Talk:Prussia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 History Portal
Germany Portal
Prussia is within the scope of the Prussia WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage all articles related to Prussia. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).


Portal:Germany
 Germany Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project and help with our open tasks.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Talk:Prussia/Archive 1

Talk:Prussia/Archive 2


Contents

[edit] Flag and "conclusion"

  • The flag of the German Empire is irrelevant to an article about Prussia.
  • The "conclusion" section is mostly trivial rubbish and does not belong in a serious encyclopaedia. I am not interested in "consensus" to keep bad material in articles. Adam 08:09, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why is there no mention of actually what happened to prussia here?, ie, the allies murdering it?

[edit] POV

--Molobo 14:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC) The article is heavily biased in favour of Prussian state. Here are some interesting facts that show a different view:

From The Roots of National Socialism, 1783-1933, a book by British historian R. Butler, first published in 1942 National Socialism is the inevitable reappearance of Prussian militarism and terror, as seen during the 18th century. The Nazis combined two strands of nationalist thinking: a revival of former imperialism together with a social, economic and spiritual national revolution. They were able to manipulate the emotions of the German people at a time of anxiety and deep resentment towards the Weimar system. Anti-Semitic tendencies can also be traced back to earlier days. Source: adapted from a summary in David Smith, 'Origins of National Socialism', in Modern History Review (September 1999

Wilhelm Kube, leader of National socialism in the Prussian Landtag, attempted to connect the great Prussian heritage of Frederick II with Hitler and his youth by stating that all the good things in Prussianism were to be found in Nazism and its younger generation. "Once the proud flags and standards of Frederick's army provided the entire German people with security and the guarantee of a special future; today the standards and flags of the National Socialists do the same Please add the information about Nazi adoration of Prussian values and that Nazi's believed that all good things about Prussia were founded in Nazism. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1118019 But for others, Prussia represents, above all, the militarism and unquestioning respect for authority that gave rise to Nazism.

The immediate background for this long speech was the brutal expulsions from Prussian territory of Poles and Polish Jews carried out in 1885. Many of these people had been resident in Prussia for years but had not become citizens, no easy matter in Germany. Polish deputies in the Reichstag formally questioned the government on these policies. Bismarck responded by denying the competence of the Reichstag in Prussian state matters. Shortly thereafter a majority of the lower house of the Prussian parliament moved a declaration for the protection of German interests in the eastern provinces. With this friendlier stimulus, Bismarck laid out the principles of the government's Polish policies. A typical Bismarck speech, it was delivered extempore (as were all speeches in the Reichstag and German state parliaments), filled with innuendo and threats and short on specific details. The intention here is to stifle criticism of an increasingly rigorous anti-Polish government policy, justifying it as an entirely reasonable response to Polish provocation. All the good will comes from the German side; all the bad faith belongs to the Poles.

From the German perspective, the growing social power and political superiority was based on virtues such as discipline, work and order combined with loyal obedience, cultural education and rational enlightenment. These German self-images corresponded with images of the Polish Other such as lack of discipline, laziness, chaos, cultural barbarity and superstitious irrationalism. From the Polish perspective, the Germans represented lack of freedom, personal repression and bureaucratic reglementation, blind obedience, cultural arrogance and amoral rationalism – German images that contrasted to the Polish virtues of freedom, heroism, sacrifice as well as a culture of the heart and religiosity. Another example of different view towards what Prussia represented from the file: In Polish eyes, German Protestantism appeared heartless, secular and individualistic.

http://www.jewishcomment.com/cgibin/news.cgi?id=14&command=shownews&newsid=533 He does not shrink from examining the problems associated with assimilation and conversion, the tribulations that afflicted German Jews who wished to be accepted as Germans without being scorned as Jews. He carefully examines German antisemitism, as manifested in the nationalistic fervour that swept Prussia after its defeat by Napoleon, in the 'Hep! Hep!' riots of 1819, the political antisemitism of the late 1870s, and the crisis years after 1918.


That information clearly shows that Prussia was known to be an authoritarian state, which engaged in wholescale persecution of national minorities(we have to remember that for example Poles at one time made almost 40% of Prussian population). Many of its values have been seen as the seeding ground of militarism, nazism, antisemitism. Such facts are missing from this article and need to be included. --Molobo 20:20, 31 May 2006 (UTC)


Apartheid-like system system existed in Prussia: In areas where Germans and Poles lived side by side a virtual apartheid existed [1] --Molobo 20:37, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

As Molobo demands a comment on talk:, here you are:
rm tag, address the "bias" at the Prussia article of Catholic encyclopedia, your specifically picked sources and their statements made en passent don't impress me at all. Sciurinæ 21:35, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I presented scholary sources. You presented your personal opinion. Please present scholary resouerces denoucing information presented in sources I gave rather then just expressing your personal views. --Molobo 21:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

and totally neglect the fact that frederich II. reign was a tolerant one and prussia gave jews equal rights on a very early stage.--85.180.38.112 00:00, 4 June 2006 (UTC) and totally neglect the fact that frederich II. reign was a tolerant one Poles were discriminated under Frederick II. Polish nobility had to pay higher taxes and Polish language was persecuted.Also: Frederick II, who understood himself as the "first servant of the state", promoted hatred and dislike for Poles in Prussia calling them "slovenly Polish trash," "the Iroquois of Europe" and "a barbarous people sunk in ignorance and stupidity", and Prussian officials carried contempt for the indigenous Poles with them[2],[3] Influenced by anti-semitismthat was pervasive in Europe rederick the Great also sought to limit number of Jews in Prussia[4]. However this sourced information was sadly removed on several times. The current version tries to portay an idolised vision of Prussia, that stands against historical knowledge. --Molobo 01:31, 4 June 2006 (UTC)


