Talk:Warmia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Contents

[edit] 24.x.x.x

24.x.x.x I am starting to be fed up with you. "According to Polish agitators...", "trying to conquer Prussia in 997...".. What conflicts and skirmished were in 997? Give some PRIMARY sources. St. Adalbert was martyred, not killed in open warfare, as you seem to imply. And, for the last time, CULMERLAND (Ziemia Chelminska) was part of Poland since AT LEAST 1065 (first written mention of the city), while archeological findings confirm presence of Polish tribes since many, many decades earlier. Do you think after AT LEAST 150 years (if you would just count the years after first written mentioning) it was still "Prussian" ?? If you will continue to refuse to discuss and insist on adding such information, I will revert you without warning. Szopen 08:48, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Prussians "killed or reduced to the status of serfs"

Hm.. while extremely popular view, I am not sure whether this is true. I am quite sure that there were a lot of free Prussian peasants and quite a few free Prussian knights; Conquest were very brutal, true, but TO wanted to rule over the lands _and_ people, not just over barren and desolated remnants of burned villages... Someone with more knowledge on this could maybe elaborate, so we could change this sentence in the article? Szopen 12:36, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits about warmia

  1. ) Was bishop of Warmia directly under the pope (I think he was in XIII century) or was it part of Polish province - needs checking
Seems that yes. I will rpepare more info
  1. ) Culmerland -> the discussion about it does nto belong to this artcile, but note Culmerland WAS part of Poland for at least one century before arrival of TO (appearance of Culm in sources), butmore surely for at least TWO centuries (archeological findings). OTOH, the settlements in Culmerland/Ziemia chelminska were sparse mainly as results of constant Prussian raids. Probably settlements were limited to southern part of the province. Note also that TO received also some few villages in Kujawy, which of course never were part of Prussia.
  2. ) Cooperation of bishops with TO: there is case of Tungen, who defended independency of bishopry and cooperated with TO. He was defeated and had to recognise Polish king as his suzerain. Any other cases? All other bishops I am aware of were not cooperating with TO, and starting with Watzenrode were strictly cooperating with Polish king. This is especially seen in Watzenrode, who was choosen because he was seen as "hawk", but instead he became supporter of Polish king.
  3. ) Prince-bishop or bishopry? The Warmia seems had not received title of prince. The title was used only once or twice in XV century. It was then used in the phrase as "the country is large as quasi duchy" in Kromer. In XVIII century German historian from Pomorze, Lengnich (sp?!) wrote that bishops were using the title of prince when contacting with foreigners and their subjects, but never with contacts with Polish crown, since Polish crown was not recognising the title.
  4. ) Independent or dependent? In Treaty of Torun it was incorporated as whole (with whole Prussia) into kingdom of Poland. However, until treaty of piotrkow indeed Warmia tried to limit polish influence as much it could. Only finally after 1512 such tryings were finally stopped. Surely Kopernik had to oath to be loyal to Polish king and his descendants (if my latin is good). Surely also Warmiaks tried to create the fact of separate WARMIAN indigenat, but I am not sure how much they were succesful.
subjects of the Warmia's bishops had right to go to king's courts; but this right was taken from them in 1655 and was used only few times before. They had to pledge oath of loyalty to Polish king; but in 1507, when asked for confirming the taxes which were made by Polish and Prussian parliaments, the estates of Warmia answered that they are not bound by them, since their lord is bishop only and they are not king subjects (!!!)
  1. ) Extermination of Prussians: had not happened. TO were brutal, but not genocidal maniacs. Remember besides that in XV century there existed two castes of free Prussians: free peasants and IIRC free Prussian knights.
  2. ) Union of Lublin: what were exactly legal results of UoL on Warmia? I know about the results for Royal Prussia, but Warmia?
  3. ) ... were nto recognised by Prussia. Prussia at that time was Polish vassal, and at least two times in history was almost incorporated into Poland too (last time in the beginning of XVI century, when pro-Polish faction in Ducal Prussia proposed the project of joining Duchy of Prussia into Poland). Why it is relevant and why it should recognise it at all? Was it, for example, recognised by Moldavian princes?

Szopen 10:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Why don't you read the links on the Wikipedia Warmia article, especially the Polish one from the Warmia Dome http://www.domwarminski.pl/content/view/369/507/

That might encourage all you Polish Patriots to make the Wikipedia Warmia and other articles a little more factual. MG 2/14/2006

Well, this article has few facts: that in XIII-XIV century bishops of Ermeland were ALWAYS faithful allies of TO (not true, look at the development of 13-years war); And you should also check the text of the 1466 treaty, where it is stated right in the text that bishopry of Warmia will be part of Polish kingdom (more precisely: that it will subjected to, under government, and under protection of Polish king... that all rights we have will be given to Polish king Kazimierz, all his descendants and Polish kingdom...)
You could read also Polish authentic wilkierz from end of XVI century, for Polish inhabitants of Olsztyn (Allenstein - budnicy, that is proletariat, who had no citizenhsip of the city and lived in suburbias) which proves, that there were many Poles in Warmia already in XVI century, before "industrial times"
You could also read there letter written by own hand by Mikolaj KOpernik, who wrote to Polish king (asking for help with raubritters) addressing him as "our lord and our king" and titling himself "loyal servants" of Polish king.
Also, the maps from XVI century, showing Royal Prussia as "Pomerellia"
Polish version of the article is totally different from english version. It seems English version is simply copied from somewhere, without anyone caring about what is inside. Polish version states that "times, when Warmia was part of Polish kingdom were most fruitful in Warmia's history" etc etc.

One and one, Warmia WAS part of Polish kingdom, and clearly Kopernik thought that Polish king is his "lord" and "suzerain" and that he and others are subjects of Polish king. When stating in the letter to king that "bounded by your edict" capitule in Warmia started fighting against raubritters he also clearly showed that he thinks Warmia is bound by edicts of Polish kings.

Of course, Warmia was also authonomous region, which was very jellous about its own privileges. Polish kingdom was NOT centralised state. E.g. you had duchy of Siewierz under command of bishops of Cracow (who bought it so they could use the title of prince-bishops), authonomous cities, regions... you cannot compare it to modern centralised states.

Szopen 10:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, fast and short quiz: who, when and about who said this words: [he is treated in Poland] "nicht wie ein auslandicher Fuerst... sonder wie eyn guter Pole und einheymyscher dieses Landes"

...maybe about one of the Dukes of Prussia, I don't know... Space Cadet 12:16, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Close enough. 1559, Sigismund August about Albrecht.

Szopen 12:09, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copernicus allegiance

Who knows Latin here? I have books about documents about Copernicus. Unfortunately, onkly abstracts are in Polish and the rest is in Latin. One in abstract is described as Warmia canons taking oath of lyalty to king of Poland, Sigismund. If translated, it should end once and for all the discussion about to whom Copernicus swear loyalty. In other abstract, Polish text says that canons of Warmia/Ermeland described themselves as loyal subjects of POLISH KING, but again, my latin is very limited. I may scan both photos of documents (but they are of much lower quality that I had expected) and latin text in the book.. Szopen 11:47, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, why not? Halibutt 12:41, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Scans are here: http://www.cs.put.poznan.pl/adanilecki/kopernikana.zip

Szopen 09:40, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map of Prussia including Ermland/Warmia around 1547

by Caspar Henneberg [1] This Prussia map was used by many mapmakers for over 100 years. Ermland/Warmia in located in the center of Prussia (this in in reply to Szopen's entry on Wikipedia Warmia map ref. location of Prussia incl Ermland /Warmia to the north of Poland). MG

Warmia was not "north from kingdom of Poland" since it was RIGHT IN THE KINGDOM OF POLAND. Warmia was part of Polish kingdom, authonomous part, but nevertheless the Warmia inhabitants were putting and oath of loyalty to Polish kings and considered themselves the suibjects of Polish king (even if fiercefully defending their local privileges and authonomy.Szopen 11:56, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Szopen, on the Prussia map 1547 [2], click on bottom right to enlarge and you can clearly read Cujavia Major Polonia south of Prussia incl. the Danzig territory. You can also see Masovia south of Prussia, which until that time was an independent country, but was in the 16th century annexed by Poland.

As the map and many others of that time show, the name of the country is PRUSSIA, NOT POLAND. Whatever political arrangements there were amongs the imperials/royals of Europe is immaterial , the name is Prussia. The Ermland/Warmia part in the center of Prussia was an exempt Prince-Bishopric, the exempt means, that it stood directly under the pope, the Prince-Bishopric means, that, whoever the Prince-bishop was, he was a prince of the empire and the official name of the country is Prussia. You along with a bunch of other Polish people like Space Cadet, Molobo, seem to feel yourself entitled to wrongfully change a whole lot of German-language location and peoples' names. You constantly falsify Wikipedia - You, Szopen and likewise seem to think you have more authority than the emperor or the pope - MG 1-28-2006

What are you talkin about? "Major Polonia" is the name of the Greater Poland, that is geographical entity. No one claims the region wasn't called Prussia - it was. So you could say the Warmia was north from Masovia, or north from Greater Poland, but not north from kingdom of Poland. In the same time it was not independent country. Prince-Bishop was not directly under the pope, as it was under Polish rule. Emperor nor pope had no authority over Polish kingdom. Similarly Prussia was authonomous region inside Polish kingdom. In XVI century major part of the authonomy was liquitaded, but it has nto ceased to be indenependent country, because it never was independent country in the first place.

First, why Prussia was part of kingdom of Poland?

  1. The treaty of Torun clearly stated that it was incorporated into Polish kingdom (as whole).
  2. The treaty stated that the TO and Poland witll seek of confirmation of the treaty to emperor and pope, but in the same time Polish side forced the inclusion of the sentence, that since confirmation is not needed for the treaty validity
  3. The Prussian dignitaries received places in Polish parliament, though they were nto using that privilege until XVI century.
  4. The Prussians had to oath to Polish king, not duke of Prussia. I am waiting until I will receive the book with photocopies of oath of officials from Warmia/Ermeland, when I will get it, I will put it somewhere in the net.
  5. Polish king received the title of duke of Prussia, just as he had the title of duke of Masovia etc. This was a title - every Polish king had such title, there was no separate ceremony to get this title, and the documents in Prussia were given as the Polish king, not duke of Prussia. Similarly, in GDL, Polish king was giving the documents as Grand Duke of Lithuania, while he had in the same time the title of duke of many, many lands. For example duke of Zhmudz and Livonia in later times.
  6. When emperor was dying, in Hamburg there was day of mourning. In Danzig/Gdansk only sent official letter with condolencies. When Polish king died, Gdansk/Danzig had day of mourning - clearly it considered Polish king, not emperor its overlord

What Prussia would have to do to be indepenendent country (say in personal union with Poland)

  1. treaty of Torun should not state Prussia is part of Polish kingdom
  2. King of Poland would have to have separate ceremony to become duke of Prussia, or there should be separate document which would allow to overcome it.
  3. King of Poland, when issuing documents in Prussia, would have to give documents as duke of Prussia
  4. Prussia would have to have separate army, treasure and offices <- and only this last part was fulfilled, however it, on alone, was not sufficient. In medieval times many lands were having separate armies, treasures and offices. Medieval states were very decentralised.
  1. The "indygenat" is not sign of indenepdency. It was normal privilege given to different lands in medieval times. E.g. in Ducal Prussia pro-Polish opposition was accusing the Hohenzollerns about breaking indygenat, because they were nominating Germans from outside Prussia.
  1. Bishop of Warmia needed the confirmation from Polish king to use the title of prince. Later, since 1512 it is even more clear - Kapitual sent whole list of their member to king, send them to king, he choosed four from them and then capitule was chossing one from this four for bishop (who then get the seat in Polish senate and had to of course put oath to Polish king). Warmia fiercefully defended its privileges. Especially Tungen was trying to get independency, but after short war he was forced to recognise Polish king as his sovereign, and put oath of loyalty to Polish king. Capitule was forced to promise to always choose as a bishop someone who would be "well-seen by the king". Because the wording of this were inprecise, against kings will Watzenrode was choosen after Tungen's death, and he was declared as "well-seen by the king" because he was closely cooperating with Zbigniew Olesnicki, and because his father fought on Polish side during 13-years war. In 14?4 he puth an oath to the king. He was seen as another partisan of independency of Warmia, but he quickly lost the support of capitule because in fact he was working on making ties with Poland stronger and was supporting actively most king's Olbracht projects. After him Fabian Luzjanski was chosen, close collegue of Kopernik/Koppernigk, last bishop who was choosen without previous appointment by the king. After he was choosen in 1512 in Piotrkow final decision about how bishops will be chosen were given. Fabian was also closely cooperating with Polish king, which caused that he was involved in war with TO.
  2. As for Culmerland, this was not conquered from Prussians. Polish settlements date in that area to 200 years before TO came here. This was always territory sparsely inhabited, and without clear borders, but it was part of Poland. First mentioning the name "ziemia chełmińska" - of course not in Polish spelling, but in some latin forms - date from XII century, 100 years before TO came here. Archeological findings (http://www.allianz.pl/x_main.php?id_kategorii=669) include roman-styled catholic church from first half of XI century. Can't you get it? Culmerland/Ziemia Chełmińska in the sources from the beginning appears as part of Polish state, no mentions about getting it from Prussians.

http://www.chelmno.info/stadtgeschichte.html. There is no point in inventing your own history, ignore the sources and archeological finding and trying to imply this was Prussian land. Maybe it was, but if it was, then it was long before TO came here. _At least_ 200 years before.

