Ethnicity in Poland
Dave
different ethnic groups, Poles and Ukrainians for two. Did the
territorial claims made by the USSR and Germany take into account the
makeup of the populations at all? Naturally the invaders used whatever
justifications were convenient including prior borders, but I'd be
interested to know who lived there? Did the Polish government exercise
authority over large groups of people who weren't Polish?
Dave Wilma
www.DavidWilma.com
Stephen Graham
You might be interested in looking at "Political Migrations in Poland,
1939-1948", http://www.igipz.pan.pl/zpz/Political_migrations.pdf
Among other things, it included maps and graphs showing relative
population distributions by ethnicity throughout the period and some
tables breaking out ethnic data. Particularly useful for your query
would be Table 15. Population of Poland according to mother tongue on
the occupied areas. This breaks down by language and by area,
specifically: directly incorporated into the German Reich, the General
Governorship, incorporated into Slovakia, incorporated into Lithuanian
SSR, Byelorussian SSR, and Ukrainian SSR. Tongues specified are Polish
(69%), German (2%), Yiddish and Hebrew (8%), Ukrainian and Ruthenian
(14%), Belarussian (3%), Russian (0.4%), Czech (0.3%), Lithuanian (0.3%)
and Other and not specified (2%). Apparently the latter includes a lot
of Byelorussians who declared that they spoke "the local language".
The annexations to Germany and the Soviet Union included the majority of
the appropriate ethnic groups in each case.
Something to look into is the Polish Minority Treaty of 1919, which
governs Poland's treatment of its minority populations.
Rich Rostrom
> I know that Poland, as it existed on September 1, 1939, included
> different ethnic groups, Poles and Ukrainians for two. Did the
> territorial claims made by the USSR and Germany take into account the
> makeup of the populations at all?
Yes.
> Naturally the invaders used whatever
> justifications were convenient including prior borders, but I'd be
> interested to know who lived there?
See this map.
http://www.cee-portal.at/Bilderordner/Maps/Sprachen-Mittel-und-Osteuro.jpg
It's the languages of the area in 1910; but there
were only limited changes by 1939. (Some of
the former German territory allocated to Poland
in 1918-1919 became more Polonized and less
German between the wars.)
The Soviet zone included most of the Belarussian
and Ukrainian areas. The map linked above shows
a polophone region extending NE across Belarus
to the border of Latvia and almost to Minsk. (Part
of this region is now in Lithuania.) This area was
Soviet-occupied.
On the other hand, it also shows a Ukrainophone
region on the west bank of the Bug, where the Bug
was the border line; so Germany had some
Ukrainophone territory there (W of Brest-Litovsk
and around Chelm).
> Did the Polish government exercise
> authority over large groups of people who weren't Polish?
Yes. Besides the Belarussians and Ukrainians,
there were large volksdeutsch minorities in
many cities, and many Germans living in
upper Silesia, the Posen region (which the
Germans called the Warthegau) and in Pomerelia
(the Polish Corridor). There were also millions of
Jews, who were considered (by others and by
themselves) to be distinct from the surrounding
gentile population - not only by religion, but also
by language, as most spoke Yiddish as there
first language.
There were even some remnants of the ancient
Mongol hordes - the Lipka Tatars, who settled
in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania in the 1300s,
gave allegiance to Lithuania and then to Poland
after the union of the two countries, preserved
their Moslem religion, and are still a distinct group
today. The largely Tatar 13th Cavalry Regiment
was one of the last Polish holdout units in 1939.
Gregory E. Garland
@u24g2000pru.googlegroups.com>, David...@comcast.net says...
The Poles and the Bolsheviks fought a close run war after WWI over White
Russian and Ukrainian territories of the former Russian Empire. Since
the Bolsheviks were eventually forced to sue for peace, the Poles were
able to grab a substantial bit a land in what is now Belarus and
Ukraine.
--
Gregory E. Garland - Alive, occupying space, and exerting gravitational
force
Dave
> The Poles and the Bolsheviks fought a close run war after WWI over White
> Russian and Ukrainian territories of the former Russian Empire. Since
> the Bolsheviks were eventually forced to sue for peace, the Poles were
> able to grab a substantial bit a land in what is now Belarus and
> Ukraine.