Also: Frederick II, who understood himself as the "first servant of the state", promoted hatred and dislike for Poles in Prussia calling them "slovenly Polish trash," "the Iroquois of Europe" and "a barbarous people sunk in ignorance and stupidity" brilliant i dont even want to contest this. maybe he did. but he was a bitter man. by the way he said german would be a language of peasants. so is he a also a prussian-hater? its you who tries to demonize prussia. it was by the standards of the time not more imperialistic than france or Great Britain and gave equal rights to jews earlier than most european states--Tresckow 12:10, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Molobo repeatedly mentions this "40% Polish" business. It should be noted that Prussia was "40% Polish" for precisely 12 years - for 1795 to 1807 - and never again. john k 14:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ridiculous Polish Prussia-bashing. Get a life.--217.85.73.92 12:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)



A Comment on references to Otto Von Bismarck

In the article, Otto Von Bismarck is said to have persued peaceful relations with the surrounding countries of Europe. While this is true, no further information is presented as to the reasoning of his action, which in my opinion, is severely misleading. Here's the lesson:

Otto Von Bismarck, during his position of Chancellor, sought to strengthen it's prosition against France. He did this by trying to isolate the country from it's neighboring countries. To do this, he persued peaceful relations with the rest of Europe. He started his campain against France by increasing Germany's power through the Dual Alliance with Austria-Hungary. Then in 1882, Italy joined the alliance thus renaming it the Triple Alliance. With Austria-Hungary and Italy behind Germany, Bismarck had successfuly isolated France. He then turned his attention to political relations with England and Russia, two countries likely to aid France in times of war.

At the time imperialism was of great importance to England therefore making great efforts in colonization. Seeing a possible confrontation with England, Bismarck decided good relations with England were best kept by not interfering. Russia, if aiding France, would make war on France a two front battle so good relations were especially important and well maintained.

Though successful in his campain against France, Bismarck's roll in German-European relation's ends in 1888 when Kaiser Wilhelm II assumed the throne. In a nutshell, Wilhelm II does everything Bismark tried to avoid including entering compitition for colonies with England and ending relations with Russia. England and Russia then join France and create the Triple Entente. -end lesson.

My Point: Otto Von Bismarck persued peace not for the sake of peace, but to rage war without fear of retribution.

My information comes in my own words, from a homeschool program by Odyssey Ware called Swithed On Schoolhouse. 12.21.203.217 19:00, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Prussia today" section

I think there is some useful content in the deleted section, but there are legitimate issues that need to be adressed. I think the article needs a "Legacy" (or something like that) section about the image of Prussia today and the myths and controversies surrounding it. IIRC the proposal to rename Berlin-Brandenburg to Prussia failed more due to the connection of Prussia with militarism in many people's minds than due to the fact that Berlin is very far away from West Prussia. Perhaps something about the burial of Fredrick II could also go into this section. The section should be written in article form (full, connected sentences), not just as a list of random facts. Parts of the list read like a "trivia" section and should go.

Individual comments: (article in italics, my comments inbetween)

Iron Cross 1813
Iron Cross 1813
Iron Cross today
Iron Cross today

Traces of the former dominant position of Prussia in Germany can be seen even today:

Indeed, but not all of these examples are only due to Prussia.
  • Federation:
    • Berlin became the German capital, since it was before already the capital of Prussia.
      Well, that was in 1871. Why Berlin is the capital now is a somewhat complex question.
    • The Prussian war honor of the Iron Cross is - in modified form as Balkenkreuz - the symbol of the Bundeswehr (Armed Forces of Germany).
      Source? History? Reason? Could be included with explanation.
    • The separation of Austria from the German nation in the course of the establishment of the German Empire in 1871 is due to the role of Prussia in German politics.
      Many reasons for that, basically decided in 1848 and also due to the multiethnicity of Austro-Hungarian Empire. Probably remove this as well as Berlin.
  • Federal States
    • After reunification in 1990 a plan was developed to merge the States of Berlin and Brandenburg. Though some suggested calling the proposed new State "Prussia," the name that was eventually chosen for the State was "Berlin-Brandenburg". However the proposed merger was rejected in 1996 by popular vote (the bad fiscal situation of Berlin being a large factor)
      This one is pretty interesting. Some sources on the debate would be great (who proposed "Prussia", why was that name opposed)
    • The State of Saxony-Anhalt is at present the only one whose coat of arms contains the Prussian eagle. The coat of arms of Baden-Württemberg still contains the coat of arms of the Hohenzollern.
      Maybe join that with the Iron Cross: "Symbols of Prussia can still be seen in the COA of S-Anh (which displays the Prussian eagle; why?) and the Bundeswehr's Balkenkreuz symbol, which is derived from the Prussian Iron Cross[citation needed]
    • The Prussian model was the basis of a multiplicity of political institutions which still exist in Germany on the state or regional level, such as Minister-President, governmental district, county council, and district council.
      Very general; source? The civil service system sure was influential, but how much of the rest is really Prussian?
  • Churches:
    • The Union of Evangelical Churches developed from the Evangelical Church Union, a Federation of the old Prussian regional Evangelical Churches.
      Unsurprisingly, since most Protestant territories were in Prussia.
  • Culture:
    • The "Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz" covers one of the largest and most universal collection complexes of the world.
      More about this would be good, at least a link to the museums and stuff they own.
  • Games:
    • In the famous computer game "Civilization IV" by Sid Meier, the leaders of Germany are represented by two Prussian personalities: Chancellor Otto von Bismarck and King Frederick the Great
      Trivia, could be used to affirm that some people view (from a military point of view and ignoring Hitler) Germany=Prussia, just like many people think Germany=Bavaria=Oktoberfest. But should probably go (original research and not important), unless other sources cite Civ as an example.
  • Sports:
    • Preußen Münster, or with the latin version, Borussia Dortmund and Borussia Mönchengladbach, are famous german soccer teams named after Prussia
      Semi-trivia. Are they named for Preussen or because they were the team of Prussians in that area? (Fraternities called "Borussia" were traditionally the fraternity for all Prussians (possibly in a rather narrow meaning of the word) in a certain city, sports clubs are often similarly founded
    • The German national soccer teams (and other athletes, even race cars) compete in their traditional Prussian national colors: black and white
      Not all athletes, but the football team sure does. If there is a source that shows this is not accidental, this sounds like a nice addition to the "symbols of Prussia" stuff of above.
  • Color:
    • Prussian Blue
      Not very interesting just as a list entry, maybe move to See Also section (And clean that up, it's too long).
  • Places:
    • City "Preußisch Oldendorf", in the district of Minden-Lübbecke
    • Station "Preußen" near Dortmund
      Delete.
  • Surname:
    • The members of the former ruling Prussian royal house carry the name Prince of Prussia (not Hohenzollern).
      If this can be put into a nice sentence and not list form, maybe okay. Why do they use this name? (or is it just a style?)

So to sum up: There is some interesting info in this section, which needs to be brought into article form instead of a bulleted list of loosely connected facts. some of the facts should be dropped, others should be sourced. A legacy section is definitely needed. Kusma (討論) 04:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

The attempt to name a region to Prussia caused an outrage in Poland. I will search for sources on that. --Molobo 12:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Lots of things that happen in Poland cause outrage elsewhere..so what´s new?? IsarSteve 20:28, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
and what does that prove? the hymn of prussia was: ich bin ein preusse kennst du meine farben?

wouldnt that have to be included?--85.180.38.112 00:02, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Sure, could be put into a "Symbols of Prussia" section or something, especially if somebody translates de:Preußenlied. From what I see from there and googling to [5], it is not quite clear to me how long it was a "national anthem" and how long just a "regional song" and how much Heil dir im Siegerkranz was also used for Prussia. Kusma (討論) 01:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Here are comments regarding the proposal to ressurect this infamous name [6]: Andreas Lawaty "One has to remember that a steady and deliberate policy of Prussia since XVIII century was the anti-Polish policy" Interesting other information : Nowa interpretacja historii Prus miała uwzględnić wyniki badań nad okresem hitleryzmu, zważywszy, że nie tylko lewicowi czy liberalni niemieccy intelektualiści, ale już i Churchill, i de Gaulle, uważali hitlerowski totalitaryzm za konsekwentną kontynuację militaryzmu pruskiego. To w pruskich cnotach leżało źródło ślepego posłuszeństwa cechującego niemieckie społeczeństwo czasów Hitlera. Hannah Arendt trafnie opisała epizod podczas procesu dotyczącego „ostatecznego rozwiązania kwestii żydowskiej“, gdy jeden z hitlerowskich oprawców, Eichmann, bronił się, mówiąc — niczym pruski urzędnik — że czynił tylko swą powinność. Translation: New interpretion of Prussian history was to take into account results from research over nazism, especially, since not only left or liberal german intellectuals, but even Churchill or De Geulle believed Hitle'rs totalitarism as consequence of prussian militarism. In Prussian values was the source of blind obediance that characterised German society in time of Hitler. Hannah Arend described quite accurate an event during trial on the issue of "final solution of Jewish issue" when one of hitlerite executioners Eichman was defending himself, saying-just like prussian official-I was only doing my duty. An interesting and remarkable information that needs to be incorporated into article about this state and and as can be seen its terrible influence in Europe's history. --Molobo 01:45, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Are Churchill or De Gaulle neutral observers of Prussia or Germany as whole? No. Think before you write, Molobo. And stop your idiotic POV pushing.--217.85.73.92 12:48, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