You seem not to understand the specifics of pre-modern states. Kingdom of Poland was decentralised state in XV century, with almost each land with separate laws and privileges, where each land was defending those privileges, yet in the same time being fiercefully loyal to Polish KINGDOM. The whole union in XVI century was simply centralisation of the state, unification of the laws and privileges, not "incorporation" of Prussia and other provinces into Poland. It had nothing to do with nationalism or ethinicity. the leaders of opposition in XVI century in Prussia, Dzialynscy, were recent newcomers from Greater Poland, and yet were defending the authonomy of Prussia (not denying however that Prussia IS part of Polish KINGDOM).

Szopen 10:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Nice speech, Szopen, and I'm sure you can come up with Polish language articles somewhere, that echo, what you have written. But all that only reflects current Polish POV.

Here is

Nyah, we all know that Prussia was independent. It governed itself, made alliances for itself, had its own kings, queens, aces and jacks... er... wrong fable, I guess. Halibutt 03:43, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, sure Prussia was independent. However, this independent Prussia emerged from the fief-state of Ducal Prussia which first was subject to the Polish crown but later (1701) succeeded in rejecting this dependency and creating Kingdom of Prussia. As you can see on the maps, Warmia/Ermland was a part of Royal Prussia, ie. its western part which was a part of Poland after the Second Treaty of Torun/Thorn. I hope my explanation will help. 85.221.134.193 13:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for explanation. My God! Good you have contributed to our discussion, confuting all clapperclawers! See, Halibutt, you were wrong! I hope user 85.221.134.193 will join our discussion more often! And the point is: READ the whole discussion before commenting on someone's sarcastic few lines at the end of it. Szopen 13:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Warmia on Map of Magnus Prussia Ducatus in 1690

[3], click on bottom right to enlarge and to (barely) read names. Ermland/Warmia is the small wedge-shaped area in green, nearly surrounded by Ducal Prussia in pink. That should clarify the actual location of Ermland/Warmia.

Is it your understanding or believe that Prussia was Poland, because someone gave an oath to someone connected to the 'Polish Crown' ???

MG 2/2/2006

You seem still not to understand. Royal Prussia, or "Pomerellia", or "Polish Prussia" was part of POLISH KINGDOM, while in the same time being called "Prussia" and being understood as part of geographical Prussia.

You can't use one map as core fundament for your theory. Just see here: http://www.newberry.org/smith/slidesets/images/02-3.jpg Here, somehow Danzig/Gdansk is part of Prussia, and the rest of Royal Prussia is called "Pomerellia" (1570)

And here: http://www.beachmaps.com/map/POLANDORTELIUS2.jpg Map of Poland by Ortelius from late XVI century - Yo uwill see that the whoel region, including ducal Prussia, was just in his opinion part of kingdom of Poland.

http://www.beachmaps.com/map/POLANDBUCELIN.jpg By Bucelin, around 1658; no Prussia at all, he seems to consider it part of Poland. He even marked Stettin/Szczecin as part of Poland.

But look here: http://www.beachmaps.com/map/EUROPECLUVER2.jpg In aroudn 1611, suddenly there is no Poland at all - it is part of "Germania". There is also "Dacia" there etc.

http://www.beachmaps.com/map/POLANDBUFFIER3.jpg Buffier, 1711: Kingdom of Poland .. including even Ducal Prussia, by that time independent country! And Royal Prussia is called, well, Royal Prussia. http://www.beachmaps.com/map/POLANDDUVAL.JPG Du Val 1660. We have ther also Royal Prussia and INDEPENDENT MASOVIA (!) http://www.beachmaps.com/map/PRUSSIAMERCATOR.jpg Mercator from early XVI century, though known from copies from XVII century: there is no Royal Prussia, just Pomerellia, clearly showing as part of Poland. http://www.beachmaps.com/web/POLANDMORDEN.JPG Morden, 1680: "Royal Prussia" aaaand Zhmudz... being part of Duchy of Prussia!

http://www.castlesofpoland.com/prusy/mapy.htm And here, you will see that many maps had not shown borders at all! On one from each you may see Royal Prussia called "pomerssen" or something like that.

And what did those maps tell us? Nothing. Simply, nothing. You think I should argue that in 1680 Samogitia was not part of Lithuania, but of Prussia, because of map of Morden? Or that Masovia was independent country in 1660 because of map from 1660? Szopen 09:46, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old talk

Why, o why there is extraneus info about Copernic which should be in his own entry, there is info about eastern Prussia, and there is no info that Warmia was under Polish rule from 1466 to 17something? szopen

To szopen Warmia or Ermland in Prussia was an exempt bishopric. It was not under Polish rule. It was during that time a seperate state, ruled by the bishop as secular ruler, with highest authority the emperor and the pope. And Copernicus lived most of his life in Ermland and died in Ermland.

It was under Polish rule. Bishops were appointed by Polish kings, like lsat of them, Krasicki. This was confirmed after Tungen affair and so called bishops war (after 13 years war).

BTw, user:H.J., could you please check Thirteen Years' War and add German equivalents of names and maybe change name of German commanders, places and rulers into proper names. I guessed how it would sound in English but i wasn't sure. szopen

To person, who did not leave name and to space-cadet

Removed to talk, see note below:

"The end of Second World War saw the killing of many polish settlers (deported from Polish lands overtaken by Soviet Union) from the hands of the Wehrwolf - military German organization oriented at fighting and killing Polish civilians, largely supported by original German population, especially clergy, which resulted in expulsion of a large number of the East Prussian population, by Polish and Soviet troops. Wehrwolf was active in every region of the Polish "Recovered Lands", earning for itself a very bad fame, by never attacking any military targets."

The only reference to Wehrwolf I found, states: Wehrwolf was the name given to a band of German youths at the end of WW II, who fought as gorillas against Soviet and allied forces in Germany. What you are hinting at, were Polish and other Communist partisans, who accompanied the Soviet Union troops , which overran G e r m a n y and turned it into Poland (what the Polish refer to as 'Recovered Lands", but in actuality it was put under Polish administration) and Soviet Union.

These Polish partisans, many by horse , came in civilian clothes and were an attachment of the Soviet Union Military Army. There were many communists from other countries trained in Moscow already many years before WW II in order to take over as well, (ref Walter Ulbricht). One of them was the Polish NKWD communist ruler Bolesław Bierut. Read his recently translated archive files and read who killed whom in the take-over of the "Recovered Lands", which was really Germany under Polish administration, and the take-over of Poland and of Hungary and of Tchechoslowakia etc. Then read the book by John Sack about who put the German people in camps in Silesia and read Alfred de Zaya's books etc.

The group of individual young people, who were dubbed 'Wehrwolfs' were unarmed civilian youth 15 or younger, who defended their homeland, because there were no men left.

user:H.J.

Wehrwolf was recruited mainly from Waffen SS soldiers who escaped imprisonment, or were left behind the front line in hiding and yes, also from Hitler Youth activists, very well armed and ruthless in their pursuit of defenseless polish settlers forced out of their homes in todays Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine. Because of the support Wehrwolf was getting from the german population of those lands, especially clergy, it was decided to resettle all that population in germany in it's new borders. Was it right, legal or fair? It was perhaps a little more humanitarian, then lock them in ghetto's, send them to concentration camps, kill them publicly in hudreds for each killed Pole, call them "under - people" and use for slave labor.

"Who really killed whom" you say, and then you give me reading material... Well, you probably never read "Mein Kampf", if you trying to blame the Poles for all the evil resulted from WW II. And check that article history - it was JHK who put that stuff back. And finally I didn't sign my name because I was logged in.

TT

To Tirid Tirid:

Nice response, but probably not very politically correct, for the standards of this encyclopedia. See, here you can call people "Commies", accuse them of being brainwashed by Soviet propaganda and everything is OK, they are all legitimate arguments. Once, however, you make a reference to "Mein Kampf", or start bringing back the facts about Nazi terror in Poland, you automatically cross the line, your comment becomes a proof of you being a subject of "Godin's Law" and you become a black sheep of this encyclopedia.

SC

whatever

TT

What the hell does the paragraph beginning "the last paragaph, alludes to..." mean? First, there should be no comma. Second, the preceding paragraph talks about a GERMAN paramilitary group killing Poles, while this paragraph, which purports to explain further, talks about the killing of ethnic Germans by Soviet-backed Poles. Since these are CLEARLY different things, why is this written in a way that can only confuse the issues? JHK, Monday, July 15, 2002

to JHK The person, that added the Wehrwolf sentences brought no date, places names whatsoever. I wrote that there is no info (other than the youth group I quoted) and took it out. It was inserted again and therefore I added information available, which is about the large number of Ukraine civilians killed by Soviet Poles. The Poles call them 'terrorists and Bander...' and want to discredit them by name caling, the same situation is created by someone coming up with 'Wehrwolf getting German support', thereby trying to justify ethnic cleansing (expulsion of original inhabitants from their homelands). These happenenings are clearly interconnected. While they had been started before the end of the war, they continued and really got going, because of the Potsdam Agreement. I will take it out again unless I get some concrete info. user:H.J. Wed July 17, 2002

And I just put it back. Frankly, I am getting a little disgusted by these attempts to whitewash German atrocities in Poland during World War II, the Nazi belief that Poles were untermenschen fit for slave labor only (not to mention what they thought of the Jews), murders, killings, reprisals, ethnic cleansing, the movement of German populations into Polish lands, the deportation of Poles and Jews from their homes, concentration camps, death camps, etc. I am more than a little perturbed at these claims that the real victims were the local Germans. It is the same kind of rhetoric that led to the invasion of Poland in 1939. 6 million Polish citizens died in World War II (4 million ethnic Poles and 2 million Jews). They did not all die as a result of communism, Stalinism, or whatnot. In fact, Hitler had his little pact with Stalin, until he broke it. Germany invaded, Germany lost, Germany was punished. Yes, innocent people suffered. That is the tragedy of war, and the crime of political figures, who lead their people into war. And it is the crime of the people themselves, who elected these leaders. Wehrwolf was not just a bunch of kids playing with cap guns. It was a paramilitary group, including the Hitler Youth and demobilized soldiers and SS. Enough already! You cannot rewrite history. [[user:Danny|Danny]----------------------------- To Danny et al

1.You are mixing up wartime happenings during the war with the planned and authorized (by the allies) expulsions of people from eastern Germany and from Ukraine.

2.How many of population counted as 'Poles' and 'Jews' killed, were actually Germans or ethnic Germans from the German Reich territory of 1918 (or from earlier Holy Roman Empire lands), when a part of the land was 'given' to Poland ref Polish Corridor ? Why, do you think, the majority of European people of Jewish religion spoke jiddish ( a German language) ?

3.You might also want to find out how many of the (ethnic) Germans had been killed before WW II by Poland sending (ethnic) Germans living in the strip of the 'Polish Corridor' on death marshes.

4.These Germans, who became 'ethnic Germans', when that part of the German Reich was 'given' to Poland and were still considered 'ethnic Germans' when it was time for Communist Poland under Bierut for the expulsions in order to take over even more of the German Reich after 1945. Yet by Poland these same 'ethnic Germans' are counted as 'Polish citizens killed', because they happened to live in the part of German Reich land 'given' to Poland at the Versailles Treaty.

To your other points, a.Hitler did not invade Poland, he send troops to the Free city of Danzig. b.Hitler was not elected, he manovered his way in, with the backing of powerful financiers of the world (which strangely is same story with every dictator of the world). Due to the Reichstag having been burned down, dictator Hitler decreed emergency statute and thereby took over completely. The Social Democratic and Prussian Government under Otto Braun was already been put out of office in Berlin and the Soc. Dem party outlawed.

(This brings to mind a strange twist , NY and pentagon have been burned and the emergency war act has taken every right of personal freedom, the Nazi informant and the Communist Stasi is re-incarnated by the call for millions of neighborhood informers. The people did not vote for any of this either.)

