A 1933 proposal to resolve the Polish Corridor dispute

Discussions on all aspects of Poland during the Second Polish Republic and the Second World War. Hosted by Piotr Kapuscinski.
Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: A 1933 proposal to resolve the Polish Corridor dispute

#106

Post by Futurist » 29 Apr 2016, 09:27

Futurist wrote:
Peter K wrote:
Futurist wrote:Ukrainian nationalistic candidate Viktor Yushchenko
Pro-EU candidate = nationalistic candidate? The "Orange Revolution" was about the westward shift of Ukraine - towards the EU.
Yes, Viktor Yushchenko was relatively nationalistic; for instance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stepan_Ba ... nnulled.29

"On 22 January 2010, on the Day of Unity of Ukraine, the then-President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko awarded to Bandera the title of Hero of Ukraine (posthumously) for "defending national ideas and battling for an independent Ukrainian state."[100] A grandson of Bandera, also named Stepan, accepted the award that day from the Ukrainian President during the state ceremony to commemorate the Day of Unity of Ukraine at the National Opera House of Ukraine.[100][101][102][103]"

Also, supporting Ukrainian entry into the EU and/or into NATO can also be viewed as a form of Ukrainian nationalism. After all, Ukrainian EU and/or NATO membership would allow Ukraine to drift further out from Russia's orbit. :)
Indeed, don't far-right Ukrainian politicians also support Ukrainian entry into the EU and/or NATO? Completely serious question, for the record.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: A 1933 proposal to resolve the Polish Corridor dispute

#107

Post by Futurist » 30 Apr 2016, 00:59

Peter K wrote:Is this a miracle, or just a return back to historical normality?
Well, this might simply be the case due to the fact that, as far as I know, Poland doesn't have a lot of Muslims like some other European countries (France, Germany, et cetera) have. Indeed, some/many Muslims are unfortunately anti-Semitic due to their inability to separate and differentiate between Jews and Israel. :(


Piotr Kapuscinski
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 3724
Joined: 12 Jul 2006, 20:17
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: A 1933 proposal to resolve the Polish Corridor dispute

#108

Post by Piotr Kapuscinski » 25 Oct 2019, 21:43

Interesting books from 1931 and 1934:

viewtopic.php?f=111&t=245142
There are words which carry the presage of defeat. Defence is such a word. What is the result of an even victorious defence? The next attempt of imposing it to that weaker, defender. The attacker, despite temporary setback, feels the master of situation.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: A 1933 proposal to resolve the Polish Corridor dispute

#109

Post by Futurist » 29 Oct 2019, 00:42

Peter K wrote:
25 Oct 2019, 21:43
Interesting books from 1931 and 1934:

viewtopic.php?f=111&t=245142
I don't see the 1934 book there.

Piotr Kapuscinski
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 3724
Joined: 12 Jul 2006, 20:17
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: A 1933 proposal to resolve the Polish Corridor dispute

#110

Post by Piotr Kapuscinski » 31 Oct 2019, 09:54

Futurist wrote:
29 Oct 2019, 00:42
I don't see the 1934 book there.
This one: http://pbc.gda.pl/dlibra/plain-content?id=304

By the way, here is ethnic data from four "core" counties of the Corridor over one century (years 1831-1931):

(data for years 1831-1861 include Wejherowo and Puck as one county, Kreis Putzig was established after that; in the 1920s Poland merged Puck and Wejherowo again, creating Martitime County - 1921/31 data include Maritime County plus the city of Gdynia)

Image

^^^ Map of these four counties in question (fragment from 1919 "Map of Polish population", by Lucjusz Dura):

(Puck/Putzig - 77.4%, Wejherowo/Neustadt - 54.9%, Kartuzy/Karthaus - 77.3%, Kościerzyna/Berent - 64.5%)

Image
There are words which carry the presage of defeat. Defence is such a word. What is the result of an even victorious defence? The next attempt of imposing it to that weaker, defender. The attacker, despite temporary setback, feels the master of situation.