The article describes also several Germans that tried to whitewash history of Prussia by ignoring its discrimination of other nationalities and promoting a false vision of tolerance that alledgedly existed in Prussia, as well as attempts to glorify its vision, as well as marginalisation of Prussian issue in German cultural discourse in the late 90s. In future I shall translat further parts and add them to article where needed. --Molobo 01:48, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Jews in Prussia

Another great information on alledged tolerance in Prussia from the article I mentioned earlier above: o ile jeszcze przed dwudziestu laty Haffner, Gräfin Dönhoff i inni publicyści podkreślali duchową i religijną tolerancję Prus, to ubiegły rok stwierdzenia te demistyfikował. Poczdamski historyk Julius H. Schoeps przypomniał na przykład, że tak często chwalona wolność religijna Prus miała u podstaw nie miłość do bliźniego, lecz zimne wyrachowanie ekonomiczne.[12] W Prusach Fryderyka nie było mowy o równouprawnieniu prawnym Żydów. Oświeceniowe Prusy były w zasadzie gotowe przyznawać Żydom prawa obywatelskie, ale tylko pod warunkiem, że rezygnowali oni z bycia Żydami. Translation: If Haffner, Grafin Donhoff and others tried to underline spiritual and religious tolerance of Prussia, then last year demistified those claims. Potsdam historian Julius H. Schoeps recalled that the so often praised religious freedom had nothing to do with love for your fellow human, but was based on coldblooded economical calcuation. In Fredericks's Prussia there was no such option as equal rights for Jews. Prussia of Englightment was ready to grant Jews citizens rights, but only on that condition that they stoped being Jews. This information is quite valuable as it shows the motivation behind certain various actions of Prussian government and under what conditions they were made. It would be usefull to add this information in parts of article that alledge of such tolerance, or that talk about presence of Jews in Prussia. --Molobo 01:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Klaus Wiegrefe on Prussia

Here is a assesmnent of deconstructing the myth of alledged tolerance of Prussia. Klaus Wiegrefe in Spiegel wrote about Prussia in article "Staat von Blut und Eisen" [7]. To, że reformy były połowiczne, odpowiadało janusowemu obliczu Prus. Nigdy nie zabroniono nie tylko tortur, ale i barbarzyńskiego bicia rózgami nowo wcielonych rekrutów, biegających między szpalerami żołnierzy. Mimo wolności słowa zakazana była jakakolwiek krytyka majestatu osoby i polityki. [...] Katolicy, a zwłaszcza Żydzi nie byli równouprawnieni z obywatelami wyznającymi religię protestancką. [...] Na Śląsku i w Prusach Wschodnich szlachcie wolno było sprzedawać chłopów, decydować o ożenku ich dzieci i ich wykształceniu. Translation: The fact that reforms were only half done, was appropriate to duel face of Prussia. Torture was never forbidden, but also barbarian beatings of new recruits running along ranks of soldiers. Despite freedom of speech, any criticism of majesty and policy was forbidden. Catholics and especially Jews didn;t have equal status to protestants. In Silesia and East Prussia, nobility could sell peasents, decide about peasents children marriages(who could they marry), and about their education. As can be seen even German authors show that Prussia was intolerant, opressive country that had much suffering in it. It would be good to include this information in order to present a fair vision of the article on Prussia rather then the current biased one with much false information. This information shows that by all means Prussia wasn't a tolerant country and should be used to expand the information in the article where such views are present.

--Molobo 02:01, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Quotes

How do any of them have to do with the proposal to name Berlin-Brandenburg to Prussia? And how do you suggest we change the article? Posting of long quotes wihtout an obvious reason is disrupting to talk pages. If you don't come up with an obvious reason why we need the quotes, I will remove them to keep this talk page readable. Kusma (討論) 02:40, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

All of those quotes are from debate about the name change that was present in German press.
The current article presents a one sided view of Prussia. Presented research conflicts with personal views of Wikipedia editors who created a biased vision of Prussia as the current version of the article presents. I however don't expect you Kusma to include this information, so don't feel like I am enforcing you to do something, please.. I shall expand the quotes with reasoning of their importance.

--Molobo 11:49, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

No, don't expand them, suggest what we can do about the article. From your quotes, I see discussion about whether Prussia was good or bad, but no discussion about the proposal to rename Berlin-Brandenburg, it is not even mentioned. Your quotes may be relevant for a discussion of the myth of Prussia today (which we don't have right now), but I don't see arguments for or against the renaming in them. Kusma (討論) 13:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
The debate was directely connected to issue of renaming the province.--Molobo 13:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
suggest what we can do about the article.
We should present a view consistent with historical assesment of Prussia, not the current biased glorification of this authoritiarian, intolerant regime that engaged in persecution of milions of its citizens.
--Molobo 13:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
Could you explain this connection? Using your quotes, I can't think of anything about the renaming debate that could be put into the article. About a view consistent with historical assesment of Prussia: intolerant regime that engaged in persecution of milions of its citizens is not a correct historical assessment of Prussia. There was intolerance during some historical periods, and Prussia is cited as a model of tolerance in other historical periods. The "myths of Prussia" link you recently sent me gave a nice and balanced account of how different people glorify or vilify Prussia based on their perception of only parts of its history. Kusma (討論) 13:51, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

About a view consistent with historical assesment of Prussia: intolerant regime that engaged in persecution of milions of its citizens is not a correct historical assessment of Prussia. This is the correct assessment of Prussia. However many try to deny it, due to Prussia's influence on creation of united German state.