And, according to the source provided by Mr. Graham, Poles were moved
into the eastern area called "settlers." These were an owning class,
just the folks to be targeted by the Soviets for removal. I now
understand that there were tremendous shifts of population, mostly
involuntary. Probably only since 1945 has Poland enjoyed enough border
stability to establish some stability as to what constitutes Poland.
Rhino
news:b4fede03-2c7f-4e27...@r31g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
Don't forget that after WW II Stalin, in effect, "moved" Poland 200 km west
of where it had been when the war started. He presumably wanted a bigger
buffer zone between him and Germany and simply sliced off 200 km worth of
eastern Poland for the Soviet Union and then "compensated" Polan by slicing
off 200 km worth of eastern Germany and giving it to the Poles. As a result,
Berlin was only about 30 km from the postwar Polish border which presumably
served as a very clear signal to the Germans that they were being kept on a
very short leash....
--
Rhino
GFH
> On 10/22/2010 1:00 PM, Dave wrote:
> You might be interested in looking at "Political Migrations in Poland,
> 1939-1948",http://www.igipz.pan.pl/zpz/Political_migrations.pdf
An excellent reference work. I have added it to my library.
> Among other things, it included maps and graphs showing relative
> population distributions by ethnicity throughout the period and some
> tables breaking out ethnic data.
Sadly there is no map showing the distribution of entnicities by area,
as there is for Jews in Fig. 8, page 31. Of course such maps exist,
and they show that the German minority was not spread evenly
thoughout Poland. The article does show the German population
percentage in the Free City of Danzig. 90+%. An inidcation of
the issues at the time.
Overall, the ethnic cleansing of the eastern portions of Europe has
served Europe, and the world, well. I find it interesting that I can
find no strong feelings among the Germans over the lost lands, and
even the lost population during that forced migration -- except for
the Sudetenland. Strong feelings and anger still exist today, yet
the Germans there were, in general, less than 100 km from the new
border.
Michele
news:c11d0a43-e984-4c71...@u10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sadly there is no map showing the distribution of entnicities by area,
> as there is for Jews in Fig. 8, page 31. Of course such maps exist,
> and they show that the German minority was not spread evenly
> thoughout Poland. The article does show the German population
> percentage in the Free City of Danzig. 90+%. An inidcation of
> the issues at the time.
No, not really, considered that we know that Danzig was "not the issue, the
Lebensraum in the East" was (1).
(1) Hitler's words. Danzig was an excuse, not an issue.
>
> Overall, the ethnic cleansing of the eastern portions of Europe has
> served Europe, and the world, well. I find it interesting that I can
> find no strong feelings among the Germans over the lost lands, and
> even the lost population during that forced migration -- except for
> the Sudetenland. Strong feelings and anger still exist today, yet
> the Germans there were, in general, less than 100 km from the new
> border.
>
That is because you actually know little about the topic. Try looking up
Erika Steinbach and her political positions as to the German-Polish
relations.
Stephen Graham
> Sadly there is no map showing the distribution of entnicities by area,
> as there is for Jews in Fig. 8, page 31.
See Figure 20, p. 63.
> Of course such maps exist,
> and they show that the German minority was not spread evenly
> thoughout Poland. The article does show the German population
> percentage in the Free City of Danzig. 90+%. An inidcation of
> the issues at the time.
As we both know full well, the alternative to the Free City of Danzig
was the direct annexation of Gdansk to Poland. Unless you wanted to
nominate another major Baltic port for annexation to Poland?
> I find it interesting that I can
> find no strong feelings among the Germans over the lost lands, and
> even the lost population during that forced migration -- except for
> the Sudetenland.
As Michele has pointed out, there is and long has been a vocal
irredentist faction regarding the territory lost to Poland following
World War Two, let alone the areas lost following World War One. And
it's not as if you haven't discussed this issue in this newsgroup
repeatedly.
Bill Shatzer
> On 10/25/2010 8:15 AM, GFH wrote:
>> Of course such maps exist,
>> and they show that the German minority was not spread evenly
>> thoughout Poland. The article does show the German population
>> percentage in the Free City of Danzig. 90+%. An inidcation of
>> the issues at the time.