We have just read in this wiki, that it was legal for the participants of the Potsdam Conference to order millions of people killed by the Soviet Union and Soviet Polish government in the 'resettlements' of Germans and ethnic Germans on one side and Ukrainians (also counted as Polish citizens killed, because they also lived on land conquered by Poland after WW I) on the other side.

Think about it ! user:H.J.

This is just too warped to even consider seriously. It is not even revisionism; it is either blatant misreperesentation of history or pure stupidity. The Jews (and Poles) killed in Poland were really Germans? Germany did not inititate a blitzkreig against on Sept 1, 1939? This is truly frightening. Danny

Yes Danny just keep sticking your head in the sand, to make sure that many more Balkan ethnic cleansings will follow , and who knows, some day some group will come to you, where-ever you live, and that group will decide, that it is time for you to be 'resettled' (or as it was called in earlier times 'Removal' as in Indian Removal. user:H.J.

Sorry, user:H.J., but it already happened. It was the German invaders of Poland that killed my family. Danny

Danny I am sorry for that and sorry for you too. Perhaps you and I can both see to it that events are truthfully reported. Hopefully then people cannot be manipulated to make war , or at least have the possibility to stop those who wish to make and profit from wars. user:H.J.

Removed the Widewuto bit because this is all legendary -- there really is no proof, which we've discussed before. I left the NPOV stuff, because I just don't want to deal with it and I know others will. The fact is that atrocities were carried out on both sides, as is often the case when boundaries shift and people are forcibly resettled. Both Poles and Germans were guilty of these atrocities, just like both Polish and German Jews were murdered. Nobody can get away from the fact that some ethnic Germans lived in the area quite peacefully before the war, but others came in with the Nazi regime at the expense of Poles. Nobody can claim the moral high ground here, so maybe it would be best to reflect reality?JHK

To user:H.J.

I thought we had an understanding about accusing somebody of being a subject of communist propaganda, in lack of other arguments. I'm not a Communist, I'm not brainwashed, and I'm sick and tired of you constantly using that line on me. Like Danny told you: dont rewrite history! Accept it and live with it!

SC

user:H.J., this is getting to be offensive already. Please, please, please, find out what NPOV is, find out what historical accuracy is, find out what relevant means, then ask yourself if your additions meet all those criteria. If you want to promote your skewed view of history, do it on your own webpage, not here. Danny

What Danny said. And I'm also trying to get some order and grammar into this, which isn't helped when people revert all my changes, including simple ones like organizing the list of Latin and German alternative names at the top into some kind of coherent order.

This is an English-language encyclopedia. That means English grammar matters, and that we are presenting facts, not propaganda. Vicki Rosenzweig 08:56 Aug 4, 2002 (PDT)

to Vicki, on your message, I had taken all my translations of Kersten's words out. I had stated Copernicus' own words, is that propaganda ? Matter of fact I need to restate them in the debate about the nationality, where someone asks for it.

My words alone (minus my translations of Kersten's) were vandalized several times by Danny. It is a shame that wikipedia is vandalized like that. Anyway, I just wanted to let you know.user:H.J.

went back to an older version and aded in some of user:H.J.'s stuff, but rewrote to make NPOV. I am not positive, but I believe the correct spelling of the paramilitariy groups is Wehrwolf -- a play on words from Wehrmacht, or army, and wolf. also added a question -- who ruled here before the Teutonic knights? JHK 14:23 Aug 4, 2002 (PDT)

Removed because it says nothing about Warmia (it should be in Prussia article otherwise):

In 1525 the larger part of Prussia became a Protestant state. The central part, Ermland, and the western part of Prussia remained under Catholic rule for some time.

In 1772, the western Prussian regions were annexed by the Kingdom of Prussia at the time of the first [[Partitions of Poland|Partition of Poland] under Frederick the Great, who named the eastern part of Prussia, East Prussia and the western part Westprussia. East Prussia, now a province of the State of Prussia, led the unification of Germany in 1871.

The last statement is a very odd. There were no Polish nationals living in Ermland. What we do know ist this. The Ermland Bishop Maximilian Kaller had been detained from his office by Nazi SS in 1945. Bishop Kaller then managed to return to his diocese. He was kept from continuing his duties and was expelled by Polish Primas Kardinal August Hlond. Ermland Bishop Kaller, together with his countrymen, was expelled, deported and the land overtaken by Soviet Union and Soviet Poland. Maximilian Kaller made it as a refuge to the rest of Germany, occupied by western allies. In 1946 Bishop Kaller received 'Special Authority as Bishop for the Deported Germans' from Pope Pius XII. Bishop Kaller suddenly died in Frankfurt am Main in 1947.

I'm sorry, HJ -- I have to agree.
  • One, how do we know that there were no Polish nationals in Ermland/Warmia -- and if there weren't, why not? This supports the assertion that the Germans expelled Poles from their homes during the war.
  • Two, As written, it looks like Kaller was detained by the SS and released -- why?
  • What does his detention by the SS have to do with Hlond? As written, it looks like the two things are connected, yet it also seems to say that Hlond was acting with the Soviets
  • Was Hlond acting only on authority granted by the Soviet government? What about thwe pope? Did he object?
HJ, please clarify by answering the questions directly, and not by throwing up a bunch of disconnected information. Thanks. JHK

To Zoe, that odd statement and the info is for JHK. It is alright for you to take the odd out I am referreing to your condensing it to read: The Ermland Bishop Maximilian Kaller had been forced from his office by the Nazi SS in February 1945. Bishop Kaller was expelled and deported to West Germany. In 1946 he received 'Special Authority as Bishop for the Deported Germans' from Pope Pius XII. He died in Frankfurt am Main in 1947. You have changed the content by this condensation. This is what I have to put back in. Please leave it for JHK, as she requested. Thanks.

The other part with all the changing (Frauenburg etc. You are absolutely right. A group of us have worked long and hard on all these facts and I brought many proofs to get it stated the way it was.

I will just stay off this for now.

user:H.J.

This was in the middle of all the post-1945 stuff -- didn't make sense there.

Poland agitated to get this part of Prussia annexed to Poland. The League of Nations held elections in West and East Prussia on July 11, 1920 in order to find out if the people wanted to remain with Prussia in Germany or to become Polish. The results of the 1920 elections in West Prussia were 92,42% for Germany, 7,58% for Poland. The results for East Prussia were 97,86% for Germany and 2,14% for Poland. Poland nevertheless received German land, then called the Polish Corridor.

JHK

About the removed pragraph:

First of all - There was never a plebiscite in "West Prussia". Second - people voted between Poland and Prussia(Pussia as a separate Kingdom), not Poland and Germany. Third - during the plebiscite, the currently advancing Soviet Army was on the Vistula line, they had a peace pact with Germany, and they were ready to invade any territories, that would belong to Poland as a result of the Plebiscite. So the major motivation for people to vote the way they voted, was to keep the Soviet hordes, known for brutality, away of their homes. It had nothing to do with nationality. Polish National organizations were the strongest in East Prussia, even stronger, than in Silesia.

Thanks for removing this paragraph, JHK. It doesnt make sense in the post 1945 period, or in any other period.

SC

I put this under Kaller, but thought it should also go here:

This Is very interesting -- another one of those "not the whole truth" things. According to Kaller's online biography, he was at best a very politically naive man who seemed oblivious to the downside of the Nazis. Apparently, his tenure in Ermland was from the beginning troubled. There was resistance because he wasn't a local, and he made repeated faux pas that offended lots of people. He was pretty avid in forcing his Polish parishioners to participate in German-language liturgy. At the end of the war, he claimed the Heimatvertriebene were not victims, but God's chosen. Some of these latter parishioners have tried to put his name forth for canonization.

On the other hand, Hlond is also an interesting character. He was ousted from Poland from the Nazis. He returned at the end of the war, when as primate of Poland, he ousted Kaller. He would clearly have been within his rights to do so. From the articles I read (and there are few that aren't in Polish), it seems he ousted Kaller in part because he was seen to have been on the side of the Nazis. Interestingly, Hlond was also very active in standing up to the Soviet repression of the Church in Poland. So, his motivations are not entirely clear, but may have had less to do with any inherent unfairness than as a response to a Bishop who was already unpopular among many parishioners and who would not have been able to keep any real authority after the war. Hlond's record vis à vis the Jews in Poland is pretty bad, but typical of many clerics of the time. His name has also been put forth for beatification, not just by a small minority. Personally, if the Yad Vashem site is correct, I'd have second thoughts about that. Hlond was instrumental in setting up ministries for displaced Poles after the war, though. JHK

HJ - although I admit there is room for more research on the topic, what I found out and described above (on several websites, most pretty NPOV) leads me to believe that the version of the Kaller/Hlond thing is somewhat biased. I therefore removed it until we can make sure it's neutral JHK


I am getting now a bit worried.

I.) User Szopen:

:Errr, i thikn you mistake me with someone else. I have never wrote words below. I htink it was either Cautious or Space Cadet, but not sure. Szopen 14:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

"Wehrwolf apologisers propaganda reworded"

You did, in the explanation to your edit - didnt you ? Chris

Szopen, what anyway has this Werwolf stuff to do here in Wiki ? It does not sound

Again, these are not my words. Szopen 14:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

authoritative to me - just some lame excuses. Let us remove it completely. Even more as it sounds that only the Germans killed poor unsuspecting polish settlers. I wonder, where this unsuspecting polish settlers came from ? Did they move in in that moment the russians destroyed the german army in east prussia ? Did they come just 7 or 14 days behind the fighting troops ? Do you actually believe that ?

I might add, that the Wehrwolf thing is to a good degree just that: A constructed excuse. Wehrwolf did never work to the extent some people portray it here. It was usually some 15-y old youts as well as 60 year old men, who certainly did not have the fighting power and will which is attributed to them. And yeah, this old tale of SS-Soldiers assigned to them - dont you think these soldiers were much more needed elsewehre within the normal army ? And do you also believe, that "the bulk" of Wehrwolf was made of SS-Soldiers who escaped POW'ship ? Oh my.. How have they been supposed to find Wehrwolf "units" ? And anyway, was there so much population left to support Wehrwolf, as you and others claim ? And the joke is: directly form this alleged (!) support of the alleged (!) Wehrwolf the right to expel the german population left, is derived. Do you really, actually, believe that the complete expulsion of the Germans was not planned before..?

Anyway. The Polish people did, of course, not kill any German civilians.... or did they too ? Or have they even been morally entitled to kill Germans, as "they" started the war ?

Polish people, of course DID kill German civilians. The difference is, that this cases were much less numerous, did after the Germans killed hundreds of people (though i think that to some that did not matter - there is special class of people in every nation who are using whatever pretext they could find to rob else's property), and this was not state-sponsored. But still there were a crimes.
Anyway, this is not to me.Szopen 14:00, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

II.) User Space Cadet:

Do you know what the term "annexing" means ? It means to take over someones territory without the agreement of that entity. The Munich dictate, for example, was such a thing. Czechoslovakia did in fact agree after the Munich conference, but: it was forced to do so. Germany did not even under threat agree to East Prussia handed over to Poland and Russia. She was simply not asked, the victors decided: East Prussia belongs to Poland and Russia from now on. Please note as well, that not without reason these Territories were "placed under polish/russian ADMINISTRATION" officially.

To conclude: Poland DID annex these territories, for it was a one-side thing. Had Germany agreed to surrender territory to Poland, it would not have to be called by this term. Again: "annexation" is a legal term which applies here. If you like it or not.

Your remark "Post-war Poland had neither the will or the resources to "annex" anything" shows quite clearly that you dont like the sound of "annexing" and have at the same time no knowledge about its meaning.

"To annex" is an active verb, therefore it implies action on the part of the word used as a noun. Poland never took any action to receive those territories, nor did it show any will to do so. It cannot be a "ONE-SIDE THING" since neither Poland nor Germany had anything to say about the border shift. Poland "was given" or "received" those territories, but did not "annex" anything. (By the way, grammatically speaking - "to receive" is also an active verb, yet it is clear by common sense that "receiving" doesn't require one's action, will or approval).
To conclude: Poland and Germany were both victims of World War II and its consequences. Germany had lands taken away from it, so did Poland, but it was also given some other lands. To say that Poland annexed German lands is not just poor wording or slight distortion of truth - it is a straight forward lie intended to portray Germany as a victim of Polish aggression.
So please don't patronize users on their knowledge of English language and don't make up "legal definitions" of your own to justify your bias and ignorance.
Space Cadet 15:49, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

See also: Oder-Neisse line. Space Cadet 17:18, 1 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, Space Cadet,


i do not have the intention to "straight forward lie" about history. Nor do i have the intiontion to "patronize users on the knowledge of english language". Nor do i want to "justify own bias and my ignorance". Having said that, let me explain a bit more in detail.

