexico rebelled. It would be no different if Kattowice declared themselves to no longer be Poles.

So Mexico had every right to deal with them as USA dealed with CSA

Still purchased, at a fair price to both.

Did they ask Indians? And what about self-determination of nations?

Yes, they signed a treaty.

So did Germany

After an unconditional surrender. Did the US occupy Britain and force them into an unconditional surrender in the Revolutionary war? Great Britain offered them a treaty which the US accepted.

Eastern Germany accepted the border in the 50s. Western - in 1970, and altogether in 1990.
Germany was already back on its feet back then.
It's not my fault that USA didn't capture London. What's the difference anyway? Britain proposed a treaty which was a complete surrender anyways.

Which is why Poland was enslaved to Russia for the following 4 centuries? Russia was victorious. Poland was not.

Poland was on a winning side of war when it comes to Germany. Its relations with USSR are another matter, and are result of year 1939, for which Germany is partly responsible. If not Hitler and the cheering german crowds, there would be no Hitler-Stalin pact, no war, no loss of eastern Poland, and no loss of eastern Germany.

Well, that's what happened in 1945, except you'd take that 12 million and kill half of them. They could stay if they wished, leave if they wished. More merciful then the treatment the Germans received.

Even the biggest propagandists didn't put death toll that high. Poland expelled around 2-4 mln Germans anyway.

They still accepted the 'gift' from the Soviets. I was baffled when the Polish government did not return those lands to Germany once they were free after 4 decades of occupation by the Russians.

You ARE kidding, right? You must be kidding.

Or perhaps they recognise that they are superior to the Russians to the north who simply destroyed everything?

Unlike Russians, Poles in Silesia and Pomerania treated the history of this land as part of their heritage, at least that was the official stance and at least when it comes to selected epochs.

The point being that the land was ceded with the permission of the Holy Roman Emperor.

First, I presented the analogy:
TK get land from Hungary as a fief - they try to obtain a donation for it from the pope
TK get land from Poland as a fief - they try to obtain a donation of it from the emperor.
And even if Poland was subjected to the emperor, that was the Roman Empire, not (German) Kingdom.
And even if it was, and it was not, Czechs were part of Kingdom of Germany for some time, and the Empire for entire history, and yet they do exist in historical borders.

You'll have to check your history again, you are wrong. Miezko was granted the Duchy.

Ah, so the emperor CREATED the duchy according to you? There was nothing before? Not even when the earliest dated mentions of Poland are of Mieszko, still pagan and 20 years before your date,
fighting a marchgrave of the empire?

He was defeated by them and then converted.

Nope, it was part of the alliance with Bohemia - Mieszko did not receive missionaries from Germany, but through Bohemia and directly from the pope.

t is the truth.

Where did you get this "truth" from? Some german aryan warriors forum?

Again, they were granted the land, as Conrad wished to defeat the pagan Prussians to the North. The Knights were granted Culmerland as their own territory so that they could do so by Conrad. Perhaps a foolish move, but Conrad didn't have a choice. The Knights demanded it for their services.

Wouldn't that be the only medieval ruler who gives up part of his own territory for a - yet - minor partner without demanding a vassal oathe?
Again, take example of the earlier hungarian episode.

Unfortunately he did just that. He granted Culmerland as a fief of the Knights, subject only to the Pope with the permission of Frederick Barbarossa in the bull I already quoted. The reason he needed the permission of Frederick is because the land was not his to grant, as Conrad was a fief of the Holy Roman Emperor.

Did you bother to understand my point, that is comparison with the situation in Hungary? It is a well known motiff of appealing to a higher instance.
Conrad granting this land to TK without demanding an oathe from them makes no sense at all.
Why should he? You seem to believe the emperor told him so. But polish princes fought the emperor for much pettier reasons and it's 2 generations since last oathe of allegiance to the emperor anyway.

Yes, but a King has greater rights with respect to his own territory then a Duke.

And what's the point? There were kings before Przemyslaw.

You were enslaved by Russia until you got your freedom.

True, but it was much better than nazi german regime and being literally enslaved or annihilated.

You first. You brought this up.

I asked first, but ok, I will check what was it.

Where did I say 'expulsion'? I explicitly said that those who wanted to stay and live in Germany could live in Germany with all the benefits thereof. If they wished, and only if they wished, they could leave to return to Poland.