> As we both know full well, the alternative to the Free City of Danzig
> was the direct annexation of Gdansk to Poland. Unless you wanted to
> nominate another major Baltic port for annexation to Poland?
I'm not sure why that was the only alternative. After all, Austria,
Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Switzerland all managed without a port on
the Baltic - or any other ocean for that matter.
Rich Rostrom
> (1) Hitler's words. Danzig was an excuse, not an issue.
In the larger sense this is true - Hitler had
vastly greater goals than Danzig, but
Danzig _was_ an issue. For the Germans
that lived there (practically the whole
population) the "Free City" status was
awkward and inconvenient, and bitterly
resented.
Nationalist Germans elsewhere sympathized
with Danzigers.
Hitler could not have made an excuse out
of Danzig if it was not an issue. He didn't
pull the Danzig question out of thin air.
He could have ignored it, as he did the
Sudtirol, perhaps - although a major city
is harder to overlook than a remote
mountain hinterland that had been Austrian
Imperial territoru rather than German.
Stephen Graham
> Stephen Graham wrote:
>> As we both know full well, the alternative to the Free City of Danzig
>> was the direct annexation of Gdansk to Poland. Unless you wanted to
>> nominate another major Baltic port for annexation to Poland?
>
> I'm not sure why that was the only alternative. After all, Austria,
> Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Switzerland all managed without a port on
> the Baltic - or any other ocean for that matter.
The operating presumption was that leaving Poland dependent on Germany
or Russia/the Soviet Union for a port would not be acceptable. It also
provided an alternative for Czechoslovakia. Hungary had river ports and
guaranteed navigation of the Danube. Switzerland had treaty-guaranteed
access to Marseilles and Genoa.
p 47
wiadomooeci news:ia24qo$9ck$1...@news.datemas.de...
> "Dave" <David...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:b4fede03-2c7f-4e27...@r31g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> On Oct 22, 9:22 pm, "Gregory E. Garland" <g...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>>
>>> The Poles and the Bolsheviks fought a close run war after WWI over White
>>> Russian and Ukrainian territories of the former Russian Empire. Since
>>> the Bolsheviks were eventually forced to sue for peace, the Poles were
>>> able to grab a substantial bit a land in what is now Belarus and
>>> Ukraine.
>>
>> And, according to the source provided by Mr. Graham, Poles were moved
>> into the eastern area called "settlers." These were an owning class,
>> just the folks to be targeted by the Soviets for removal. I now
>> understand that there were tremendous shifts of population, mostly
>> involuntary. Probably only since 1945 has Poland enjoyed enough border
>> stability to establish some stability as to what constitutes Poland.
>>
>
> Don't forget that after WW II Stalin, in effect, "moved" Poland 200 km
> west of where it had been when the war started. He presumably wanted a
> bigger buffer zone between him and Germany and simply sliced off 200 km
> worth of eastern Poland for the Soviet Union and then "compensated" Polan
> by slicing off 200 km worth of eastern Germany and giving it to the Poles.
In 1939 Stalin after invading Poland occupied some 200 000 km2 of Polish
territory (BTW more then Germans who occupied "only" some 189 000km2 of
former Poland, albeit more populated) and later practically all this
territory has been incorporated to the Soviet Union so this portion of
Polish pre-war territory has never been returned to Poland.
At the end of the war soviets, Americans and British decided that Poland
should get some of territories which in 1939 belonged to the III Reich.
However it is worth to mention that until 18 century a substantial part of
these territories did NOT belong to Prussia/Germany, and in particular some
of them during infamous Partition of Poland were robbered from Poland by
Prussian Kingdom.
Still the territory which in 1945 has been given (on the West) to Poland is
by far smaller then the territory annexed by Soviets and does not compensate
the losses on the east; -the territory lost to soviets in 1939 almost equals
2/3 of the total present Polish territory! Even taking into account Polish
territorial gains on the west, in the II WW Poland "netto" lost the
territory equal to (more or less) the territories of the Netherlands AND
Switzerland combined !
>As a result, Berlin was only about 30 km from the postwar Polish border
>which presumably served as a very clear signal to the Germans that they
>were being kept on a very short leash....
