Armistice Day

[giblets]

Is it meaningless to argue that German was the majority language and that most of the settlers in Sambia and Koenigsberg were German? No. Is it unverifiable? Also no. Is it meaningless and unverifiable that this was true for most of the period from around 1250 to around 1950, or 700 years?

Is it true that a majority of the population was German during that timeframe- yes. Does that make it "as German as it gets"- well, you have defined what this phrase means to you.

Ah. So you regard 700 years as being German insufficient. Well then - that makes all claims of a 'Russia' and 'Lithuania' and 'Ukraine' nonsensical.

I don't see the relevance of anything that happened 700, 500 or even 300 years ago. I wouldn't claim that Massachusetts is somehow more American than Oregon. Or Quebec is somehow more Canadian than British Columbia.

[Ben Kenobi]

Is it true that a majority of the population was German during that timeframe- yes. Does that make it "as German as it gets"- well, you have defined what this phrase means to you.

Is it German? Yes - is this contrary to what was written? Also yes. So the point is well taken.

I don't see the relevance of anything that happened 700, 500 or even 300 years ago.

Fine then. Why are you posting in this thread?

I wouldn't claim that Massachusetts is somehow more American than Oregon. Or Quebec is somehow more Canadian than British Columbia.

Are you trolling KH and FakeBoris?

[giblets]

Why am I posting in this thread? I came here to honor those who died in WWI and instead ended up with some retarded argument over nothing where Ben never admits he's wrong about anything and feels satisfied because at he can point to a few statements he made that weren't wrong...

[Guynemer]

Why am I posting in this thread? I came here to honor those who died in WWI and instead ended up with some retarded argument over nothing where Ben never admits he's wrong about anything and feels satisfied because at he can point to a few statements he made that weren't wrong...

My blood pressure has been much better ever since I put him on ignore.

Just saying.

[-Jrabbit]

When I saw this thread was nearing 100 posts, I knew there was only one possible cause.

[Dr Strangelove]

Yes, hail Stalin for this!

OMG!!!! Ben is a born again Bolshevik! Yes, let us sing the old songs together comrade! http://youtu.be/m7PrVtZAG4M http://youtu.be/o2jnX2y30DE

That they are in possession of it doesn't change the fact that they are still Polish territory.

Did Poland sign the treaty that fixed the borders?

They should, for the same reason.

Did Germany sign the treaty that fixed the borders?

Because they aren't Polish territory?

Texas is Mexican! See: treaties. When you sign them you and your heirs have to live by them, even if you don't like the people who did the signing. Lots of Russians don't like what Yeltsin did to the country. Shall we go there?

So then the argument is that they are more Polish than anything else

No the argument is that much of that the Lithuanians were pretty good at moving in and taking territory that had belonged to Rus before the Mongols demolished Rus.

Right - because the Pagans of the era were so peaceful. There's a reason the Knights were asked to come - to protect Christians in Bohemia.

The pagans were beligerant enough to resist being annexed without their consent.

Not in any sense of the word....

Go get a map and plot out the borders of Rus before the Mongols destroyed it.

And again - the Bohemians were the ones who summoned the Order to Kulmerland, to protect Christian settlers in the area who were attacked by pagans.

You're flat out wrong. In 1226 Konrad I, Duke of Masovia (who owned Chelm at the time, appealed to the Teutonic Knights to come subdue the Prussians who had the temerity to insist that their ancestral lands weren't part of his duchy.
Why the freaking H do you persist in using the German names for places in eastern europe when you know well the locals wouldn't? Kulmerland, Tarnpol, Lemberg - they're all names given to slavic towns or regions used temporarily when the Germans or Austrians owned them. Those names are long gone from the maps.[quote]

I was thinking of Bohemia. If I was thinking of Masovia I would have said so. [quote] Perhaps you're thinking of Andrew II of Hungary who ladged them in Transylvannia from 1211 to 1225 to protest German settlers. In 1226 Bohemia was ruled by Ottokar I, who at that time was fighting Fredrick II of Austria. Ottokar owned no land in Silesia. One of his daughters married the Duke of Wroclaw (Silesia) and his brother was the duke of Moravia (the other half of the Czech Republic). While Ottokar's family was joined in marriage with the rulers of Silesia in 1218, Silesia would not come under the control of the Bohemians for another 100 years. The Teutonic Knights began operations in Prussia in 1226.

Again - the fact is that the Ordensritter devoted Koenigsberg to the Bohemian king because of his patronage.