We do have two slightly different interpretations of "annex". You insist, that grammatically it is an active word and therefore Poland had to be active to annex something. (At the same time, you bring an example where an active word does not require action from the person using it - makes me wonder if it is only about grammatics) I maintain, that annexing means taking over someones territory without asking. Well, we can both agree to these interpretations - i guess so. Still, what interpretation to emphasize ?

I see very well your point that Poland was the junior partner and had in fact no significant say on the new borderlines to be drawn. However, why do i deny an only passive role of Poland, why do i use a word like "annex" which implies indeed at least a little bit of action ? Because the Polish People felt in these days, that Germany had to pay for the atrocities committed against them. They felt a lot of hate, built up during the war and occupation. And indeed, they made Germany pay. Polish citizens, not only communists but also ordinary people, made suffer the refugees traveling from the former german territories to now-Germany a lot, while it was official Polish policy to expulse all Germans which did not commit themselves to being Poles, let it even be Masurs or not. The full and bureaucratic complete takeover of the former german eastern territories was in a planned manner facilitated, as official Polish policy.

THIS is the point where i must disagree with your view, that Poland was only a victim of WWII. Poland took revenge, understandably, but still it took revenge on Germany by systematically expulsing all Germans in own responsibility - usually not in a very nice and clean way, such as the official word "transfer" used in the Potsdam decisions and elsehwhere is suggesting to us.


Conclusio: There was indeed decisive Polish action in the takeover of these lands. It was not given lock, stock-and-barrel to a surprised, not-expecting-this Poland by the Soviets. You might ask at this point, alright, but could have Poland declined these lands ? Well, it possibly could have. But it did certainly NOT want to do so. And if it had wanted some compromise it could have left the german population there, at least the population which stayed and did not flee, or even parts of them. Or, it could have at least given better conditions (read: conditions who made more people survive the treck) to the Germans expulsed. It did not so. Why ? Well, i mentioned it - inevitable hate accumulated, caused by German actions during the war. So - there was as sure as hell Polish active participation.


Another example: the eastern Part of Poland was annexed by the Soviet Union as a result of the Hitler-Stalin pact and Hitlers Attack on Poland. It was conquered if i remember correctly, mainly by german forces because Hitler wanted to give it to his buddy Stalin as "present". So the only action required by Stalin was to send troops in to mop up the remaining resistance and formally declare theses lands soviet lands. Of course, also some bureaucrats and NKVD to send in. You would, i assume, despite the limited soviet action not hesitate to call it an annexation...

You remember it wrong. Soviets fought with KOP and few regular battles, however most of armies in eastern part of Poland were ordered to avoid battles and were withdrawing to the south. Germans reached almost no territory outside of Molotov-Ribbentrop line. Szopen 07:13, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Okay, so i reword my statement:
"Hitler finished off Poland in military terms, Stalin had only to bag in Eastern Poland. Still, you would call that an annexation by Russia, would'nt you ?" Chris
Okay, so much for "to annex". What is the alternative used in so many Wiki-Articles ? Usually such as "Poland was given.."


By wording like "Poland received" or "was given" we imply besides the fact that Poland was rather passive in the process of transfer ( Alright, why not, as indeed the SU was after all responsible ), also that Poland rightfully received territories by someone. THIS is the point i have a problem with. Even more when it goes like this "Poland was given by the Potsdam Conference..." or even better, "Poland regained".


"received back" or "regained" are just as much distortions of history. Every conqueror created legends to justify the conqest. The Germans in their expansion to the east did so by maintaining their cultural superiority over the slavs, the Poles after WW II by declaring these lands ancient slavic territory, which was rightfully and only logically regained.

Chris, while early expansio in say X or even XI century may be exaplined by "cultural" superiority, most of territories acquitred were on the west side of Oder. The rest of territories were gained either via brutal conquest (Gdansk areas, Ziemia Lubuska) or by Germanisation set as official policy of state (Silesia - BTW i just've read the opinion that if not Frideric the Great conquest, Silesia would evolve into separate Polish-speaking nation, just as Austria is separate German-speaking nation). There was of course also colonisation, but Germans settled in greatest numbers territories which already were best developed (Silesia). Not sure whether "slavs" and "Germans" is intentional, or just mistake during fast typing. Also, revenge of Poles can't be quite compared to policy of Nazi Germany during war. It is comparable - to some extent - to Nazi expulsion of close to million Poles from areas annexed into Third Reich and from Zamojszczyzna Szopen 07:07, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
Well, i dont want to compare sufferings during the war. I only want to mention them clearly, and due to the fact that Poland was on the winning end of the war (sort of) but certainly Germany not, was naturally responsible that Polish participation in the killings of many ordinary german civilians after the war was not mentioned at all. Again, i do not inted to compare this with other things. I just want this fact to be mentioned, if possibly without any clause straight behind like "but what THEY did to us was much worse..."

Concerning "slavs" vs. "Germans" you will notice that i wrote Poles with a capital letter at the beginning. So, be assured, i do not want to belittle Slavs - silly thought actually, it is simply an old english-problem of mine... BTW: Was'nt Polonization an official policy of Poland concerning the "regained territories" after 1945 ? Sure it was, no big deal, but it shows every coin has two sides... Chris

To sum up, i see the point that "annex" is implying at least some active role. I tried to explain, that there WAS also an active role of Poland in the takeover, it is not possible to see ( in the takeover of these lands !) Poland only as passive victim which just got some land. So, i believe indeed the term "annex" to be justified, but most certainly not a "lie" as Space Cadet liked to call it. Still, i do not mind using other language, as long it is not implying that these territories were legally correct obtained. This does have nothing to do with the fact, that these territories are finally with the german reunification accepted as Polish territory by Germany. Anyway, they were obtained by a lost/resp. won war, nothing exceptional in history. But please, let us also call this (unfortunately!) traditional event of taking over someones territory by force the right way. Not necessarily annexing, but certainly not "receiving" or even "regained" as Space Cadet likes it to be called.

Chris

And Chris likes to put words in my mouth. No matter how many times I explain that the name "Regained territories" was invented by the communist regime, to hide the obvious fact that people expelled from Eastern Poland were in fact resettled in foreign land, whose inhabitants were already removed, Chris always tries to make me look like some chauvinist, Germanophobic, Polish Nazi. It is the official name of those lands and we even have an article here, bearing the same title. Everybody knows that a sea lion is not a lion or even a feline, but that's its name, get it?

As far as the word "annexed" is concerned, fine, stick it in the Oder-Neisse line article and see what happens. If people buy it, I'll buy it. Or maybe just read the article first. What's wrong with "receiving"?

It's not the matter of "but what THEY did to us was much worse...". It's just a simple fact of keeping proportions. If we were spending proportionally the same time-space for every Pole that suffered because of WW II and its consequences, as we spend for every German, then quite frankly every article remotely concerning modern Central Europe would contain mostly information about Polish "holocaust" and very little less. On the other hand, if we wanted to describe the German casualties without any comparison, or point of reference, then yes, it would be a lie, not just slight distortion of truth for the information sake.

So what's wrong with describing the suffering and casualties of the Polish expellees forcibly settled in the "Recovered Territories"? Why are people killed by Wehrwolf, not worth mentioning? Personally, I think, the paragraph belongs more in the Lower Silesia article, than here in Warmia, but you can't just delete it, because you don't like it. Space Cadet 05:33, 20 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I am amazed by the speed, with you, Space Cadet, or szopen react to any entry here - seems you have some pages under constant supervision. Anyway, for the real topic:

I do agree with you, that "regained territories" was a term coined by the communist polish government to justify their taking over of "new territories". However, i do not have seen you explaining that in this discussion page, certainly not countless times - maybe you did it on some other discussion page. But what has this to do with the fact it is an "official name" of these territories ? A official propaganda name, yes. And as such it should be treated with care, either by putting it in "like this" or by additional comments in the text. As such, the term is misleading and intended to be so.

I already explained, what is wrong with receiving: Let us assume, you have a car, appartment, whatever. Some person is stealing you car. I get the car, KNOW that it was taken by this person from you and still declare (only!) to someone not knowing "I received this nice car last year by person X". I do imply by these words, that it was a legal act of transfer of ownership to me, don't i ? I could NOT legally "receive" the car because it was stolen property. Anyone who wants to give away something to someone else (who "receives" it then) needs to own it. Anyway, received is also wrong because even in formal terms, Poland did not receive - the land was put "under polish administration". Though, we both know what the reality was.


Finally, concerning proportions. We do NOT currently spend in wiki much time for "german sufferings". Simply due to the fact, that Germany lost the war it started. History is made by victors, there has been no coverage for this side of the facts until very recently (1990) when communism crushed. Until then, i heard in the communist GDR only from bad bad German troops, SS, etc. killing civilians, burning down villages etc. and, valiant russian soldiers, saving poor german babies caught in the crossfire of a battle. That the same soldiers looted and raped their way to Berlin is a fact which i never heard of.

Dont get me wrong, i still do want to maintain above all that Russia saved Germany and Europe from a ruthless and cruel dictatorship. No Question about that. But where is light, there is also shadow. We have not been showed this shadow for the years before 1990, and even now many people mistake pointing to the shadow for diminishing the light.

This is connected to the fact that German atrocities are often used subconsciously to give legitimacy to the territorial changes in eastern Europe and the random killings of civilians due to their german nationality - recognizing also Polish and Russian atrocities would, many believe, erode this and also stain Polish and Russian sufferings and efforts to get rid of Hitler. It does not, in my opinion. Both stories need to be told - until now we know only one side of the coin. There can be no hiding about facts - the final judgement, though, is not ours.


Concering the Wehrwolf story, i frankly dont believe it. It sounds like a legend, made up for justifying the removal of the remaining german population, just as user TT exemplarily declared it in this discussion page above:

" Because of the support Wehrwolf was getting from the german population of those lands, especially clergy, it was decided to resettle all that population in germany in it's new borders."

Ah, so only because of Wehrwolf the Germans were "resettled" ? No comment needed to that, i believe...

Chris


Space Cadet,

would you be so kind and stop to tell the story that Warmia simply "returned in 1945" to Poland ? Not fully wrong, but misleading by not telling the whole truth and probably intended to be so by you. Thanks.

Chris

It is misleading. No it was not my intention, although it will never be the "whole truth". History of this area became my hobby/passion/paranoia 18 years ago, and I'm still finding new and surprising stuff. Takan over is unacceptable for reasons explained earlier. Space Cadet 21:18, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I wonder really why i write that much in this discussion and you simply say " taken over is unacceptable for reasons explained earlier". Wow. If that isn't a reason. Not even "taken over", as a very acceptable and mild wording in my opinion is acceptable to you, when you already vehemently opposed to annexed. What is a explanation that satisfies you - that Germany "gave to Poland" these territories  ? Probably it is also ok, that the Potsdam Conference gave it to poland.

Wrong for two reasons, already explained above, but i will mention them again: Potsdam conference could not give anything away legally, for the Subject who owned was not asked. This decisions were taken against its will. I speak of Germany, of course. However, it could do so with the right of the victor - nothing new in history. In that case it should be made clear, that it was a victors decision, as "conference" is implying a mutual and somhow friendly agreement, therefore a legal decision. Which it was not. Other reason, these territories were not given legally, instead "placed under polish administration". Stalin and Poland were satisfied, because they knew what reality was. And the West was satisfied with keeping up the formal facade. Or they were really thinking in a future peace treaty the borders will change, who knows.


Otherwise: Thanks for your frank self-confession about your obsession with that stuff :-)

Chris

Just like Germany did not "give these lands to Poland", Poland did not "take them over". Poland did not have a choice in the matter either. Annexation of almost half of Polish pre war territory was not legal either. How do you figure that "Poland was satisfied"? First time I heard that opinion. Two thirds of Germany was not subjected to 40 years of communism like entire Poland was, so I guess Germany has more reasons to be "satisfied" even if it cost her loss of some disputed or not disputed lands in the process.

Space Cadet 12:55, 3 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Please read my statements. I did use the word "satisfied" in the following sentence: "What is a explanation that satisfies YOU - that Germany "gave to Poland" these territories.."

It is about YOU Space cadet, and your satisfaction or dissatisfaction with certain terms. Not the Polish people, except you like to think of yourself as the whole Polish people.

Also: i did include the word "Victor" in the description of the Potsdam Conference. You say in the edit-comment: "Poland was not a victor, it did lose more than half of its territory" or so.