Berlin is not 30km but about 100 km from the present Polish border.
p47
p 47
>
>> The Poles and the Bolsheviks fought a close run war after WWI over White
>> Russian and Ukrainian territories of the former Russian Empire. Since
>> the Bolsheviks were eventually forced to sue for peace, the Poles were
>> able to grab a substantial bit a land in what is now Belarus and
>> Ukraine.
>
1.Above territories were part of the Polish Kingdom until the infamous
Partition of Poland. Only then they were forcefully annexed to the Russian
Empire. Since that the large number of Polish nationals living there,
(especially after numerous uprisings against Russians) were subject to
ethnic prosecutions, expeltions etc.
2. In the victorious 1920 war against bolshevics Poland DID NOT wanted to
annex these territories. On the contrary,- Marshal Pilsudski wanted to
establish on these former Polish eastern territories friendly, but
independent Ukrainian, Bellorussian, Litvian etc states which together with
Poland would have been able to oppose Russian/Soviet expansionism.
3. Even when above Pilsudski's plan collapsed, during the Riga's Peace
Treaty negotiations Poland did refuse to accept the Soviet proposal to
incorporate to Poland vast part of ethnic Belorussia with the city of
Minsk,- i.e. the present Belorussian capital.
p47
Michele
news:65f22bc9-3c5b-4bd2...@30g2000yql.googlegroups.com...
The point old George was trying to make was about going to war, not about an
actual problem. From the point of view of a reason to go to war, Danzig was
not an issue.
That said, it is worth adding that the locals, and the German nationalists
throughout Germany, surely resented the situation, but it's not as if the
nazis, and the other nationalist freak parties before them, had not had a
hand in that. Danzig was a flashpoint to start with, but the local nazis
made sure it remained that way. Hitler stoked the fire, see his directions
to the local party.
Note that the comparison you make with South Tyrol is interesting, because
of the situation of the local population there and in Danzig. In Danzig, the
Germans had everything they might want, save direct annexation to Germany.
It's not as if they were persecuted, or as if they could not talk and teach
their children their own language; if anything, the local Poles were
harassed. The one important thing Poland had in Danzig was a tax-free port,
which did not impact a private Danzig citizen's life one bit.
In South Tyrol, Germans had to learn Italian in school and German was not
taught; local names were Italianized; and the locals were harassed in many
minor ways. To the point that the agreement on the topic between Germany and
Italy was a severance package for those Germans that wanted to leave, a sort
of spontaneous and encouraged ethnic cleansing.
But Hitler chose not to worry that sore; he did so in Danzig.
As a final remark, please note how the LoN, which we consider wimpy and
ineffective today, had managed, in the past, to solve similar controversies.
That happened when the parties were in good faith (the Aland Islands) or
when, even when not entirely in good faith, they were not willing to go to
war over the controversy (the Albanian-Greek border and the Corfu accident).
The LoN patronage could have worked perfectly well for Danzig, were it not
for the fact that one party was not in good faith and wanted war.
Mario
> Switzerland had treaty-guaranteed
> access to Marseilles and Genoa.
Was Rhine navigation treaty-guaranteed too?
--
H
Bill Shatzer
Sure, but could Poland not have been given guaranteed navigation rights
on the Vistula and guaranteed duty free access to the port of Danzig?
It seems as though the so-called Polish corridor and the anomalous
status of Danzig could be recognized as a significant future problem,
even in 1919.
The western allies had their boot heels on Germany's throat and could
pretty much do whatever the hell they wanted but this seems one of their
more less than far-sighted actions.
Stephen Graham
Yes, as one of the results of the Congress of Vienna.
Stephen Graham
> Sure, but could Poland not have been given guaranteed navigation rights
> on the Vistula and guaranteed duty free access to the port of Danzig?
Something to bear in mind is that the Vistula was almost entirely
contained within the boundaries of Poland, just the delta and a small
portion of the headwaters even touched another country.
Internationalization would seem a bit strange. And as Michele pointed
out, Free City status gave the inhabitants of Danzig pretty much
everything they wanted except formal rule by Germany.
> It seems as though the so-called Polish corridor and the anomalous
> status of Danzig could be recognized as a significant future problem,
> even in 1919.
Bear in mind that the corridor's population was majority Polish.