User avatar
Gorque
Member
Posts: 1662
Joined: 11 Feb 2009, 19:20
Location: Clocktown

Re: A 1933 proposal to resolve the Polish Corridor dispute

#111

Post by Gorque » 01 Nov 2019, 18:55

Is there any data on only the Polish population, i.e.: Sans Kashubians and those of mixed nationalities? I ask this as the inclusion of the aforementioned could/would lead to skewed results.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashubia# ... okalne.png


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashubian ... s_2005.png

Piotr Kapuscinski
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 3724
Joined: 12 Jul 2006, 20:17
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: A 1933 proposal to resolve the Polish Corridor dispute

#112

Post by Piotr Kapuscinski » 03 Nov 2019, 02:09

Gorque wrote:
01 Nov 2019, 18:55
Is there any data on only the Polish population, i.e.: Sans Kashubians
No because in early censuses there was no distinction between Poles and Kashubians (until mid-1800s all of Kashubs were counted as Poles), and later distinctions were arbitrary, as proven by Stefan Ramułt. Ramułt proved that in the census of 1890, villages counted as 90%+ Polish and those counted as 90%+ Kashubian, in fact spoke the exact same dialect. But German censuses counted most of Kashubs as Polish-speakers.

Excerpts quoted below are not directly from Ramułt's book, but from an article published by "Kashubian Unity" association:

"Ramułt criticized the methods of conducting the German census of 1890, and its results. In his book 'Statistics of Kashubian population', published in 1899, Ramułt declared the results of the census as generally false, and as presenting a skewed image of the ethnic situation. He illustrated that with examples, some of which can be mentioned. In the village of Parchowo, numbering 640 inhabitants - 6 inhabitants were reported as Polish-speakers and 466 as Kashubian-speakers (the rest were Germans and Jews). Similarly in Prokowo among 543 inhabitants, Muttersprache of 7 was listed as Polish and of 518 as Kashubian. In Dzierzazno (Seeresen) among 318 inhabitants, 4 were listed as Poles and 268 as Kashubs. On the other hand, in Zuromino among 231 inhabitants the census counted - by mother tongue - 230 Poles and no Kashubs. In Skorzewo, among 749 inhabitants, only one Kashub and 697 Poles. In Msciszewice among 768 inhabitants - 5 Kashubs and 709 Poles."

^^^
Links to Wikipedia articles about all these villages mentioned (as you can see all of them are located close to each other):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parchowo - Parchowo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prokowo - Prokowo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dzier%C5% ... uzy_County - Dzierzazno
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%BBuromino - Zuromino
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skorzewo - Skorzewo
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C5%9Bciszewice - Msciszewice

^^^
Ramułt concluded, confronting census data with his findings (he visited all those and more villages throughout year 1892):

"Despite those misleading census results, it is in fact NOT a case that the Muttersprache of Slavic population living in Parchowo, Prokowo and Dzierzazno is any different than that of Slavic population living in Zuromino, Skorzewo and Msciszewice. (...) In fact, all of these people speak exactly the same, identical Kashubian dialect. (...) In reality the number of people speaking Non-Kashubian Polish is not even 100 individuals in this whole area, compared to around 45.000 native Kashubian-speakers. On the other hand, the census counted, in the area discussed - by Muttersprache - 22.301 Poles, 16.964 Kashubs, and several thousand Bilinguals (Zweisprachigen) - who speak the same dialect too."

=====

You can safely assume that almost 100% of the Slavic-speaking population in 4 northernmost counties of the "Corridor" (Puck, Wejherowo, Kartuzy, Kościerzyna) were actually ethnic "Kashubs proper", even though all German censuses showed a ca. 60/40 Poles/Kashubs split in this area. Anyway, Catholic Kashubs have been - in terms of national identity - staunch Poles, and they voted for Polish party in all Reichstag elections. To sum up: ethnicity 95%+ Kashub, national identity 95%+ Polish. The 60/40 Kashub/Polish split in German data was fiction. It was 100% of both.