Again, please read and do NOT perceive what you WANT to perceive. I know, its a human problem, but still... i did not include Poland in this context as "Victor". The Potsdam Conference was NOT attended by Poland, as you surely know. Still, these decisions were made by the victors - the big three. It was not a nice international event, with people discussing and finding compromises. It was a dictate just like Munich.


By the way: Why do you state that Poland was 40 years under the rule of communism ? What has this to do with this article, do we have to change things which happended in 1945 because of Events after it ?

Finally, i again wonder why you imply that Poland was passive in taking over these territories and they were just given to Poland. Let me cite an earlier statement by me:


"And indeed, they made Germany pay. Polish citizens, not only communists but also ordinary people, made suffer the refugees traveling from the former german territories to now-Germany a lot, while it was official Polish policy to expulse all Germans which did not commit themselves to being Poles, let it even be Masurs or not. The full and bureaucratic complete takeover of the former german eastern territories was in a planned manner facilitated, as official Polish policy.

THIS is the point where i must disagree with your view, that Poland was only a victim of WWII. Poland took revenge, understandably, but still it took revenge on Germany by systematically expulsing all Germans in own responsibility.."

Conclusio: Poland was in the TAKEOVER of these "regained lands" not a victim. It was the perpetrator which forcefully evicted the german population. Not the Russians evicted them. The POLES did - for understandable reasons, but still, they DID it ACTIVELY. Passive voice is there not telling the truth.


Space Cadet, please accept Polish guilt ( if there is ever a thing like collective guilt existing - it is not IMHO ) without immediately pointing to german atrocities and therefore trying to excuse or even deny polish crimes. Yes, even though it may sound inacceptable to you, as you were raised in the belief that Poland was ONLY a victim of WW2.


Chris

Hi, Sorry Chris, but it is not so simple. Remember that at that time Poland was in fact an occupied country, under control of Soviet armed forces, especially NKVD. Even so called "Polish People Armed Forces" were not Polish, as majority of officers were Soviet officers. The Polish government - officially recognized by UK and USA untill August 1945 was in London and had nothing to do with German expellees and local Polish authorities were desintegrated by Soviets and its members were deported to Siberia. Remember, that at that same time when Germans of East Prussia were expelled to west, thousands of Poles were sent by NKVD to east, to Siberia. The "government" which expelled Germans from new borders of Poland had nothing to do with legal Polish authorities. The situation has changed a little bit after 1956, when Poland regained some souveregnity, but at that time forced population transfers were already completed. Anyway, the deportations of Germans were direct result of German policy in Poland as well as decision by UK, USA and Soviet Union. Sorry, but the proper addresses of your complaints are in London, Washington and Moscow. Bye, Yeti 14:35, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Yeti,

i never stated it was simple. And i do not paint any simple pictures, where Poles are responsible for everything. I try to balance my statements quite carefully. All i ask for, is to accept certain polish responsibility without losing the view for the big picture, of course. There IS indeed polish responsibility - it was after all, a polish government which expelled the German population. It have been Polish policemen, polish people who evicted Germans from their homes. I do not believe, that Polish administration was completely wiped out. There was probably, a newly build-up administration which consisted mainly of Polish communists, but also of some of the old people. Still, they were Poles. Not Russians.

Even if i concede that Poland was then a satellite state of the Soviet Union even more than in later days, this affected the big decisions. Such as the principal decision to deport the Germans westward. The execution of this policy was responsibility of Polish authorities. I do not believe, as you imply, that behind every Polish official was an Russian one ordering what to do. The dirty work on the ground was done by Poles. Without any hesitation i presume, after the things which happened in WW II.

Also, simply denying legality to the then-Polish de-facto government has one more implication: its decisions e.g.concerning consfiscation of property of persons who were, by accident and have not chosen so, Germans, had to be reverted. This is not done and vehemently opposed in Poland. So, denying legality to this government, and at the same time holding up its decisions does not really fit together.

The remark, that Poland suffered greatly, NKWD, Communism etc. ist of course, right. This remark is however, incapable of excusing anything. I do not excuse something bad i am doing, with the fact that others were doing also bad things to me.


This denying of any responsibility, the insistence of Space Cadet and others ( You, Yeti, as well - i do not see a single sentece in your post which acknowledges Polish responsibility for at least the circumstances/conditions of the forceful deportation ) that Poland was only a victim, not a victor of WWII and could therefore have no responsibility whatsoever (if there is responsibility, it is easily attributed to either a) "the Russians" or b) "the Communists") is not really convincing me that Poland has fully reflected about recent history and its implications.

Chris

Responsibility? What responsibility do you mean?

1. Explusion of Germans was not a unilaterly decision of any Polish governement but implementation of INTERNATIONAL agreement.

No. There is no legacy in Potsdam, insofar it made decions about someone elses property and people without the
affected agreement. If you would also like to call Munich an "INTERNATIONAL AGREEMENT" and not a dictate, however, :i will join your position.

2. Yes, Poland was not a victor of WWII. Poland lost 50 percent of it's pre-War territory, 2 milions of Polish citizens were expulsed from their homes and the country became a puppet "state" with autonomy more limited than autonomy of Russian controlled Kingdom of Poland (1815-1830). Claim that decision about expulsion of Germans was "Polish" decision is ridiculous.

I have, i repeat that, not have said and on the contrary, denied that the expulsion of Germans was originally a Polish decision. I does not make sense to discuss if you just repeat your arguments, worse, your opinion. This is not a discussion, you repeat yorself simply over and over again. My point is, that Poland shares guilt in carrying out these things, and more, Poles killed German civilians on the local level in the execution of the decision taken on higher level to expulse the Germans. Again: the dirty work on the ground and which resulted in many, many dead people (not only broken porceallaine, as a quote of a Polish Intellectual by Space Cadet suggested) was carried out by Poles. Willingly. Not forced. Poland is not the white sheep as you see it. A you like to see it.

3. Obviously, on the local level the expulsion was carried out by Poles. But what responsibilit do you mean? Remember, that behaviour of Polish people towards Germans in 1945 and 1946 was direct consequence of crimes committed by German state and German people against Polish nation. It was direct consequence of German agression and occupation when the Polish were reduced to slaves and 6 milions of Polish citizens were killed (majority of them brutally murdered). In such circumstancies, no one had any moral right to require from Poles any compassion towards Germans at the time of the population transfers in 1945-46. Bye.

If you have burned down my house, i have the moral right to steal your car ?
Also, you are bending history. There was certainly no "compassion" required from Poles towards Germans. Just fewer killings of civilians would have sufficed.


Yeti 14:32, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Chris

Yet, there was so many acts of compassion from the Polish refugees towards their yesterdays oppressors and tormentors! Resettled Poles understood better than anybody else the fate of Germans being thrown out of their Fathers' Land. Countless examples of help extended towards Germans awaiting relocation started long lasting friendships and gave the Poles reputation of empathic and forgiving people.

Okay, i am also sure many Germans did also act friendly during the war towards Poles. So, no mention of german
atrocities in WWII is needed anymore because also some Germans were good ones. Hallelujah.


As far as accepting the Potsdam agreement: The war in Poland was still on after 1945. After the Soviet rule in Poland became an irreversible fact, accepted by the Allied Powers, Polish Partisans remained in the woods, joined by thousands, and continue the struggle, this time with the new enemy. The struggle was lost, the Polish fighting forces were brutally exterminated.

What has this to do with the topic ? Should we have mercy with poor, suffering Poland and forget everything else ?
I do NOT want to belittle polish sufferings. But why do you and Yeti repeat them in such a way, they are intended :to excuse something else ?

Last, I'd like to quote a Polish publicist: "Assigning responsibility for any onsequences of World War II, to Poland, is like putting an equal sign between somebody who had all of his family wiped out and somebody who had all of his family china wiped out."

It was NOT only family china which was wiped out. Thousands of lives, too. If someone is saying, thousand lives
are morally less important than hundred thousand, or even stating it was not about human lives but simply
property, he is a demagogue or worse. Decide for yourself.


Space Cadet 17:42, 16 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Chris


Summa summarum:

All i want is the Acknowledgement of certain, or: some Polish responsibility. As even this is denied vehemently in this discussion, i still carry the hope that it will happen in, maybe, 50 years. The fall of communism is propably still too recent, and first has Poland to find to national conscience again. When this national self-confidence is built, i am sure that also reflections about history which are not easy, will be possible one day. And i mean not only reflections about the expulsions of Germans, though this discussion was mainly about that.

Chris

In Polish newspaper there was intresting article about reconciliation in Nieszawa, when in one night 1945 Poles did murder few Germans. The reconciliation is directed by German priest Gustaw Bekker (whose father was shot by Germans) and Polish priest Sowa. Very interesting thing. The monument for all innocent victims 1939-45 is planned. Initially Poles were vehemly against it, but after so many years of efforgts of different Polish priest they start to accept the idea. OTOH, some of Germans from Bekker's organisation wanted to change to monument, wanted to demand reparations, get their property back etc and they didn't want to hear about "reconciliation". From my point of view such idea is nice, but i have uneasy feeling about giving monument which equals Polish and German victims. It somehow means, that Poles and Germans were both innocent (or: were both criminals) in war and their suffering is equal. The mother of Bekker didn't want to hear about any reconciliation either. Bekker explained her: but Poles have suffered too... and his mother reply was: they have killed your father.
But the most interesting thing is that priest Sowa said, that Nieszawa suffered relatively less during war than other cities and villages: and yet, in those villages were not events comparable to Nieszawa. When you hear about many other such events, one could see a pattern: very often people filled with most hatred - in Ukrainian-Polish, German-Polish, Jewish-Polish - were those, who have suffered the less... Szopen 06:56, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)


Well, the main point is that there is no such uniform thing as "The Germans". You and most other polish contributors to Wikipedia have qualms about, citation: "equaling Polish and German victims". One has to understand, that the German victims who where killed deliberately by Poles because they there Germans ( for no other reason ) were not the Germans who inflicted damage and death to Poles before. It never works this way, usually another innocent people are made to pay for sins other people have committed. And yet you (and most polish writers on this wiki page) deny to these victims any compensation, and i do not speak of material compensation, "because they were Germans, after all". So in the same way people killed other people simply for their nationality, you and others are still nowadays doing the same, denying long-deserved satisfaction because of the wrong passport. Uneasy feelings are okay, for they come out of your belly rather than your mind. But you should allow your mind to prevail.

Well, i also see efforts for reconciliation, there can be no doubt. The example you brought is one. Still, as long Poland thinks of itself only as victim, and this is my point i made numerous times, nasty surprises as Jedwabne will appear again and again.

To repeat a former statement: It will take time, until Poland can speak and think freely about the events of the past.

Chris

And to add to that: Such views also influence the content of Wiki, because national, also and particularly subconscious views should NOT prevail - yet they do so partly, unfortunately. That was actually the reason i outlined this polish-german thing so clearly, and what i did not like about it.


Chris

Chris, i am highly respecting your opinions. However, it seems to me that you are trying to simplify things and put Poles in position of "bad people" and Germans as opposite. It's not WE (as, we Poles) are not ready. Some of us are, some are not. The same is about Germans. There are Germans who are living in history - recent scandal with meeting of German expellees in Olsztyn is quite nice example.
However, what we are caring is not "German's can't be victims because they are BAD" as you are trying to imply. No. We are aware that Germans, who suffered, were sometimes innocents, were not using slave labour or were not abusing slaves (e.g. children). But it's not the problem. The problem is that already when talking with Germans they DO KNOW about Poles taking the revenge, how Poles were REALLY BAD and expelled without any reason poor innocent Germans, while raping, stealing and torturing, while they rarely know about what was happening earlier. How many Germans knows about behaviour or Wehrmacht in Poland? About city executions? About expelling of Poles? How many knows about kidnapping of children? About how Polish slaves were treated by civilian Germans?
So the case is not about equality of victims, but about our fears how new generation of Germans will perceive the war. If already talking to German the chance is that he will know about Holocaust, but not about Polish victims, that he will know about expelling of Germans, but not about earlier expellings of Poles, he will know about Dresno, but not about earlier razing to the ground Warsaw etc etc, then we are affraiding that German history perspective will be seriously skewed and that won't contribute much to our relationships.
The polls i once published by GW confirms them. The question "Were Germans victims of WWII" or similar got almost no support, while "Were Germas suffering during WWII" got overhelming majority.

Szopen 12:38, 21 Oct 2004 (UTC)


Szopen,

i do not and never have tried to put Poles in a bad corner and to portray Germans as the good guys. We have 50 years of history behind us in which time it was taught that the Germans were the bad guys and the Poles the good guys, the victims. What i would like to do, while still acknowledging this as the big background, to deviate a LITTLE from this nice, clear, black-and-white-picture. But always when i try to deviate and point out some other things, it is you and others who come and cry foul. A bit exaggerated, maybe, but this is my feeling. Why do you, Szopen, and other polish contributors want to stick to this simple picture which was hammered for 50 years into your minds by the communist polish government ?