Using your quotes, I can't think of anything about the renaming debate that could be put into the article As I said Kusma I don't expect you to do so, I realise you have objections towards putting information about views on Poles in Prussia, or the way they were treated,so I am not pressing you for it. Neverthless such historic facts can't be ignored and in time shall be integrated into the article, if it is to become a neutral and comprehensive one. History of Third Reich isn't complete without mentioning its treatment of Slavs and Jews and their suffering, likewise history of Prussia can't be complete without information about treatment of Poles and their suffering. --Molobo 15:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

or vilify Prussia Could you explain this sentence ? Poles were persecuted, their language forbidden, they were treated in ways that made historians speak about Prussia being an apartheid state. Do you believe this didn't happened and Prussia was "villified" meaning that such portait isn't just and true. I am asking since it seems strange that anybody would need to villify such a state. Its actions speak for itself(like the torture of Polish children in Września for example, or Frederick's hatefull attitude towards Poland, Bismarck statements that Poles must be "ausrotten", a term btw later used in Final Solution of Jews). So i find your statement strange to say the least. Could you explain them ? Thank you in advance. --Molobo 15:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

If you want a quote that is directely responding to calls to restore the name of the infamous Prussia: Ernst Hinrichs remarks that Ideę leżącą u podstaw państwa pruskiego Polacy odbierali od XVIII w. jako zagrożenie dla swej integralności państwowej, a wręcz dla swego istnienia. Wydaje się, że nie jest wygórowanym postulatem, by oszczędzić im na przyszłość przywoływania takich wspomnień". Translation: The idea that lay in fundaments of Prussian state was received by Poles since XVIII as danger to their state's integrity, if not also for their (Polish) very existance. I don't think that it is a very demanding proposition, to spare them in future bringing back those memories. [8] --Molobo 15:55, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Prussia is not good. Prussia is not evil. During some periods of time (which exactly?) Prussia was a relatively tolerant state (at least compared to the rest of Europe, in particular the rather backwards Holy Roman Empire). During some other periods (which exactly?), Prussian politicians pursued a politics of repression against the Polish minority (unlike the Nazis, apparently not as a genocide). I don't have a problem mentioning the general phenomenon in this article, although, since this is an overview article, details like your Polish children have no place in it. Anyway, I would like to see a section that discusses today's views of Prussia, both in Germany and outside of it.
To the topic of the renaming of Berlin-Brandenburg: What I can extract as a possible statement for the article is just "some people argued that the state should not be named Prussia to avoid hurting Polish sensibilities", which is not very much for three so long quotes. I would guess that some people also argued "we don't want to call it Prussia" to disassociate their new state from the image of Prussia as a militaristic aggressor (which exists and is also partly deserved, I would be stupid to deny that). Kusma (討論) 17:33, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Prussia is not good. Prussia is not evil.Generally I am opposed to using such terminology in articles. We should stick to facts rather then opinions(which such terms imply). I would guess that some people also argued "we don't want to call it Prussia" to disassociate their new state from the image of Prussia as a militaristic aggressor Militaristic agression was just part of the problem the image of Prussia had. They are several other reasons and I believe they are important. Mainly the authoritarian nature of Prussia, and its discrimination of other nationalities. --Molobo 18:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC) Prussian politicians pursued a politics of repression against the Polish minority (unlike the Nazis, apparently not as a genocide) Oh such plans were proposed. But I am still collecting data on it and will leave it to later information.

I don't have a problem mentioning the general phenomenon in this article, although, since this is an overview article, details like your Polish children have no place in it. I agree that details like the torture of Polish children should rather be discussed in seperate sub-articles. I however believe there is enough information and issues related to it to create a section about inter-ethnic relations in Prussian state, that would present an overview, and more detailed sub-article about the nature of discrimination of other nationalites within the opressive Prussian state. --Molobo 18:05, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Hey guys.. we should just ignore his bigoted, biased views as from now.. just ignore him..no more comments.. Molobo is most probably "Polish" for "Robotron" the East German Computer.. and we all know how good that was.. IsarSteve 20:35, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