Kashubs did not want to live in Germany and those who were left on the German side of the border by the Treaty of Versailles, even organized protests against that (e.g. Kashubs from Kreis Bütow protested against being left on the German side of the border on 16 May 1920).
Gorque wrote:
01 Nov 2019, 18:55
and those of mixed nationalities?
Do you mean people with mixed ancestry? I don't think intermarriage was common, but usually assimilation in this time and region was one-way - and those of mixed ancestry were counted as "full Germans". On the other hand, bilingualism is a different issue - considering that the region was under German rule, Polish-German bilinguals and Kashubian-German bilinguals were usually 100% Poles/Kashubs in terms of ancestry. Before 1919 Germans did not have to speak Polish/Kashubian, while Poles/Kashubs needed to speak German fluently if they wanted to get by.
There are words which carry the presage of defeat. Defence is such a word. What is the result of an even victorious defence? The next attempt of imposing it to that weaker, defender. The attacker, despite temporary setback, feels the master of situation.

Piotr Kapuscinski
Host - Allied sections
Posts: 3724
Joined: 12 Jul 2006, 20:17
Location: Poland
Contact:

Re: A 1933 proposal to resolve the Polish Corridor dispute

#113

Post by Piotr Kapuscinski » 13 Nov 2019, 02:27

Peter K wrote:
31 Oct 2019, 09:54
By the way, here is ethnic data from four "core" counties of the Corridor over one century (years 1831-1931):

(data for years 1831-1861 include Wejherowo and Puck as one county, Kreis Putzig was established after that; in the 1920s Poland merged Puck and Wejherowo again, creating Martitime County - 1921/31 data include Maritime County plus the city of Gdynia)

Image
^^^
That data is from 4 types of statistics - general censuses (1837, 1852, 1855, 1858, 1890, 1900, 1905, 1910, 1921, 1931), censuses of school children (1886, 1891, 1896, 1901, 1906, 1911), estimates by ethnographers (Ramułt) or scholars (Belzyt).

The fourth type is the map posted above (estimates for ca. 1918).

Wejherowo county at first included Puck, then Puck became its own county, then was merged again.

Wejherowo/Neustadt County:
(includes Puck/Putzig until 1861)

Year - percent of Poles/Kashubians

1831 - 78%
1837 - 77%
1852 - 80%
1855 - 80%
1858 - 79%
1861 - 80%

Puck/Putzig County (since 1886):

Year - percent of Poles/Kashubians

1886 - 75%
1890 - 69%
1890 - 73%
1891 - 74%
1892 - 77%
1896 - 72%
1900 - 69%
1901 - 76%
1905 - 70%
1906 - 73%
1910 - 70%
1910 - 74%
1911 - 74%
1918 - 77% (see the map above)

Wejherowo/Neustadt County: / this county included the city of Sopot/Zoppot, which after 1918 became part of Free City Danzig
(since 1886 without Putzig/Puck)

Year - percent of Poles/Kashubians

1886 - 64%
1890 - 56%
1890 - 61%
1891 - 62%
1892 - 67%
1896 - 61%
1900 - 54%
1901 - 60%
1905 - 51%
1906 - 62%
1910 - 50% (the only year in whole century when Germans were as much as 50% according to official data, but including Zoppot)
1910 - 62%
1911 - 63%
1918 - 55% (see the map above)

And in Inter-War Poland after 1918:

Wejherowo-Puck (Maritime County) and Gdynia:
(Sopot/Zoppot excluded as it was added to Danzig)

Year - percent of Poles/Kashubians

1921 - 89%
1931 - 95%

=====
=====

Kartuzy/Karthaus County:

Year - percent of Poles/Kashubians

1831 - 84%
1837 - 84%
1852 - 77%
1855 - 76%
1858 - 76%
1861 - 77%
1886 - 66%
1890 - 67%
1890 - 68%
1891 - 66%
1892 - 76%
1896 - 70%
1900 - 69%
1901 - 71%
1905 - 70%
1906 - 72%
1910 - 72%
1910 - 74%
1911 - 74%
1918 - 77% (see the map above)

And in Inter-War Poland after 1918:

1921 - 92%
1931 - 93%

=====
=====

Kościerzyna/Berent County:

Year - percent of Poles/Kashubians

1831 - 71%
1837 - 71%
1852 - 64%
1855 - 64%
1858 - 63%
1861 - 64%
1886 - 57%
1890 - 54%
1890 - 57%
1891 - 56%
1892 - 59%
1896 - 58%
1900 - 55%
1901 - 59%
1905 - 56%
1906 - 60%
1910 - 58%
1910 - 62%
1911 - 63%
1918 - 65% (see the map above)

And in Inter-War Poland after 1918:

1921 - 81%
1931 - 88%

=====
=====

As for ethnic maps. These two below, for early 1800 and 1892, are based on modern research.

They show that ethnically Kashubian areas extended also west of the Corridor into Pommern:

Early 1800s:

Image

Year 1892:

Image

1892 - maps based on research by ethnographer Stefan Ramułt, originally published in 1899:

Image

Image

^^^
Based on that as well as on economic and strategic considerations, perhaps it would have been better to actually give Poland a wider Corridor than OTL. Adding just some extra 2760 square kilometers of sparsely populated territory (ca. 100,000 people in total - most of them Germans, but the area had a substantial Kashubian/Polish minority, at least 15,000) would double the length of Polish Baltic Sea coastline.

In real history the Second Polish Republic had:

- 71 kilometers of Baltic coastline without Vistula Lagoon
- 147 kilometers of coastline if Vistula Lagoon is included

In this scenario it would have 141 and 217 respectively (70 kilometers of coastline more), as well as a sea port in Leba.

Bytow (Bütow) and Lebork (Lauenburg) had also been parts of the Polish Crown before the Partitions of Poland. And Leba River had historically been the westernmost boundary of the German Holy Roman Empire. See this political map from the 1600s-1700s (area 3):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%81eba_(river)

^^^
"the mouth of the Łeba River marked the north-easternmost point of the Holy Roman Empire till its dissolution in 1806"

Image

Another map showing historical border from times before the Partitions of Poland:

Image

^^^
Brandenburg-Prussia obtained partial control of Bytow-Lebork in 1657, full in 1771-72:

Image

But Lupow River would have been a better border, it would allow the inclusion of Kashubs west & south of Lebasee into Poland:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%81upawa_(river) - Lupow (Łupawa) River

Image

Proposed extension westward of the Polish Corridor:

Image

^^^ More detailed map showing railways and roads:

Image

^^^
Not sure if such wider Corridor could prevent WW2 but it would definitely be easier to defend.

=====
EDIT:

Also during entire century there was substantial Polish/Kashubian presence in areas which later became the Free City Danzig.

Some data from the 19th century:

Landkreis Danzig (= areas surrounding the city; later split into Höhe & Niederung):

Year - percent Poles/Kashubians:

1837 - 17%
1852 - 17%
1855 - 17%
1858 - 16%

And if counting only areas of future Danziger Höhe (without Danziger Niederung):

Year - percent Poles/Kashubians:

1831 - 32%
1861 - 32%

For West Prussia as a whole, earliest exact ethnic figures are from 1823 and 1831:

Georg Hassel, "Statistischer Umriß..." (published in 1823):

Poles (incl. Kashubs) ------------ 52%
Germans -------------------------- 44%
Mennonites* ----------------------- 2%
Jews -------------------------------- 2%

*Vistula Delta Mennonites, predominantly of Dutch origin.