But the mere fact of Poland's possession of any formerly German
territory would have created the exact same trouble.
Rich Rostrom
> At the end of the war soviets, Americans and British decided that Poland
> should get some of territories which in 1939 belonged to the III Reich.
> However it is worth to mention that until 18 century a substantial part of
> these territories did NOT belong to Prussia/Germany, and in particular some
> of them during infamous Partition of Poland were robbered from Poland by
> Prussian Kingdom.
This is not true. Almost none of the German
territory awarded to Poland in 1945 were
part of the pre-partition Kingdom of Poland.
Silesia had been Polish only in the Middle
Ages, and was entirely German after about
1300. Pomerania was settled by Germans
who conquered the pagan Baltic tribes there,
and was separated from Poland in 1181.
Prussia was also settled by German conquerors
of Baltic pagans, and was not Polish except
in the 1500s.
The 1918-1939 German-Polish border tracks
the pre-Partition border fairly closely.
The primary areas seized by Prussia in the
Partitions were the area of Pomerelia
(between Prussia and Pomerania on the
coast) and Posen (NE of Silesia and SE
of Pomerania). Both of these areas were
allocated to Poland in 1918-1919.
p 47
wiadomosci
news:b8300749-9f13-440f...@u10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>p 47 wrote:
>> At the end of the war soviets, Americans and British decided that Poland
>> should get some of territories which in 1939 belonged to the III Reich.
>> However it is worth to mention that until 18 century a substantial part
>> of
>> these territories did NOT belong to Prussia/Germany, and in particular
>> some
>> of them during infamous Partition of Poland were robbered from Poland by
>> Prussian Kingdom.
>
> This is not true. Almost none of the German
> territory awarded to Poland in 1945 were
> part of the pre-partition Kingdom of Poland.
Unfortunately this is your reply which is missing the truth and is
dangerously close to manipulation;- these are pre-1939 German territories
which for many centuries belonged to pre-partition Polish Kingdom and which
in 1945 have been awarded to Poland:
1. Warmia (in German: -Ermland),
2.Prusy Królewskie (in German;- Königlich-Preußen) with:
Pomorze Gdanskie (in erman:- Pommerellen),
Ziemia Chelminska (in German: -Kulmerland)
Malborg (in German;-Marienburg)
3. Olsztyn (in German Altstein)
In view of a present discussion concentrating around Danzig question it is
particularly interesting that you conveniently forgot that until partition
of Poland also Gdansk (in German;- Danzig) itself belonged to the Polish
Kingdom!
In general only very small part of all these territories has been returned
to Poland in 1918.
>
> Silesia had been Polish only in the Middle
> Ages, and was entirely German after about
> 1300. Pomerania was settled by Germans
> who conquered the pagan Baltic tribes there,
> and was separated from Poland in 1181.
> Prussia was also settled by German conquerors
> of Baltic pagans, and was not Polish except
> in the 1500s.
>
It is simply not true,- .Silesia has been incorporated to Prussia only in
the middle of 18 century, and the results of ballots and 3 Silesian
Uprisings against Germans clearly shows that it in spite of intensive
germanization Silesia still was not, quote "entirely German";-).
For other territories see above list
> The 1918-1939 German-Polish border tracks
> the pre-Partition border fairly closely.
As it has been demonstrated it is not true..
p47
Rich Rostrom
> Uzytkownik "Rich Rostrom" <rrostrom.21stcent...@rcn.com> napisal w
> > This is not true. Almost none of the German
> > territory awarded to Poland in 1945 were
> > part of the pre-partition Kingdom of Poland.
>
> Unfortunately this is your reply which is missing the truth and is
> dangerously close to manipulation;- these are pre-1939 German territories
> which for many centuries belonged to pre-partition Polish Kingdom and which
> in 1945 have been awarded to Poland:
>
> 1. Warmia (in German: -Ermland),
An enclave of about 8,000 sq km, almost
completely surrounded by Prussia, which
was settled by German "Crusaders" in
1230 or so, and not acquired by Poland
till 1466.
It remained German in 1918-1919.
> 2.Prusy Królewskie (in German;- Königlich-Preußen) with:
> Pomorze Gdanskie (in erman:- Pommerellen),
Pomerelia was awarded to Poland in
1918-19 as the "Polish Corridor.