So, basically you say "If he thinks different than us, we should ignore him and force our own view? Interesting." Szopen 12:28, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
That´s not what I meant.. Molobo has an agenda, he tries to show that the Poles as victims, Victims of Prussia.. He never mentions that they were also the victims of the Russians.. No, his agenda is anti-Prussian(anti-German). As I have previously tried to explain, I think it stems from insecurity, due to the fact that Poland is situated on what was German soil. Also from over-bearing propaganda during the communist era in Poland, when there was still a fear that the Germans would someday "reclaim" their territory. That is not possible anymore, so I think it is time to end this sniping, while remebering the atrocities of the past. That is, I mantain, not what he wants.. he wants to keep demonising the Prussians(Germans). If you look my user page, you´ll see that I´ve told him that, as well as mentioning things in current day Poland, that I think are not acceptable for an EU member country. IsarSteve 10:06, 6 June 2006 (UTC) and by the way, there have been occasions, where he has deleted mention of the division of parts of Germany in 1945(todays Poland) from other Wiki pages. So much for free speech! That is why I think it is best to ignore his agitations.
Feigning lack of understanding is not exactly helpful. Molobo is ignored, because he is pushing his POV which is that of Polish nationalism. He has an axe to grind, and he tries to use wikipedia as his platform. -- ZZ 14:03, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

he is pushing his POV which is that of Polish nationalism All of source I presented were from German authors. Such accusations will do you no good. It could argued that what we see here is German nationalism not Polish one. We should avoid such remarks and concentrate on facts. Are you claiming that persecution of Poles in Prussia is the invention of "Polish nationalism" ??

Looking only for information that fits your bias or quoting only the tidbits you like is POV, and that is what we see here.
The page is about Prussia. When the topic should be suppression of national minorities or even minorities of language (including German dialects) in Prussia, Molobo focusses on the "persecution of the Poles" - blatantly showing his POV of Polish nationalism. Of course, he misses the greater picture.
Further, the national minorities or minorities of language were suppressed by many European states at that time. For instance, see the treatment of the Celtic minorities in the United Kingdom or the Basques (and the speakers of languedoc) in France. The patterns are similar. But, no Polish were involved there, hence Molobo does not care for the greater picture.
What we see is: Prussia had a time when it was open to settlers from many countries and cultures. During the rise of the nation state in Europe, the picture changed. At latest at the time of Imperialism, minorities (not just national minorities) were suppressed, with the situation of the Polish in Prussia just being one example.
Yes, I know that Austrian rule was partly different, but it was no real exemption from the rule. There were comments about even the Austrians being suppressed in the Hungarian part of the empire, and the other way round. -- ZZ 08:45, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

The greater picture is that Prussia's had almost 40% of its population composed of Poles at one, and discrimination of 40% of population is certainly notable. Prussia's status was granted by its conquest of Polish people and territory, a fact noted by many non-Polish authors and in fact noted by Prussian politicians themselfs. A large share of Prussian history, its image and historical legacy is involved with its discrimination national minorites, mainly Poles, and conquest of Polish territory. As such it is notable and must be included. The current version of the aricle is glorification of Prussia that sadly may led to conclusion that it was influenced by infamous German nationalism. When the topic should be suppression of national minorities or even minorities of language (including German dialects) in Prussia, Molobo focusses on the "persecution of the Poles" - blatantly showing his POV of Polish nationalism. By ignoring the fact that Poles formed 40% of Prussian population at one time, Prussia rose to power as consequence of its conquest of Polish lands, ZZ shows his POV of German nationalism. See how easy it is ? Please stop such remarks as they led to nothing constructive.

--Molobo 12:29, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Even after an explanation, Molobo Does Not Get It. He does not see the greater picture and returns to his focus on the Polish. As David Hilbert said: a point of view is a mental horizon with a radius of zero. -- ZZ 13:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

You continue to insult me, rather then to discuss facts. Sadly it confirms that you are uwilling to contribute constructive imput into the article. --Molobo 14:12, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Ask a friend to explain it to you. Maybe that will help, no kidding. -- ZZ 14:42, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Please stop personal attacks. --Molobo 14:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

I presented proof in form of an example that Molobo does not understand certain things. He takes that as a personal attack. It is telling. -- ZZ 13:58, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

You haven't adressed the issues and scholary material. Instead you responded: As David Hilbert said: a point of view is a mental horizon with a radius of zero. Maybe that will help, no kidding. None of your statements are connected to issue of Prussia. --Molobo 12:30, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

--Molobo 14:30, 5 June 2006 (UTC) I see you have nothing constructive to add besides personal attacks. I provided statements from several German historians in which even they admit the opressive, authoriorian and agressive nature of Prussian state. --Molobo 21:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)ć

[edit] Symbols

I did some cleanup in the symbols section, but I feel it is now much too long in relation to the rest of the article. Maybe it would be sufficient to mention the modst important symbols of Prussia (the black and white flag and the black eagle) and move the rest to an article on the Prussian coat of arms? Thomas Ruefner 19:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I found the information added en masse here. Normally such large additions look questionable, but I searched Yahoo and Google but found no indication of a copyright violation. I am in the process of moving the information to Coat of arms of Prussia. Olessi 21:09, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Prussian King

As my family ARE the Prussian Royal Family longsiding the direct decendants, as their are no current King of Prussia I am trying to restore our family as the current Head of the House of Hohenzollern and King of Prussia, I may not be wealthy but it is my own family indeed which I have rights too. the rest is as follows...

Prince Augustus William Frederick of Prussia (1722-1758)

Because his older brother had no children, his oldest son inherited the throne as King Frederick William II of Prussia.

"Prince Augustus William of Prussia had a first born missing son William. This is the Current line for the Kings of Prussia."