Why do you not believe me that i want to paint a SLIGTLY different picture ? Why is ist assumed whenever small criticism of polish positions is made, the person behind that criticism must have the sinister motive of simply making out of Germans the good guys and out of poles the bad ones ? Why o why always this black-and white- thingie ? I guess its just too easy to stick to old beliefs... And this is worrying me, as it is not only about the beliefs of Germans, but also about Polish perceptions of WWII - let us just keep the simple Poland=Victim thing and not think too much, shall we ?


Chris

PS:Actually, i do not believe you when you claim that Germans do know about bad or worse treament of Germands by Poles after the war, but not about the bad thing which Germany did to Poland before. Let me repeat that: I do NOT believe that. Germany is very much conscious about its role in WWII. There can be no doubt at all.

PPS: One more thing about your beliefs: "Germans, who suffered, were SOMETIMES innocents" This shows quite clearly, that there is still the belief (with you and many other poles), that as a German, you must have Uh

Unfortunately, some line(s) went missing here...


Uhm, Chris, I am not sure what are you suggesting here. You are trying to imply taht my views are incorrect just because i was born in Poland, i guess. I am not sure why you have such impression, anyway. Let me repeat once again, and I hope taht you will nto twist my words again. I don not believe in collective guilt, nor I do not believe all Germans were guilty. Period.
But you believe most Germans were guilty, and only SOMETIMES (your qoute) innocent. Period.

[At the same time you do not differentiate between different levels of guilt]

Saying that, I hope you understand however our position. German victims were victims to revenge; Poluish were victims to irrational racial hatred. Germans who were attacking Poles were doing so because they felt thay are ubermenschen; german civilians who were spitting on Poles and beating Polish slave-labourers (hope you know the situation of slave-labourers in Germany) are quite different from Poles, who lost their family or went rhough 6 years of brutal occupation and who were blinded by urge of revenge.
That's all.
Well... I do indeed understand the polish position. People were blinded with the urge of revenge and did (now comes, what SpaceCadet calles "the desctructione of some china porcellaine", others call it the killings of some thousand people (a conservative estimate)) and what you do not seperately and clearly mention, you only mention it in the context of German atrocities. It seems that the killings of Germans because they were Germans and lost the war, is just a side fact. It is.

However, when is viewed always as a footnote in history, what is this of use for somebody whose parents were killed in exactly this violence ? He will not be happy about your explanation, that this was only a consequence of german aggression before.

Concerning your "Germans killed Untermenschen because they were Übermenschen" Theory i do not agree - give somebody a gun and he will hesitate to kill someone still, even though you tell him he is the more valuable guy and the other one is not. This might have been the case with Fanatics, but if you think that the whole german people considered themselves Übermenschen, entitled to kill all others, you overestimate 12 years Nazi rule and are also following the theory of collective guilt - because they all considered them Übermenschen (actually, the term as such was not used in that time, AFAIK) the ALL deserve to be punished.


And do not ever say about 50 years of communist propaganda. I was born in 1976. Most of my historical education came after we became free again. In the same time when he we were "fed with communist propaganda" you were for 50 years cut from any history from us. Only in 1980s situation started to change, with German-Polish work of commision on school-books

Szopen 15:33, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Well, in that case it is even worse, when you think that of the german civilians killed after the war SOME were innocent [and imply, that most are not]. I am, by the way, born some years before you in eastern germany and heard (i mentioned this before) only storys about daring and gallant russian soldiers, who rescued poor kids who were shot at by bad fascist guys from the rubble, etc. etc. What really happened besides this, that was never told. Why should it, for the germans had started the war, killed millions, what should some thousands civilians, children, whatever count who were, for example, in Prague burnt alive hanging head down from lamp posts ? Ah, gee, just "some china wiped out". It is immensely frustrating me, that even nowadays such stories cannot be told. I do always acknowledge the big picture - but that it is not allowed to show some small pictures, without immmediately being made aware that the big picture justifies this small picture is , again, frustrating.

For a 8-year old child, whose Mother was killed because she was german, this is not exactly helpful to get that explanation: "because your mother was member of a people of "Übermensch" it was permissible that she was killed".

Yeah Chris, If you didn't like my "china" example 3 months earlier, then how about this: if an average Pole had his entire china wiped out, then an average German had his favorite bottle cap wiped out? Think about it!Space Cadet 07:21, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I did not exactly like it, more, i condemned this statement as perversion of history. You still seem to like it, because it represents your feelings.

[edit] Gloger, Geografia historyczna

Zygmunt Gloger, Geografia historyczna ziem dawnej Polski. W tekście 63 autentycznych rycin, Kraków 1903 Warmia.

Do województwa Malborskiego należała Warmia, stanowiąca oddzielne księstwo pod absolutną władzą księcia biskupa Warmińskiego. Nazwa Warmii nie pochodziła od jakiegoś zaginionego miasta, jak mniemali niektórzy, ale od plemienia pruskiego Warmów, którzy sam środek krainy pruskiej, na prawym brzegu rzeki Paseryi zamieszkiwali. Krzyżacy, zaprowadzając mieczem chrześcijaństwo w wieku XIII, lud ten nieliczny bądź wytępili, bądź dalej wyparli, tak, że dość żyzna ta kraina stanęła otworem dla kolonizacyi i poczęła się napełniać wsiami, od strony południa mazurskiemi, zaś od północy, to jest od Bałtyku niemieckiemi.

Warmia, przedstawiająca kształtem swoim nieregularny trójkąt, mający 77 mil kwadratowych przestrzeni, z wierzchołkiem, ku morzu zwróconym, od strony północy miała brzegi Fryszchafu, na północo-wschodzie Prusy królewieckie, na południo-wschodzie tychże Prus powiaty: Szestyński, Szczyciński i Niborski, oddzielające ją od księstwa Mazowieckiego; na zachodzie powiat Olsztynkowski, linię rzeki Paseryi i w pobliżu Fryszchafu województwo Malborskie. Papież Inocenty IV, dzieląc roku 1241 wszystkie ziemie pruskie na cztery dyecezye, ustanowił wówczas po raz pierwszy Warmińską i za granicę jej naznaczył jezioro Drużno, zatokę morską Friszchaf, a od północy rzekę Prygorę. Od tego to roku 1241 Warmia zaczęła mieć oddzielnego biskupa, który w sprawach duchownych podlegał arcybiskupowi Ryskiemu, rządził zaś całą Warmią pod zwierzchnictwem Wielkiego Mistrza Zakonu. Kiedy się następnie Prusy poddały dobrowolnie Polsce, biskup warmiński zawarł podobnież co do swojej podległości oddzielną umowę, mocą której został księciem Warmińskim, mającym władzę i prawo miecza nad wszystkimi stanami i urzędami w tym kraju. Odtąd zaczął prezydować w senacie Prus królewskich, a w senacie polskim alternatą z biskupem Łuckim miejsce otrzymał, co się zaś tyczy rzeczy duchownych, od samej tylko Stolicy Apostolskiej zależał.

Szlachta, mieszczanie, kmiecie i kapituła wysyłali deputowanych na zjazdy warmińskie, gdzie, pod przewodem biskupa, naradzali się o potrzebach swej ziemi. Rządzili się zaś temże prawem, co reszta Prus królewskich, i własnemi swemi ustawami. Książę biskup sądził wszystkie sprawy bez apelacyi, stanowił urzędników ziemskich i starostów, wolno mu było zażywać paliusza i krzyża arcybiskupiego w swojej dyecezyi.

Kapituła warmińska ma za herb bramę żelazną w murze o trzech wieżach i pół krzyża (z lewem ramieniem), nad herbem mitra papieska, a nad mitrą krzyżyk. W roku 1512 otrzymała od Zygmunta I przywilej wolnej elekcyi biskupów. Królowie polscy podawali tylko kapitule czterech kandydatów, którzy musieli być rodowitą szlachtą pruską, lub posiadać w kapitule swoje stallum. Podług konstytucyi sejmowej z roku 1764 kapituła warmińska powinna wysyłać jednego deputata na trybunał prowincyi Wielkopolskiej.

W szeregu biskupów warmińskich znajdowali się często ludzie pierwszorzędnej sławy i zasługi dla kraju. Dosyć wymienić tutaj kardynała Stanisława Hozyusza, który został biskupem warmińskim roku 1551 po Janie Dantyszku. Po śmierci Hozyusza w roku 1579 zasiadł na stolicy warmińskiej Marcin Kromer, jeden z najcelniejszych dziejopisów i statystów polskich XVI wieku. O katechiźmie polskim Kromera dla dyecezyan warmińskich wiadomo jest z dziejów piśmiennictwa krajowego i świadectw pruskich. Ludność Warmii musiała być przeważnie polską, a nawet w południowej połowie stanowiła wyłącznie element mazurski, skoro biskupi polecali proboszczom odmawiać po polsku: „Ojcze nasz, Zdrowaś Marya, Wierzę i spowiedź powszechną”. Zwyczajem, przyjętym przez królów, biskupi warmińscy mianowani byli zwykle z biskupów chełmińskich. W wieku XVIII na stolicy warmińskiej widzimy Jędrzeja Załuskiego, uczonego, zmarłego w Gutstadzie na Warmii roku 1711, i Grabowskiego, po którym roku 1766 otrzymuje katedrę warmińską i 400.000 złp. dochodu rocznego, jaki to biskupstwo z dóbr swoich przynosiło, młody, bo trzydziestoletni kapłan i poeta, Ignacy Krasicki. W sześć lat potem Warmia przeszła pod panowanie pruskie i autor Pana Podstolego miał odtąd dwa dwory królewskie: berliński i warszawski, na których lubił przesiadywać.

Miasta warmińskie, będąc pozakładane przez Krzyżaków lub biskupów w ich dobie, rodem Niemców, nosiły nazwy niemieckie, a były następujące: 1) Heilsberg, w spolszczeniu Lechbarg lub Helcberg, z zamkiem nad rzeką Allą, stołeczne Warmii. 2) Frauenburg ze wspaniałą katedrą, w której spoczywają zwłoki wiekopomnego Mikołaja Kopernika. Wielki nasz astronom, jako tutejszy kanonik katedralny, tu większą część życia swego mieszkał, tu miał swoje obserwatoryum na jednej z wież katedry, tu robił genialne odkrycia, pisał swe dzieła i tu roku 1543 życie zakończył, a dotąd szczyci się miasto jeszcze wodociągiem, przez Kopernika wystawionym. 3) Braunsberg (w spolszczeniu Brunsberga) nad rzeką Passargą; 4) Bisztynek (z niemieckiego Bischofsstein lub Bistein); 5) Ressel, po polsku Resla, Ressela, małe miasteczko, blisko którego jest, sławny na całą Warmię, kościół z cudownym obrazem Najświętszej Maryi Panny, Świętą lipką zwany, roku 1618 przez Szymona Rudnickiego, biskupa warmińskiego, wzniesiony: 6) Seeburg, po polsku Siborg; 7) Biskupiec, po niemiecku Bischofsburg; 8) Wartenberg; 9) Olsztynek, Holsztyn (u Niemców Allenstein); 10) Gutstadt; 11) Orneta (po niemiecku Wormith lub Vormitha); 12) Mezlak, po niemiecku Mehlsack, i inne.



Any reason for this polish posting ?

Chris

[edit] Gdansk/Vote

I have tried to follow the wording of Talk:Gdansk/Vote: For Gdansk and other locations that share a history between Germany and Poland, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names. I have set it as Braniewo (Braunsberg) and Toruń (Thorn), which clearly meets the standards of the Vote. I removed "Torun" as an English name- the city does not have a standard English name like Warsaw or Prague, and most English textbooks refer to it as Thorn for the time period in question. Olessi 18:34, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, I reiterate that using "Braniewo (Braunsberg) and Toruń (Thorn)" is the correct interpretation of the Gdansk Vote. I also reiterate that "Torun" should not be included here. Torun is simply used in English when the speaker does not take the time or is unable to use the correct diacritic for Toruń. Torun is not a traditional English word like Warsaw, Prague, Copenhagen, or Moscow. Olessi 01:04, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Please use Englis accepted versions of names.Torun is an English accepted version of Toruń.Please don't Germanise the names. --Molobo 01:38, 18 September 2005 (UTC) Providing English reference : http://www.eurotravelling.net/poland/torun/torun_history.htm


housand years ago, from the end of the Palaeolithic era, throughout the Mesolithic and the Neolithic periods, the region served as a resting ground for bands of people wandering along the Vistula. During the Bronze Age, from approximately 1300 B.C., the Lusatian peoples established a number of settlements within the area of present-day Torun, on both banks of the river. In Roman times, the famous "amber route" passed nearby. In the early Middle Ages, numerous human settlements spread throughout the whole region.