That was in 1255, 29 years after the Knights arrived in the area. Ottokar II may have donated funds to build the city, but he's not the person who invited the Knights into the region to fight the Prussians. That occurred 29 years earlier.

[molly bloom]

And Kulmerland is not far from Silesia. Perhaps you should be talking to the folks attacking me for stating Bohemia?

.

Why ? They think you're a tw@t and so do I.

Again, by the 20th century - the people of Upper Silesia voted - by free plebescite - to remain in Germany.

And as anyone who's read the history of that period knows this was an ethnically mixed area with Poles and Germans predominating and a Polonised minority. There was also political violence and 3 ? uprisings by Poles. It's all rather more complicated than you make out here- of course.

That's what happens when you attack Christian settlers.

Oh, I get it. When you take other people's land it's all right if you're a Christian. The right kind of Christian, presumably. Do the Teutonic Knights lose your approval when they opt for Lutheranism ?

Again - people seem to assume that borders were like they were today - where people couldn't cross them.

Who does ? I certainly don't. Speak for yourself.

[molly bloom]

Once again - the argument is, "you disagree with me - ergo you are uninformed. Hardly so.

Cough, Dutch Kingdom, cough, William III Orange's children, cough cough.... Do you want me to enumerate your past mistakes in post order, by order of magnitude, or laughter quotient ?

The Ukrainians have no claim over Galicia, which is culturally very different from the rest.

Clearly those Ruthenian (Ukrainian) peasants thought differently. They after all lived there and worked the land.

Yes - Stalin's policy of ethnic cleansing tends to do that.

Oh don't be obtuse. Volga Germans ? Saxon Germans in Rumania ? The Vlach ? Kosovars ? Macedonians ? Poles ? People go where work is, or where land can be reclaimed for agricultural use, or go as cultural colonists- as the Poles did when Poland became an independent state again.

So the rank and file preferred Austrian rule to Polish rule. Thank you molly.

I haven't said that at all. Quote me, don't use your misleading inaccurate paraphrases.

Umm, the Bolsheviks didn't declare war on Poland. Poland declared war on them.

There was no official declaration of war, idiot. The Bolsheviks set up a puppet Lithuanian state (capital Kaunas) and were allowed through by Lithuanian nationalists who thought that the Bolsheviks would enable a greater Lithuania by 'freeing' Vilnius of Polish domination.

Perhaps you need to read up on why the Lithuanian Pilsudski - imprisoned and tortured by Russia might have a grudge to settle.

Yeah, perhaps I don't.

I would argue that

You might- I don't care.

Churchill even admits that 'war with Soviet Union' is inadvisable thus settling for a crappy peace rather than actually liberating the people he set out to war to protect!

I think you'll find Neville Chamberlain was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom when war was declared.

Perhaps putting quotes around 'conservative' and 'partner' would mollify Molly?

Perhaps you could just behave like a mature adult. But then monkeys might fly out of your arse just as easily.

[Nikolai]

I think you need to reread what he wrote folks. He didn't say war with the Germans.

[Sava]

No. We don't. We don't even need to read it the first time, let alone again.

[Ben Kenobi]

Cough, Dutch Kingdom, cough, William III Orange's children, cough cough.... Do you want me to enumerate your past mistakes in post order, by order of magnitude, or laughter quotient ?

Sure. The Stadtholder was a hereditary position restricted to the House of Orange. Much like a 'monarchy'.

Clearly those Ruthenian (Ukrainian) peasants thought differently. They after all lived there and worked the land.

Ruthenians!= Ukrainians.

Oh don't be obtuse. Volga Germans ? Saxon Germans in Rumania ? The Vlach ? Kosovars ? Macedonians ? Poles ? People go where work is

Perhaps you might want to ask the Ukrainians what they think of the holodomor? Or are you denying that Stalin ethnically cleansed large portions of Eastern Europe and filled them with Russians?

I haven't said that at all. Quote me, don't use your misleading inaccurate paraphrases.

You said that the Galician peasants revolted against the Polish nobility and preferred Austrian rule. This is, in fact wholly true.

There was no official declaration of war

Umm - Pilsudski is pretty clear about it.

The Bolsheviks set up a puppet Lithuanian state (capital Kaunas) and were allowed through by Lithuanian nationalists who thought that the Bolsheviks would enable a greater Lithuania by 'freeing' Vilnius of Polish domination.