Prince Augustus William Frederick of Prussia 1722-1758

William Augustus Theodore I Frederick of Prussia

Theodore Augustus William I Frederick of Prussia

William Theodore Alexander II Frederick of Prussia

Alexander Theodore William I Frederick of Prussia

William Alexander Theodore III Frederick of Prussia

Stephen William Alexander Theodore Frederick I of Prussia

Donello Stephen William Alexander Theodore I Frederick of Prussia (Abdicated)

King Fernidad Frederick I of Prussia (Current King of Prussia) 1977-

Prince Ferdinand Frederick I of Prussia 1996-

Is there a way for someone to help in a Wikipedia Article Creation? Some information about Jerome Bonaparte and myself is as following..

King Fernidad Frederick of Prussia was born in Winnipeg, Manitoba. Canada, on December 20th 1977, to the House of Hohenzollern of Prussia. He is the current head of the House of Hohenzollern and King of Prussia. He succeeded the throne upon his birth in 1977 from abdication by his father Donello Frederick.

King Fernidad Frederick is the only son of Donello Frederick and Marie-Jean Lea Gervais (decendant of the great Jerome Bonaparte, younger brother of Napoleon Bonaparte.) King Fernidad attended grammar schools in Winnipeg and completed his education in California, USA.

King Fernidad Frederick is considered by some people to be the lost Frederick family of Prussia prior to the reign of Friedrich of Prussia being closely related to Frederick the Great. External Links The House of Hohenzollern www.houseofhohenzollern.com Thank You - King Fernidad "The Last King of Prussia".

As I said... I may not be wealthy but is my own family indeed which I have rights too. Will you not consider any possibilities for myself and my family? 68.111.191.29 03:06, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Could you please provide some reliable sources to back up your claims that Prince August Wilhelm had an elder son prior to the future Frederick William II, and that explain how he came to be lost and completely forgotten about? Could you also provide some reliable sources that show the genealogical line from this lost prince of Prussia to yourself? We can't simply take your word for it against that of every genealogical reference work in existence. If Frederick William II had an older brother, there is no reason why this older brother would not have succeeded his uncle on the throne in 1786. It would require a very high burden of proof to demonstrate your case. john k 12:29, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I will say that our reliable sources lie in the hands of the Winnipeg, Canada police department as our family's records where combined with adolf hitler's and that Prince August Wilhelm "Auwi" 1887-1949 was a pen-pal along with adolf hitler with our family asking us for the same information. Long story short we were told to leave Canada by the Winnipeg police department in the 80's for these relations and all documents were taken by them. 68.111.191.29 16:28, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not the place for your funny stories. I'm afraid we have to act like the Winnipeg police - removing your information and sending you elsewhere. -- Matthead discuß!     O       19:32, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Please refrain from rude comments as we are having a serious tenchnical conversation. They are not appreciated. 68.111.191.29 20:08, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take that as a "there are no reliable sources for my outlandish, implausible account." Thanks for coming, but this stuff can't go in wikipedia. john k 00:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

But wait there's more... I have a great memory of these documents including hitler's adoption certificate. What type of information are you requesting? I was 9 years old at the time of confiscation, I memorized all of these Prussian documents at first hand at age 9. Even Hitler's Leitchstein Learn Yard School where he was adopted and Prince Augustus Frederick's daughter Wilhelmina had a first born son of William of the Netherlands; Who was the second King of the Netherlands who was the frist King of the Netherlands related to Napolean which I am related to his younger brother Jerome on the female side. 68.111.191.29 02:00, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Wilhelmina, Augustus Frederick's son, did indeed have a son William. This William was, however, the first king of the Netherlands. His wife was another Wilhelmina of Prussia, the daughter of Frederick William II, who was thus the mother of the second king of the Netherlands. Beyond that, I can't make heads or tails of any of this - the clauses you are writing do not seem to make sentences in the usual way, and do not make any sense. john k 03:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

If I uploaded a .Gif format of the Prussian 1700's geneaology you would not believe me, as it is bitter as a dried maple leaf. "Uncopyable" It has already discintrigrated in the 80's... You have to take my word for it under god's name I plead. 68.111.191.29 02:48, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Your supposed family documents are not, in fact, reliable sources in the way that wikipedia understands the term. If the Prince of Prussia had had a son before Frederick William II, there ought to be a great deal of surviving records from the 18th century of his existence. This ought to have been published in major sources. The Almanach de Gotha was in existence from 1763, for instance - why doesn't it record the existence of your unknown ancestor? Why are there no contemporary writings by members of the Prussian royal family that mention this individual (and Frederick the Great, for instance, wrote a lot of letters and such to his sister, to Voltaire, and so forth)? How on earth could it possibly come to pass that all evidence of the birth of an heir presumptive to the Prussian throne would have been destroyed? Was there some kind of conspiracy on behalf of the future Frederick William II? If so, why? Why would anybody care? The case here is incredibly implausible, and if all you have to offer us is some incomprehensible story about how the Canadian police have seized all your family documents, you can't expect anybody to take it seriously. We, in fact, do not have to take your word for it, and we will not do so. I would suggest that you go somewhere else with this bizarre crusade. Possibly to a therapist. john k 03:19, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Frederick the Great: "The Frenchman" http://usa.usembassy.de/etexts/ga1-860606.htm William F. G. de Taulemeier as signed at the bottom. (DIFFERENT REAL SURNAME FROM FREDERICK) My argument is that we are the original Prussian Royal Family. Does it not seem odd that we keep changing names none the less their is no other "King of Prussia" than "King Fernidad Frederick of Prussia" enough said.