Torun, for hundreds of years known as "the queen of the Vistula" or "the inland port of the Polish Baltic areas". Of the venerable cities situated on the Vistula, Torun's history, and particularly that of the Old Town, has proved particularly closely intertwined with the river. around 1236, the settlement was moved to a new site within the boundaries of today's Old Town. At first it only occupied about half its later area forming a rectangle whose longer side ran along the Vistula. Several streets were laid out at that time: Sw. Ducha, St., Zeglarska, St., Lazienna, St., Mostowa, each more than 10 metres wide and leading to the river. Soon afterwards, presumably in the 1240s, the Knights' castle was also relocated to the vicinity of the newly moved town, near the town's eastern border on the site of an abandoned Slavonic settlement.

The further, northern part of the city was laid out and built up during the later half of the century. A large town market was laid out, where a town hall, a cloth hall, and stalls were built.

The location of Torun on a major water route and at a convenient crossing place was one of the most significant factors contributing to the town's growth. In addition to profits from fishing and the use of its lands, forests, and pastures, from various crafts, including brewing, paper making, pottery, and the manufacture of metal objects, trade also played an important role in bringing wealth to the town and its residents. Their opulence was reflected in the rich output of outstanding artists and house builders.

The deed of location granted Torun some 3,000 ha of land. The land brought in handsome profits and enabled the town to erect and maintain many municipal buildings. Around the mid-13th century, the process of replacing the wooden-and-earthen fortifications around the Old Town with a system of brick walls, gates, and towers was initiated.

The northward movement of the town's territorial limits resulted in the incorporation within its area of the Franciscan monastery. The monks probably settled in 1239 just outside the walls and soon afterwards started erecting the Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary and some monasterial buildings. Today's brick temple boasting three 27-metre-high aisles, is one of the most magnificent examples of the "high hall" with a beautiful inspiring interior.

The town's market place was initially located in Zeglarska St., which was approximately 19 metres wide. The construction of the brick, Church of SS Johns, started around 1260. It was extended in the following centuries and achieved its final magnificent form, dominating today's panorama, in the last quarter of the 15th century.

Probably around the middle of the 13th century, at Zeglarska St., the "Social House" was erected. It was built of brick in the form of a "housing tower". Its facade was decorated with stone stripes and green-glazed bricks, and finished off with attractive crenels. The edifice belonged to the Brotherhood of St. George, an association of the town's merchant elite. Its aim was "to promote sociability, piety and social action".

In 1313, the function of the building was taken over by an edifice, later called "Artus' Hall", erected in the Old Town Rynek Square. It was the meeting place for Torun's patriciate and the scene of many historic events, e.g. the signing of the second Torun peace agreement. In 1264, the settlement was granted city statutes and thus formed a separate administrative unit called the New Town, with its own council and court. When deciding on the layout of the town, the Old Town councillors took great care not to grant it direct access to the Vistula, thus ensuring that it could not participate in international trade. At the end of the Middle Ages, another autonomous urban unit appeared within the area of today's Torun, in addition to the Old and New Town, their suburbs, and Kepa Bazarowa. Around the year 1425, on the left bank of the Vistula, not far from the present-day road bridge, the Polish king Vladislav Jagiello ordered the erection of a castle for a royal burgrave. Soon the place attracted many settlers and a whole new town emerged with its own harbour, foreign traders' offices, inns and taverns. A parish church of St. Nicholas was erected. The settlement has been known under several different names: the Nieszawa Castle, Dybow, the Dybow Castle and Nieszawa. The last name prevailed until Torun's inhabitants, threatened by the competition created by the new town, persuaded King Casimir Jagiellonczyk to relocate the town about 40 kilometres up the river, where it still exists under the name of Nieszawa.

Aerial view of TorunThe New Town was separated from the Old, by a double line of defensive walls with gates, towers, and a moat. In the parts bordering the suburbs, the settlement was protected in the same manner. The town's spatial layout was similar to the Old Town, with a vast town square in its centre, where a brick town hall was built already at the beginning of the 14th century.

In the south-east corner of the New Town the parish church of St. James was erected. The foundation stone was laid by Herman, the Chemo bishop, in 1309, and works were completed in 1350. Five years earlier patronage over it had been given to the nuns from a Torun nunnery, which initially followed the Cistercian and then the Benedictine rule. The second partition of Poland in 1793 was a severe shock to Torun, as well as to the whole country.

On 23 January, as a demonstration, the Council ordered the town gates to be closed before the approaching Prussian troops. The city was only protected by 50 soldiers and did not have the slightest chance of defence. This event marked the beginning of over 100 years of Prussian rule, interrupted only by a few years of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw and the sieges during the Napoleonic wars.

The entire 19th century is characterized by deep transformations of Torun. The city found itself near the Russo-Prussian border. The former trade routes lost all their significance. Of prime importance now was the city's strategic role as a major fortress and garrison. This determined the course of changes that Torun underwent, during the 19th century. Even the construction of a railway station in 1862, and then a railway junction, was dictated by military considerations.

In the 19th century, for military reasons, the Churches of St. George and St. Laurence situated outside the city walls were pulled down. Earlier, during the Swedish wars in the middle of the 17th century another medieval church, that of the Holy Ghost, situated outside the Old Town walls on the Vistula bank and a Benedictine convent connected with it were also demolished.

The north-west corner of the town was the site of a Dominican monastery. The first monks arrived and settled there even before the location act. Their church and monastery buildings were ready around the middle of the 14th century, but extensive construction and decoration work continued. In 1834, by an order of the Prussian authorities, the church and convent buildings were demolished. This act was preceded by the dissolution of the Dominican order. The magnificent set of stained glass windows from the monastery complex was moved to the Malbork castle and is now on display, at the District Museum located in the Old Town Hall. A number of splendid sculptures and paintings found shelter in St. James' Church.

Torun returned to Poland in 1920. After long battles in Pomerania, against the Prussian troops organized and supported by the local Junkers, the red-and-white Polish flag was flown on the Old Town Hall in January and an activist of the Toruñ Scientific Society, Dr Otto Steinborn, was appointed the town's commissioner-mayor. The city became the seat of the Pomeranian voivod-ship, Pomeranian District of Polish State Railways, headquarters of the VIII Military District, and numerous other institutions. 1923 saw the opening of the municipal library and a Polish Radio Broadcasting Station was built in 1933.

7 September 1939, when the German army marched into Torun, marked the beginning of an era of terror and extermination of the Polish population. Not only were people, mostly the intelligentsia, ordered to leave the city, but also on the basis of the previously drawn up lists, the Nazis arrested and executed several thousand of the most active participants of the political, social, and cultural life of Torun and its vicinity. The place of their martyrdom was the woods in the nearby Barbarka and the Fort VII moat. Torun was incorporated into the Third Reich and, consequently, all forms of Polish cultural life were prohibited. Public use of the Polish language was a crime punishable by concentration camp. The city was populated with German families sent from the Reich. Despite very difficult conditions the local Poles took to the underground, mainly within the organizational structures of ZWZ AK and Gryf Pomorski. In accordance with Hitler's order, Torun was prepared for a long-term defence. Luckily for the city, there was no direct fighting within its area. During the night of 31 January 1945, a German commander led the twenty-thousand-strong garrison out of Torun, believing that they would be able to break through to Grudziadz, already besieged by Soviet troops. As a result, the monumental complex did not suffer any damage in the course of liberation. Some time later, the Luftwaffe dropped a number of bombs in an attempt to destroy a temporary bridge built by the Soviet army engineers, but only succeeded in destroying two historical town houses: one in Zeglarska St. and another in Wola Zamkowa. --Molobo 01:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC) No mention of the German name for Toruń-Thorn.Usage of Torun in English text provided. --Molobo 01:40, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Another example of usage of Torun in english text-notice that other names are also English versions-Pomerania instead of Pomorze, Vistula instead of Wisła: http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/john_paul_ii/homilies/1999/documents/hf_jp-ii_hom_19990607_torun_en.html "1. “Heart of Jesus, our peace and reconciliation, have mercy on us”

We bow in faith before the great mystery of the love of the Divine Heart and we give it honour and glory. Hail, O Jesus; hail, O Heart Divine of the Son of Man, which has so loved us men and women.

I give thanks to God for granting today that I should visit this young Diocese of Torun and that I should, together with you, praise the Most Sacred Heart of the Saviour. With joy I thank Divine Providence for the gift of a new Blessed, the priest and martyr Stefan Wincenty Frelichowski, heroic witness to the love of which a pastor is capable. I cordially greet all those present at this month of June celebration. In a special way I greet Bishop Andrzej, Pastor of the Church of Torun, his Auxiliary Jan, the clergy, consecrated men and women and all the People of God in this land. I greet Torun, a city dear to my heart, and beautiful Pomerania on the Vistula. I am pleased to be in your city made famous by one of the world’s greatest astronomers, Nicolaus Copernicus. Torun is also known because of the efforts for peace undertaken in the course of history. In fact, on two occasions peace treaties were concluded here, treaties which history has dubbed the Peace of Torun" The text doesn't use Polish names.It uses English versions-Torun is among them. --Molobo 01:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)


Another reference using Torun and showing that the name Thorn is German not English and quite recent: http://whc.unesco.org/archive/advisory_body_evaluation/835.pdf The Swedish wars and the crisis in Poland in the 17th century brought Torun’s prosperity to an end. It came under Prussian rule in 1793, when it became known under its German name, Thorn. --Molobo 01:47, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, that was a rather useless waste of Wikipedia storage space. I stand by what I stated twice already. According to the Gdansk Vote, the first reference of one name in an article should also include a reference to other names. Therefore, as I have already stated, "Braniewo (Braunsberg) and Toruń (Thorn)". I am not "Germanising" the names- Thorn and Braunsberg were quite common names for the towns in question during the time period in question. Please give me an adequate response as to why Thorn and Braunsberg should not be included according to the Gdansk Vote.Olessi 06:44, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Because the Vote said that English names and accepted versions should be used not German. --Molobo 09:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

As I have already said, Torun is Toruń without the diacritic, and is not a traditional English name like Prague or Warsaw. There are so many Google hits for Torun because it is the current official name, and the vast majority of English websites do not use diacritics. When discussing the history of a region/place, historical names should be included. Why are Braunsberg and Thorn unacceptable to you? Olessi 17:26, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Torun is wiedely used english version of the name of city Toruń. "Why are Braunsberg and Thorn unacceptable to you? " This is not the German wiki.Please use names used in English. --Molobo 17:41, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

The German names for these towns are relevant because they were used during the time period in question. The city should not be referred to as Thorn on WP post-1945, but it certainly is relevant beforehand. Torun is not a traditional English name. If it was, then the article would be at "Torun", not Toruń. Cities that have real traditional English names are found at these locations, i.e. Prague instead of Praha, Warsaw instead of Warszawa, Moscow instead of Moskva, Copenhagen instead of København. You'll notice that Toruń is found at the Polish Toruń, not the "English" Torun.... Olessi 18:17, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
The city should not be referred to as "Thorn" pre 1945 either. There was never any vote on it and it had completely different history than Gdańsk. Space Cadet 18:43, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
Agree. While using "Danzig" for "Gdańsk" before 1945 may seem reasonable, "Thorn" until the end of WW2 is absurd. Why not "Warschau" and "Krakau" then ? --Lysy (talk) 19:00, 18 September 2005 (UTC)
I am not trying to argue that Thorn is the only name that should be used; I was merely stating that the name Thorn should never be used in a history section referring to events post-1945. Toruń is a city that shares a history with Germany and Poland, and it seems to me would meet the critera for the Vote. Toruń (Thorn), Thorn (Toruń), Thorn (Toruń) and variations thereof all seem fine to include in a history section. Olessi 20:07, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Most Polish towns cities and regiosn share also Ukrainian, Lithuanian, Russian history.Yet we use English accepted versions of Polish names in regards to them not Lithuanian, Ukrainian or Russian.I don't see why should German langugage by exception.Likewise Lviv or Vilnius are named after their countries language name, despite sharing history with Poland, and I would be first to change their name to their home countries language if needed.Frankly I don't understand the desire for German names to be exception. --Molobo 13:17, 19 September 2005 (UTC)