> Ziemia Chelminska (in German: -Kulmerland)
An area about 50 km NS and 80 km
EW, from the bend of the Vistula
between Kulm/Chlmno and Thorn/Torun
eastward.
The western 2/3 of this area was awarded
to Poland in 1918-19. Kulm was BTW the
birthplace of General Guderian.
> Malborg (in German;-Marienburg)
A strip of land about 15 km wide
by 50 km long on the east side of
the Vistula delta. This remained
German.
> 3. Olsztyn (in German Altstein)
Part of Ermeland.
> In view of a present discussion concentrating around Danzig question it is
> particularly interesting that you conveniently forgot that until partition
> of Poland also Gdansk (in German;- Danzig) itself belonged to the Polish
> Kingdom!
I did not forget it. It is true that Danzig was under
the Polish Crown from 1466 until 1772. Danzig
was however not retained by Gemany in 1918-19,
being spun off into a "Free City".
> In general only very small part of all these territories
> has been returned to Poland in 1918.
By definition, this list is of those bits of land not allocated
to Poland in 1918-19.
It does not include the much larger areas which
had never been Polish and were awarded to
Poland in 1945.
> > Silesia had been Polish only in the Middle
> > Ages, and was entirely German after about
> > 1300.
>
> It is simply not true,- .Silesia has been incorporated to Prussia only in
> the middle of 18 century
Nice try. The point is not whether Silesia
belonged to Prussia but whether it was
part of Poland or Germany. Before 1866-1870,
Germany was divided into many separate
states. Prussia, one of these states, in 1741-
1748 seized Silesia from another German
state, Austria, which had acquired Silesia
in 1526, along with Bohemia and Moravia.
Silesia had been separated from Poland
and included in the "Holy Roman Empire"
before 1200.
The territories acquired by Poland in 1945
included Ermeland, Kulm, Marienburg, and
Danzig, which had been in the pre-partition
Kingdom - about 11,000 km sq.
However, Poland also acquired Silesia
(about 36,000 sq km), Pomerania
(about 26,000 sq km), and south Prussia
(about 12,000 sq km). Thus over 7/8
of the land acquired by Poland in 1945
was not part of the pre-Partition kingdom.
euno...@yahoo.com.au
> Michele chiocciolina punto wrote:
> > (1) Hitler's words. Danzig was an excuse, not an issue.
>
> In the larger sense this is true - Hitler had
> vastly greater goals than Danzig, but
> Danzig _was_ an issue. For the Germans
> that lived there (practically the whole
> population) the "Free City" status was
> awkward and inconvenient, and bitterly
> resented.
Hitler offered a Polish-German anti-soviet pack to the Poles. Rejeted
by the Polish Government
Hitler asked for an autobahn, with flyovers to connect Danzig to
Germany proper and or a Rail Link. Rejected by the Polish government.
There was no a sign of Agression till the fatefull day.
>
> Nationalist Germans elsewhere sympathized
> with Danzigers.
I would say not "Nationalist Germans" but most "Germans in
General".
Why scape goat nationists? The situation was unjust, everyone knew
it.
This was a time that Germans in Poland, Czechoslovakia and as far up
as Memmel were being discriminated against. Within that context
issues become more sensitive.
When Poland invaded the Tschen region of Czecholovakia they immediatly
began discriminating against the minority Czechs (and Germans of
course) as the Czechs had before then. No speaking czech or german in
public, no czechs schools allowed etc.
Incidently there was no such discrimination under the previous Austro-
Hungarian empire nor anything as extreme under German/Prussian rule
prior to 1914. There were Germanisation attempts under the Wilhelms.
I would also suggest that the situation in the Sudenland was similar.
CzechoSlovakia should have been named CzechoGermanoSlovakia.
The population distribtions were
Czech 5 million
German 3 milliont concentrated in the / Sudetenland on the German
border.
Slovak 2 million, (the Slovaks were put there as a demographic buffer
to the Germans, but didn't want to be there)
Although the "Sudetenland" was nominally part of the Austro-Hungary
empire prior to ww1 it in fact bordered Germany proper and the people
were ethnically German and had close ties to the Germans across the
border. The Sudetenland had been part of Bavaria and entered Austria
via Hapsburg marriage.