Which doesn't change that Pilsudski invaded first, not the Bolsheviks. Interesting argument here - now you're arguing that Vilnius isn't Lithuanian.

Yeah, perhaps I don't.

What, didn't your grammar school education fill you in?

I think you'll find Neville Chamberlain was Prime Minister of the United Kingdom when war was declared.

Against the Soviet Union? Been reading much Harry Turtledove?

Perhaps you could just behave like a mature adult. But then monkeys might fly out of your arse just as easily.

Given that you argument is that your 'partner' is 'conservative', I don't see why you're offended by quotes around both. You insist both are true, and I'm reflecting that it is your assertion that both are true.

[molly bloom]

I think you need to reread what he wrote folks. He didn't say war with the Germans.

What he said:

Churchill even admits that 'war with Soviet Union' is inadvisable thus settling for a crappy peace rather than actually liberating the people he set out to war to protect!

War with Germany had already been declared. So Churchill didn't set out to war with Germany to protect Poland- a state of war already existed, thanks to Neville Chamberlain. Who was still Prime Minister until 1940.

That's o.k., we know Sister Bendy is allergic to facts and figures, we make allowances.

[molly bloom]

Sure. The Stadtholder was a hereditary position restricted to the House of Orange. Much like a 'monarchy'.

.

When did this occur ? Not until half way through the 18th Century. The United Provinces still had a Raadspensionary then, and still wasn't a monarchy.

In any case, the particular error you made referred to a Dutch kingdom in the 17th Century, so please don't keep compounding your previous mistakes with pathetic attempts to squirm out from under like that.

You made a mistake: it's what you do. Get over it.

Ruthenians!= Ukrainians.

And ? It makes more sense to skip the various metamorphoses of states and empires in that area and simply refer to Ruthenians as Ukrainians. Sorry if it offends your delicate sensibilities- I know how fastidious and precise about these things you are....

Perhaps you might want to ask the Ukrainians what they think of the holodomor?

Yeah, I'll get on the 'phone now.... hmm, they say tell Sister Bendy not to be such a pompous windbag.

Umm - Pilsudski is pretty clear about it.

Really ?

Is that why you've posted it here for us all to see ?

Ante up, gasbag.

Alternatively read Norman Davies's 'White Eagle, Red Star' and find out there (as in other history text books, some possibly written by non-Catholics, Russians, ex-Communists or even Anglican vicars) that war was never officially declared.

Which doesn't change that Pilsudski invaded first, not the Bolsheviks. Interesting argument here - now you're arguing that Vilnius isn't Lithuanian.

No I'm not, and Pilsudski at the time was in favour of a new Lithuanian/Polish Commonwealth. I believe that Vilnius had a majority Polish population at that point, although the whole point of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth since the Treaty of Lublin (which was in Polish only) had been that the Polish language and Polish culture came to predominate and the new Sejm's discussions were in Polish, whereas the Grand Duchy of Lithuania had used Old Chancellery Slavonic.

Ergo, Pilsudski was not 'invading' territory which he and many other Poles considered intrinsically Polish.

[Nikolai]

War with Germany had already been declared. So Churchill didn't set out to war with Germany to protect Poland- a state of war already existed, thanks to Neville Chamberlain. Who was still Prime Minister until 1940.

That's o.k., we know Sister Bendy is allergic to facts and figures, we make allowances.

He was waging a war to protect Poland. Didn't declare, but did lead most of the war. Britain's CB for the war was clear. Which is what Ben is saying. Don't be boneheaded just because it's Ben.

[molly bloom]

What, didn't your grammar school education fill you in?

.

It seems to have done a better job at teaching me history than your university did in teaching you the same subject. I've met Canadians who've been to university and they don't seem at all like you, so I'm thinking it can't have been the university's fault....

Against the Soviet Union? Been reading much Harry Turtledove?

I'm sorry, who are you saying declared war on the Soviet Union ? Churchill ? Pilsudski ? Poland ? Hitler ?

Let's be clear on this, because you certainly haven't been.

Given that you argument is that your 'partner' is 'conservative', I don't see why you're offended by quotes around both.

Oh silly you, you think I'm offended. I don't care whether or not you think I have a partner, and that we've been together since 1984 and met at a performance of Martin Sherman's play 'Bent' at the Library Theatre in Manchester.

It's immaterial, just as immaterial as whether or not you imagine he is or isn't conservative- let's face it, it won't change his voting behaviour.