If you were to ask the "Queen of England" her representation for the Kingdom of England She could not produce any Hence: She is of the GERMAN HOUSE OF SAXE COBURG-GOTHA of Germany UNDER PRUSSIA.

My bottom line is this: Silly we Monarchs are all related in Eurpoe we do question those one another for legistisimal purposes which are 99% correct.

KING FERNIDAD FREDERICK OF PRUSSIA HENCE: IS The TRUE Current related King of Prussia Heriditary wise none the less of Prussia. 68.111.191.29 03:56, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

This has gone past being amusing to just being sad. Go get some help, and stop trying to put this incoherent nonsense on wikipedia. john k 04:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

JUST STOP ME! King Fernidad Frederick of Prussia There is nothing you can do! 68.111.191.29 04:09, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Please visit http://www.houseofhohenzollern.com for more info. Thank You 68.111.191.29 18:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Page restructure?

This has been discussed before, but maybe it is time to discuss it again: should this page be reorganised? At the moment, this page concerns itself almost completely about Prussia's history and therefore does not give room for much else - as commented by those working on the coat of arms, legacy and symbols section. In the past, these extra features were not so heavilly worked on so there was no need to reorganise this page. But now it is perhaps time to do something. In order to give room for people to discuss topics other than Prussia's history, I propose that the bulk of this page be moved to History of Prussia (currently just a redirect to here), and that the history be condensed to fit this page. Any thoughts? - 52 Pickup 22:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Clarification of first unification of Brandenburg and East Prussia

This part of the history section was poorly written and therefore seemed too long. However, it is a compelling story if told correctly, and an exemplary case of the importance of dynastic succession in European power politics. Through luck, at the time of the Reformation the head of the (celibate) Teutonic Knights was a Hohenzollern. Whether he converted and dissolved the Teutonic Knights out of anything more than religious conviction is impossible to say. However, as a result, two lines of Hohenzollerns ruled Prussia proper and Brandenburg, respectively, for two generations before they were finally joined through marriage in 1618. Thus began the history of Prussia as a viable state. I rewrote it to make this history clearer. All my information comes from the highly readable Rise and Fall of Prussia by Sebastian Haffner (trans. Ewald Osers).

A few other points: I added a few sentences to make clear that, after this unification, the term Prussia came to mean all the Hohenzollern territories rather than historic Prussia east of the Vistula, which I sometimes referred to as "Prussia proper" to make the distinction. I also added a reference of German settlement as far east as the Memel River. This is the German name for the river, so it may be changed to its current name, the Nemen.

I would vote to keep the history. Prussia as a separate state existed from only about 1618 to 1870, when it became a piece of the larger German Reich. It was dissimilar to most other European states, which instead centered on a single nation of people (England for the English, France for the French, Sweden for the Swedes, etc). Until the 19th century wave of nationalism across the German speaking lands, Prussia was not particularly limited to one ethnicity. Rather, the Prussian state was the vehicle of an ambitious family, the Hohenzollerns, utilizing the means of power during that period -- dynastic succession and war -- to piece together an efficient, powerful little state. In other words, much of the story of Prussia is the history of this or that war and this or that territorial gain.

Cbmccarthy 15:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

I think "Prussia" is used to refer to the whole entity only after 1701. Prior to that, it's normally still "Brandenburg" or else "Brandenburg-Prussia". john k 16:27, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Also, Prussia was still a sovereign kingdom between 1871 and 1918, and was still arguably a "separate state" (if a subnational one) until 1947. john k 16:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I don't disagree with you. I made some edits to my statement above, and to the article, to be more clear.

Cbmccarthy 14:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Over in WikiProject Prussia, there has been some discussion regarding the restructuring of the presentation of Prussia's history throughout its various incarnations (discussion thread). I still maintain that the history section of this page now (in its current form) is both incomplete (as discussed here) and too big (making it hard to present a clear-flowing article that presents more than just history). A separate "History of Prussia" page is definitely needed, in order to make it possible to describe in full the evolution of Prussia over time. Quite right, Prussia is unusual compared to other states in its complexity, and so enough space should be dedicated to it. I have expanded the Kingdom of Prussia entry and created the Free State of Prussia entry to assist in this task. To help in the restructuring of this article, proposed drafts should probably be worked on within WP Prussia. - 52 Pickup 14:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Thank You

Hi everyone, I'm just dropping by to give a large, emphatic Thank You! to all of you who have improved this article so very much. I remember it in several states, most of which were basically pig-styes (the Disambiguation page was at least neat & tidy). It lifts my heart to see such a wonderful article here, as such a great nation deserves. And to see a WikiProject for Prussia! Even Better! I'm considering joining. Thank You! Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png Canæn Image:Icons-flag-scotland.png 08:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/r/u/Talk%7EPrussia_a184.html"