They were forced into a situation of discrimination, proverty and
subjegation under czech majority hegemony by French imperatives to
dismember Germany, a French policy for hundreds of years. The
welfare and justice to the people did not matter.
I should note that Wilsons prpagandistic "14 point plan" for "self
determination" was disreagarded at tow levels: no plebescite and no
swiss style confedration (local democracy) since it was thought that
the ethnic Germans would then assert power to leave. Ironically a
confederation would've been the only way to keep czechoslovakia
legitmate and together.
I should note that Austria was a tollerant multiethnic empire that did
not interfere with the language of the people, that Archduke Franz
Ferdinand was married to a Czech wife prior to his assasination and
the murder of his wife.
> Hitler could not have made an excuse out
> of Danzig if it was not an issue. He didn't
> pull the Danzig question out of thin air.
Indeed, it's said he was a 'moderate' by some standards on the issue.
>
> He could have ignored it, as he did the
> Sudtirol, perhaps - although a major city
> is harder to overlook than a remote
> mountain hinterland that had been Austrian
> Imperial territory rather than German.
Suditirol was one of several land grabs by Post WW1 by Italy. They
were with the "Allies" then.
To this day they speak German and if you order or speak Italian rather
than German or English, well, you will be allowed to know politiely
that in South Tyrol you should speak German.
Michele
news:ebba3aab-23bd-456a...@x7g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 26, 8:14 am, Rich Rostrom <rrostrom.21stcent...@rcn.com> wrote:
>> Michele chiocciolina punto wrote:
>> > (1) Hitler's words. Danzig was an excuse, not an issue.
>>
>> In the larger sense this is true - Hitler had
>> vastly greater goals than Danzig, but
>> Danzig _was_ an issue. For the Germans
>> that lived there (practically the whole
>
>> population) the "Free City" status was
>> awkward and inconvenient, and bitterly
>> resented.
>
> Hitler offered a Polish-German anti-soviet pack to the Poles. Rejeted
> by the Polish Government
Yes. What, exactly, did this have to do with the status of Danzig? Nothing,
at face value. Of course there was the unstated stick and carrot: the stick
was the same that was shown to Slovakia, Hungary, Romania; the carrot was a
territorial compensation, you'll lose territory on the Baltic coast, but
we'll go robbing together in the Ukraine and you'll get something there.
It is somewhat hard to argue that the Poles were peculiar in turning this
"offer" down.
> Hitler asked for an autobahn, with flyovers to connect Danzig to
> Germany proper and or a Rail Link. Rejected by the Polish government.
>
The demand was for an _extra-territorial_ Autobahn and rail. In short, the
Polish communications to reach the new small port of Gdynia would need to
cross into German territory. If Eastern Prussia (plus Danzig) was a coastal
enclave, what Hitler demanded was to turn Gdynia into that. You may try as
much as you want to make the Polish refusal sound as unreasonable, but
you're not making much headway.
In particular, had a small speck of territory, the Free City of Danzig, been
entirely surrounded by Polish territory, that would have been something of
an inconvenience. But it bordered with Eastern Prussia, that is Germany, as
you should know.
> There was no a sign of Agression till the fatefull day.
>
You mean apart from
- staged unrest in Danzig (please don't try to tell us that these were
spontaneous, we have the documents with the directions from Berlin to the
local nazies),
- the false start on August 26,
- the Gleiwitz fake?
Well, apart from those, which were quite readable thank you very much, maybe
there was no other open sign of aggression. Then of course we have the
planned aggression that was not shown in the open, such as the meeting of
Hitler with his generals on August 22. Halder has these nice words to tell
you about the war to come:
2.) Ziel: Vernichtung Polens - Beseitigung seiner lebendigen
Kraft. Es handelt sich nicht um Erreichen einer bestimmten
Linie oder einer neuen Grenze, sondern um Vernichtung des
Feindes, die auf immer neuen Wegen angestrebt werden muß.
3.) Auslösung: Mittel gleichgültig. Der Sieger wird nie
interpelliert, ob seine Gründe berechtigt waren. Es handelt
sich nicht darum, das Recht auf unserer Seite zu haben,
sondern ausschließlich um den Sieg.