I originally started editing this page to uphold part of the Gdansk Vote, although I think the results of the vote were too vague to effectively cover all particularities. The majority of English-language history books do not use the Polish-language names to refer to towns in the region originally controlled by the Teutonic Order (I can't think of any that would use the name Braniewo when referring to 18th century history), which is why I think it makes sense to include both the Polish and German names. However, revert wars are a waste of time, and our energies would be much better spent adding content to articles instead of going in circles discussing naming issues. As a compromise, I am willing to remove the German names from the History section, as the German names are also mentioned further down in the article in the Major Towns section. However, I also do not want to see that dreadful looking "Torun" (without diacritic). ;-) You might want to take a look at the removal of the ń from Gdańsk at Historical Eastern Germany... Olessi 20:32, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"The majority of English-language history books do not use the Polish-language names to refer to towns in the region" This is your personal point of view which can't be confirmed.Should we get all English books on history from every english speaking country and compare the numbers ? However we can see it on google and google tells that German names aren't used as widely as Polish names and furthermroe they are also English accepted names which aren't Polish.Please use them.--Molobo 18:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, you really shouldn't trust Google to be a reliable indicator of academic content. When talking about the present-day localities, of course English sites are going to use the Polish names. Detailed textbooks usually use the historical terms, however, when referring to events from centuries prior; however, it naturally is rather impractical for us to look at every book. And, in case you did not notice, I am using the Polish names, and had already changed it before you asked about it again. I thought this issue was closed. Olessi 19:40, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Google was used in previous disputes and is accepted by Wiki in confirmation of name usage. --Molobo 19:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Counting the number of Google hits to determine accuracy of information contained in an encyclopedia is a demented idea, however Molobo is right in saying that it is the most popular method of solving disputes on Wiki. Space Cadet 20:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


What are your thoughts on the current inclusion of "Wilno" on the Emilia Plater page? Olessi 23:59, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

As soon as the Gdańsk finally vote goes to hell I'll be happy with Emilia having been born in "Vilnius". Space Cadet 00:06, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Then I'm sure you can see the logic of "Wilno (now Vilnius)" and "Braunsberg ( now Braniewo)". Olessi 15:58, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
No! It's been ALWAYS Vilnius, get it? Kaliningrad changed its name but not Vilnius nor Gdańsk. Space Cadet 21:41, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Varmo and Erma

The Latin name Warmia is derived from the Old Prussian tribal chief Warmo, while the German name Ermland is derived from Warmo's wife and widow Erma.

I see this a bit suspicious. Varmi -> Ermland could be a natural corruption of a tribe's name. Please provide references. Also, I find it very improbable for a land to be named by Teutons after a woman. mikka (t) 17:47, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

OK, section above, {{#Gloger, Geografia historyczna]] gives a respectable opinion. I am changing the article accordingly. mikka (t) 17:52, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

I had added that section by directly translating from de:Warmia. The tribal name origin, of course, does make considerably more sense. Olessi 22:05, 2 October 2005 (UTC)
Today I added three more Prussian tribes and while digging the refs I saw that name origins af most of them are unknown. The very original source of knowledge about them is 13th century Chronicon terrae Prussiae, which simply matches toponyms with tribal names. Most of these tribes were exterminated right at the time of this manuscript. Later, as it usually happens historians started lots of guesswork, none of which is decisive. mikka (t) 02:50, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ermeland is also English for Warmia

Ermeland is used as the primary name for Warmia in the following and should therefore appear in the text of the Wikipedia article with Warmia:

LuiKhuntek 07:23, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

I think it should be mentioned in the history section, as this is an archaic usage. --Lysy (talk) 08:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
2001 and 2005 are hardly archaic.
Both Columbia and Britannica use the German name in a clearly historical context. --Lysy (talk) 09:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's a historical context but it's modern (English) usage. Just as if one refers to Etruria, Galicia, or Tartary, he is using modern English names for historical regions.

I'm glad we agree on this. Now I'd recommend you take a look at Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Geographic names (and hopefully contribute there) before you make another revert. --Lysy (talk) 09:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

As to modern usage:
So, it's either 15:1 for Warmia:Ermland or 150:1 for Warmia:Ermeland. Halibutt 10:17, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I did refer to Wikipedia:Naming conventions/Geographic names. From C.2: The first line: Other names are to be listed in the first line of the article only if they have any modern English usage. From D.1: The first line: The title name in the first line can be followed by a list of alternative names that are or have been in English usage. From E.1: The lead: The title name in the first line can be followed by a list of alternative names if they or their derivatives are or have been in English usage. I really have nothing to add. All of the above listed proposals (and most others implicitly) support the inclusion of "Ermeland" after "Warmia." Since Ermeland redirects to Warmia, it's useful for the alternate form to appear early. It's not particularly controversial and adds important additional inforamtion without breaking the flow of the article. (And Google hits are useful but a pretty weak way to determine encyclopedic usage [see: fart vs. flatulence in Talk:Flatulence#Requested_move]) LuiKhuntek 10:27, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I think you are right. I have nothing against mentioning the alternative names in the lead, as long as the usage is explained so as to avoid confusion. The German name is already there in parenthesis. In English language historically, the German name was used. Why would you need to have it mentioned twice and without this explanation ? --Lysy (talk) 10:37, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Because the usual German form is "Ermland" while the usual English is "Ermeland" with an extra "e." This was a totally innocent revision that I made after I did a search for "Ermeland," got the redirect, and didn't see any reference to Ermeland in the whole article. Since Ermeland doesn't readily resemble Warmia, it's feasible one could wonder why the redirect.
After the reaction, I feel like I've stumbled on some anti-exonym cult lurking at Wikipedia. I realize English forms may not be the fad in world geography these days but if taken to extremes 你如何想講 "China," 你要用中文.
How about this for a first line --> Warmia (Polish: Warmia, German: Ermland, Latin: Varmia), also historically known as Ermeland, is a region ... LuiKhuntek 10:53, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure though won't oppose. On one hand it definitely is used by some sources, on the other - 100 times more use the modern name currently and making them equal by bolding both seems like an attempt to promote it. Dunno... Halibutt 11:01, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
The 100x figure is a little disingenuous since it is based on a Google search that is skewed by two things: hits for Warmia will be high because of Warmia-Masuria being a contemporary admin. region and the large number of non-native writings. More importantly, Google searches are not good determiners of encyclopedic usage (just Google "virus" to see). True, they provide quick, quantitative results but they are no substitute for deeper literature reviews. While the links I gave above are not that either, the fact that Columbia and Britannica use Ermeland as their primary entry name should do something to demonstrate the importance of this form -- enough to warrant secondary mention in the opening line.
What I have yet to see is any reasoning why the English form should NOT appear. My addition of it was removed with no explanation and subsequent comments have not addressed the issue either. I didn't request an article move or anything drastic and I gave ample evidence of sources using it as the sole English form (not German ones either).
LuiKhuntek 11:30, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

"Warmia (Polish: Warmia, German: Ermland, Latin: Varmia, also historically known as Ermeland) is a region ..." (with all the alternative names in parenth.) seems very reasonable to me. Would this be all right with everyone ? --Lysy (talk) 11:41, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Olessi 16:32, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Good, let me try this then. --Lysy (talk) 19:42, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Excellent! LuiKhuntek 21:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] German names

Some users feel that the German names of towns are irrelevant for this article. If this was an article about an official administrative unit (Warmian-Masurian Voivodship, for instance), I would agree with that logic. However, this is an article about a historic region without a current official status, and as the German names are frequently referred in historical publications, listing the German names is informative. I have added "historic" as a qualifying term. Olessi 18:35, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

I'd say that German names are relevant for historic reasons. At least as long as we don't have a separate article about the History of Warmia I think they should stay here. Most of Warmia and Mazury were thouroughly Germanized throughout 19th and the beginning of 20th century and it's good to remeber this. Many of the names were changed into German already in the 1930s. Interestingly, while not inhabitated by ethnic Germans, these were the regions where Nazism won most support. --Lysytalk 19:12, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

German names should be present only in articles regarding specific locations. Double naming refers to "shared history", and currently there is no shared history with Germany of those locations. Only in cases where they share it should be the German version. --Molobo 02:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

The Warmian population was mostly germanized since the 13th century. German names are certainly important in all East and West Prussian articles, except perhaps when it comes to the administrational units of Russia and Poland. Compare it with Ireland. --Der Eberswalder 18:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I restored information

On Nazi atrocities that was removed from the article to an isolated obscure page, I see no reason why such information should be removed from history of Warmia, while other parts of history remain. I hope I am wrong, but this looked like an attempt to remove certain parts of history from the reader. This was a drastic solution and shouldn't be taken without discussing this on the talk page. --Molobo 02:04, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

My response to Rory096 at Talk:Nazi crimes in Warmia: >>The disputed section had been the subject of a revert war for two weeks (without Talk discussion) and, IMO, was going into excessive depth in a breadth article. Instead of removing the information altogether as other users have done, I moved it into a new article where information about the time period can be listed in greater detail, and clearly added a link to this new article within the text of the original article. I did not initially add a link to this article in the "See also" subheader; I have now done so. Compare the edits before and after for your own opinion.<< Olessi 04:13, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] German POV. - Polish agression

I due believe it was the Teutonic order who attacked the Baltic and Slavic peoples, User:Matthead however seems to have a somewhat different historical perspective. It turns out the peoples of the east weren't attacked, but "challenged" by the teutonic order. In another edit, the order doesn't attack or challenge but simply "arrives". What are Mattheads arguments for these edits?Rex 10:48, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

See my edit. It was not the region like Masovia that made attempts to conquest, it was the rulers there, and these are otherwise claimed as Poles. The Order has arrived after an invitation of Konrad, like reinforcements for Konrad. It was not the Orders idea to attack. How about a NPOV version like: "Several times conquest attempts from Masovia were successfully repelled by Prussians and they only began to coordinate after the 12th century conquest attempts from the Monastic State/Kulmerland."? Not good? Anyway, I adjusted the wording. -- Matthead discuß!     O       12:31, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
This is not NPOV. Prussians were not just "repelling" the conquest attempts. They were actively raiding Masovia to the point Culmland and northern Masovia were totally depopulated. Szopen 09:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You revision history. Depicting the Teutonic Order as good guys influenced by evil polish princes, please. Did the teutonic attack or didn't it attack? It attacked, there is no need for euphemisms, let alone the ones you made up.Rex 14:27, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

The Teutonic Order conquered and cristianized the area because they were asked to do so in 1226 by Duke Konrad I Mazowiecki. They were encouraged by Pope Gregory IX, see Northern Crusades. This guy was also involved. --Der Eberswalder 18:24, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
"But we only obeyed the orders", right ? --Lysytalk 01:50, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Not the point who asked them. They attacked and murdered people and User:Matthead tries to make them look good.Rex 18:09, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

BTW, what does User:Rex Germanus/Rex' nationalism scale try to make? -- Matthead discuß!     O       23:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
A point? Space Cadet 01:57, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
... like the black one taken by User:Witkacy [4]?-- Matthead discuß!     O       02:51, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, kinda... minus the personal trips and offensiveness. Space Cadet 04:26, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Crusade of Konrad of Masovia

A number of attacks by Masovia and Poland (starting in 997) intensified by Konrad I of Masovia, who had attacked, (requested and got a crusade in 1209)[5] and only after he was sucessfully repelled by the Prussians, did he call in the Teutonic Order. Also referenced in Catholic Encyclopedia 1209 crudade against 'pagan' Prussians

Following Text from Catholic Encyclopedia Having failed in all his attempts to induce the barons of the Latin Empire to undertake an expedition against Palestine, and understanding at last the cause of failure of the crusade in 1204, Innocent III resolved (1207) to organize a new crusade and to take no further notice of Constantinople. Circumstances, however, were unfavourable. Instead of concentrating the forces of Christendom against the Mohammedans, the pope himself disbanded them by proclaiming (1209) a crusade against the Albigenses in the south of France, and against the Almohades of Spain (1213), the pagans of Prussia, and John Lackland of England. Labbas 15 January 2007

Still, this is so vague, and open to interpretations. --Lysytalk 06:23, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

This is not correct. Konrad II requested the crusade, but only because he couldn't on his own stand against Prussian raids. For example, Prussians sacked Chelmno (Culm) and almost depopulated the whole Culmerland. Also, not sure about the date: 1209? IIRC the crusade was in 1222, after Prussians sacked Plock in 1220 and devastated also northern Masovia. Szopen 09:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Nazi crimes in Warmia

The link Nazi crimes in Warmia is called Nazi crimes against ethnic Poles now and does not mention explicit crimes in WARMIA, I removed it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HerkusMonte (talk • contribs) 13:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Prnce-bishop

Warmia bishops were NOT granted prince-bishop status by HRE emperor - they CLAIMED the title. My sources all agree, that there is no trace of such emperor's privilege, and bishop usurped their title. Szopen (talk) 08:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)