Again:
1) How can Germans return, if Poles are still here?
2) Why would Germany need clearly polish lands?
3) How would Germany get eastern Lithuania, western Belarus and Ukraine for Poland?
4) What about self-determination of people?

So 20 years is too short? You've only been free for 20 years, Heresson.

People live and die, and get used to their little fatherland also under communism.

Poles have a right to their land. They deserve the right to live in freedom and peace.

Yet, you want to make a third of citizens of Poland live in Germany, which they clearly do not want.

[Heresson]

Gee, I dunno. You live together, as neighbours.

So what's the difference from current situation? None. Germans can settle in Poland if they like.
There is temporary ban on purchase of land from people from outside Poland (you need permission or something, the people from around have the right to buy it), which is close to an end if not ended already.

Where's the right to self-determination in ethnic cleansing?

So the people currently living in Pomerania, Silesia and Masuria have, according to you,
no right to self-determination?

So you are claiming that Pomerania was not ethnically German?

Of course it wasn't. It was only in the end of XII century that settlement on german right started there and in Silesia. In X century, territories up till Hamburg and Lueneburg were slavic. Entire DDR - Eastern Germany was originally a slavic land. It is basic history, Ben.

Koslin is Polish?

Kolberg is Polish?

Stettin is Polish?

Yes! -in ending are among typical for slavic languages. Berlin as well is a slavic name.
Kolberg = Kolobrzeg, which means "next to the shore"
Stettin - Szczecin (alrern. Stittin - Szczycin comes either from "Szczecina" which is "fur"
or the plants densely covering the shore, or from word "szczyt" which means "a top = a hill"
out of others,
Stargard means simply "old city"
Cammin - Kamień means "a rock"
Naugard - Nowogród "new city" (gród/gard = a city in old polish)

The name Pomerania (Pomorze) itself is polish, it means "the land up to the sea"
(po = until, up to, morze = the sea)

Yes a strip east of Lauenberg. Actually, that's in West Prussia, not Pomerania. Pomerania ends in Lauenberg

Originally Pomerania was a land roughly between Vistula and Odra, that is the part of seacoast that Poland originally controled, hence its name, "up to the sea". Poland retained only eastern part of it, around Gdansk, and in polish tratition it is the part refered to as Pomerania, while the Duchy of Pomerania is refered to as Western Pomerania.
This Eastern Pomerania had nothing to do with Prussia until TK captured it, and later on Poland regained it, with part of Powisle and with Warmia. Since then, Pomerania plus these prussian lands were known as Royal Prussia, while the rest, being polish fief, were known as Ducal Prussia. After the partages Warmia was transfered to formed Ducal Prussia, later forming Eastern Prussia, while Eastern Pomerania, with parts of Prussia adjactent to Vistula, was re-baptised Western Prussia.

You might as well say that England was German when George I was king.

The difference was that George I was not an indigenous ruler, while the Griffins were either indigenous dinasty, or a side-branch of polish royal dinasty that got accustomed, which is very uncertain.

The map I drew.

It... it lacks details.

Yes, but they are not required to become insta-Germans in order to stay.

In fact, there's been cases of jugendamts or whatever forbidding parents to speak polish to a child, laws forbidding speaking polish in workplace even in private conversations etc.

If the Germans who remained in Poland had to declare Polish nationality, then the statistics are meaningless.

Why? Nowdays they can declare whatever nationality they want, and they do.

Why don't the Palestianians go live with their brothers in Jordan and Syria then?

Arabs USED to be one people.
According to your logic, Jews have better rights to Italy than Italians, because there were Jews in Italy back in the times of the Empire, but there were no Italians, only Romans...

[Ben Kenobi]

Will reply tomorrow. Poly ate my reply.

Poland is entitled to substantial land from Russia, yet you only seem to want to take from Germany? Why? Is it because the Germans are wealthier and Poland is better off with German land and not their own land in the east?

[Unimatrix11]

Excuse me guys, i lack the time to read it all. It´s kinda amusing to see a Canadian and an Ukrainian (by location - right?), fight over a province, wether to give it back to germany or not, when i (a german) have already stated several times, that i can gurantee you, Germany wouldnt want it back, wouldnt take it if it was offered to them (which it never will).