4.) Durchführung: Hart und rücksichtslos. Gegen alle
Erwägungen des Mitleids hart machen!
A war about Danzig, yeah. I'm sure you will be grateful that I posted this
text, which will come as news to you, given your misapprehensions about the
war beginning.
>
> To this day they speak German and if you order or speak Italian rather
> than German or English, well, you will be allowed to know politiely
> that in South Tyrol you should speak German.
>
A barrowload of byproducts of bovine metabolism. I've been there a month ago
and spoke Italian with everybody. They very politely answered in Italian and
did not dream to displease a tourist by telling him what language he should
speak, not even very politely. They would have been glad to speak German, of
course, and when I did reply in German to a waitress who had forgotten we
were Italians, she smiled and said another sentence or two in German. Then
she switched back to Italian, well aware that we were more comfortable that
way.
Evidently you've never been there. I can post the name of the hotels here,
and if you contact them in Italian by e-mail, they'll reply in Italian. A
pathetic bluff, really. Like most of what you post.
Stephen Graham
> Hitler asked for an autobahn, with flyovers to connect Danzig to
> Germany proper and or a Rail Link. Rejected by the Polish government.
As Michele has pointed out, the Germans had free access across Polish
territory to both Gdansk and East Prussia, guaranteed by the
Polish-Gdansk Convention of 1920.
> Incidently there was no such discrimination under the previous Austro-
> Hungarian empire nor anything as extreme under German/Prussian rule
> prior to 1914. There were Germanisation attempts under the Wilhelms.
Note that Germanization efforts are spoken of favorably while
Polonization is condemned. Double standard.
The Sudetenland had been part of Bavaria and entered Austria
> via Hapsburg marriage.
You'll have to specify exactly when the Kingdom of Bohemia or any
territory therein was part of Bavaria.
> They were forced into a situation of discrimination, proverty and
> subjegation under czech majority hegemony by French imperatives to
> dismember Germany, a French policy for hundreds of years. The
> welfare and justice to the people did not matter.
It's really kind of hard to spend hundreds of years attempting to
dismember something that dated from 1870.
> I should note that Wilsons prpagandistic "14 point plan" for "self
> determination" was disreagarded at tow levels: no plebescite and no
> swiss style confedration (local democracy) since it was thought that
> the ethnic Germans would then assert power to leave. Ironically a
> confederation would've been the only way to keep czechoslovakia
> legitmate and together.
This promotes a minority over the majority of Slovaks who did wish to be
part of Czechoslovakia in 1919.
Roman Werpachowski
> As Michele has pointed out, there is and long has been a vocal
> irredentist faction regarding the territory lost to Poland following
> World War Two, let alone the areas lost following World War One. And
> it's not as if you haven't discussed this issue in this newsgroup
> repeatedly.
There are actually two points of contention:
1. immediate post-war expulsions of Germans; however cruel, their
legality was never seriously questioned
2. later (70s) "voluntary" emigrations of Polish citizens of German
ethnicity (or just descent) to Germany, who were forced to trade real
estate for passports; this was subject of legal debate and trials,
some of which (google for "Agnes Trawny") were won by the emmigrants.
Roman
Roman Werpachowski
> I'm not sure why that was the only alternative. After all, Austria,
> Czechoslovakia, Hungary, and Switzerland all managed without a port on
> the Baltic - or any other ocean for that matter.
When Poland was fighting the war with the Soviets in 1920, it found
its transport links to the West sabotaged by German communists. This
illustrates the need for a Polish-controlled sea port. Another point
is that even having the Gdańsk port, Poland still went ahead and built
another in Gdynia. If Gdańsk was all Poland could need, why pay for
the construction of Gdynia port?
Roman
Roman Werpachowski
> I should note that Austria was a tollerant multiethnic empire that did
> not interfere with the language of the people, that Archduke Franz
> Ferdinand was married to a Czech wife prior to his assasination and
> the murder of his wife.
Only after their ambitions to become a strong empire failed. In the
first half of the XIXth century the Austrians were as tough as
Russians and Prussians towards their Polish subjects. In 1846,
Austrian officials offered money for the heads of Polish nobility
during the Galician slaughter!
Roman