Heresson: Zoll = tarif(s), in english i think (deducted from Vicky)

While everything you say (Heresson) is very well researched (or seeme to be, for some parts i just cant judge, really), there is one point i have to disagree with you and that would be your assessment of Frederick II. (the great). He wasnt really a ruthless militaristic power-maniac, not at heart at least. He had conversation with Voltaire and gave concerts on the flute and such. That he was a very able leader in the field as well as a great organizer of the logistics needed to conduct it successfully against a somewhat 10-fold superiority of his enemies, is what earned him the title ´the great´. He saw his duty to his country in submitting to the realities of power-politics, which he had prefered to be more ´hippy-ish´. But yeah, it is fair to say, that by the extreme measures he had to do, in order to prevent a prussian brake-down in the 7-years-war, that he had also promoted the same kind of power-politics he used to despise. He was torn between the neccessities of a leader of a central european nation and the sweeter things in life, and trapped in some sort of "prisoner´s dilemma". I think it is kinda save to say, that had he been the king of, say, norway (i dont know right now, if that even existed at the time - a state under less pressure for military power in order to survive), he would have become a pure philosopher-king.

Depending on your point of view, you could describe him as a hypocrite (denying his own ideals, when it comes to practice) or a loyal leader of high integrity (putting his own beliefs behind the interest of the state). I *think* he actually described himself in both these ways, to demonstrate his dilemma.

[BeBMan]

Entire DDR - Eastern Germany was originally a slavic land.

Thuringia was German, not slavic. Well, after we threw out those Celts.

And even in other territories of eastern Ger or Poland there also lived Germanic tribes amongst various others to different times, so 'originally' is something that isn't worth much, given how fluid things were. That's why most of those 'historic' claims (from whatever side) are rather shady.

[Heresson]

Bebro, certainly Thuringia wasn't completely slavic at X century, like f.e. Brandenburg or Meklemburg, and it was in german hands, but there were some slavic tribes living there. There are slavic name-places even further west.
There probably were germanic - but not german - tribes living in the territory of eastern Germany before Slavs, but it's not completely sure.

Unimatrix, I'm polish, am from Upper Silesia, and my mother's family before ww2 lived in modern-day Ukraine.

When it comes to Frederic, he was a remarkable person, and I was very impressed by his ability to control his own life, limit the pleasures and devote himself almost entirely to his own state, especially after his troubled youth. But he was definitely ruthless and didn't have any scrupples. His attitude towards Austria, which he attacked "to protect Maria Theresa", or "to ensure peace in Europe", clearly shows, not to mention his attitude towards Poles. It's not only about partages, calling Poles the Iroquis of Europe,
etc, but also his very precise deeds. In Saxony. he pillaged not only the saxonian property, but also the polish mints, which he used later to issue false polish coins, getting richer at polish expense.
Always in need of recruits for the army, he allowed his men to cross polish border to kidnap local peasants. He was kidnapping his own citizens as well, and I do recall a sad
story of some philosopher whom he invited, and who came with his young son. Frederic's men saw him, and took him by force to the army, and Frederic didn't do anything to stop that. When Poland introduced a tariff duty on the border, Frederic placed cannons in the Marienwerder/Kwidzyn castle and was sinking ships on Vistula. He enabled petty skirmishes against Gdansk/Danzig and blocade of the city after the first partage (Gdansk became a polish enclave then) in hope it would surrender to him then. During the partage itself he - but his admirer, Joseph of Austria as well - he broke the partage deeds itself, stretching his rule further than he was supposed to. Etc.

Now I know he was a very wise man, a very talented ruler, military leader, friend of Voltaire etc, but he wasn't a man of pure conscience.

[Ben Kenobi]

When it comes to Frederic, he was a remarkable person, and I was very impressed by his ability to control his own life, limit the pleasures and devote himself almost entirely to his own state, especially after his troubled youth. But he was definitely ruthless and didn't have any scrupples. His attitude towards Austria, which he attacked "to protect Maria Theresa", or "to ensure peace in Europe", clearly shows, not to mention his attitude towards Poles. It's not only about partages, calling Poles the Iroquis of Europe.

He was very anti-Catholic, partially due to his upbringing. If he took anything from his tutors, it was a rejection of their Christianity, but he kept the anti-Catholicism.

That being said, the war with Austria was realpolitik. He needed Silesia to make Prussia a viable state. He was able to catch Maria Theresia by surprise and managed to keep his state in the 7 years war.

Now I know he was a very wise man, a very talented ruler, military leader, friend of Voltaire etc, but he wasn't a man of pure conscience.

That is true, but you have to remember he defeated France, Sweden, Austria and Russia, something which Poland was unable to do when faced with similar concerns.