Karl Andree, "Polen..." (published in 1831 in Leipzig):

Poles (incl. Kashubs) ------------ 50%
Germans (incl. Mennonites) --- 47%
Jews -------------------------------- 3%

Already by that time German colonization increased their share compared to 1772.

After WW1, Poland got 2/3 of the territory and half of population of West Prussia:

Total pre-WW1 area of West Prussia - 25,580 km2 - of which:

Went to the Polish Republic - 15,900 km2 (62% of area, with 57% of the population)
Went to Free City Danzig - 1,966 km2 (8% of area, with 19% of the population)
Was added to East Prussia - 2,927 km2 (11% of area, with 15% of the population)
German west of the Corridor - 4,787 km2 (19% of area, with 9% of the population)
There are words which carry the presage of defeat. Defence is such a word. What is the result of an even victorious defence? The next attempt of imposing it to that weaker, defender. The attacker, despite temporary setback, feels the master of situation.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: A 1933 proposal to resolve the Polish Corridor dispute

#114

Post by Futurist » 17 Nov 2019, 01:30

wm wrote:
09 Feb 2016, 04:16
But, some other territory, useless to Germany but with access to sea could have been much more attractive to Poland.
In the spirit of compromise a reasonable offer would be for example the land between Rummelsburg, Rügenwalde, Dembeck.
Did the Poles ever make such a proposal?

BTW, after thinking it over, I think that a better move in 1919 would have been to give Danzig to Poland in addition to the Polish Corridor. I mean, France was able to get Alsace-Lorraine back without any plebiscite (even limited to those people whose ancestors lived in Alsace-Lorraine in 1871), so why should Poland's possession of Danzig and the Polish Corridor have been contingent on a plebiscite? After all, both of these territories were Polish for three centuries before the Prussian-initiated Partitions of Poland in the late 1700s. Ideally, plebiscites in Alsace-Lorraine, the Polish Corridor, and Danzig might have very well been ideal (albeit possibly with suffrage being limited to those who have long roots in these areas); however, once France rejected the plebiscite idea for Alsace-Lorraine, I don't see why the Poles should have been denied the right to reclaim their own recently lost historical territories without any plebiscites. Upper Silesia, of course, was a different kettle of fish altogether since it hadn't actually belonged to Poland for 600 years in 1919; thus, a plebiscite there was much more appropriate. Ditto for Masuria/southern East Prussia.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: A 1933 proposal to resolve the Polish Corridor dispute

#115

Post by wm » 19 Nov 2019, 00:41

Nobody thought in such terms. It was all about spheres of influence and balance of forces.
The French were ready to give Poland more because obviously Poland was their ally.
The British were unwilling for the same reason - because Poland was a French ally, and they didn't want France to become too strong, stronger than Germany.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: A 1933 proposal to resolve the Polish Corridor dispute

#116

Post by Futurist » 21 Nov 2019, 04:09

wm wrote:
19 Nov 2019, 00:41
Nobody thought in such terms. It was all about spheres of influence and balance of forces.
Spheres of influence could have less permanence than direct annexations, though. TBH, it's possible that Hitler would have been willing to let Poland keep Danzig had Poland acquired it back in 1919.
The French were ready to give Poland more because obviously Poland was their ally.
Yes--albeit an ally that the French were unable to protect in the long(er)-run. The fact that France and Poland were separated by Germany wasn't exactly conductive to the idea of significant French military assistance to Poland in wartime.
The British were unwilling for the same reason - because Poland was a French ally, and they didn't want France to become too strong, stronger than Germany.
Even France and Poland combined would have only been Germany's equals, no? Ultimately Britain worried about a powerful France but in reality, when push came to shove, France didn't really feel like it could actually do much without British help.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: A 1933 proposal to resolve the Polish Corridor dispute

#117

Post by wm » 02 Dec 2019, 21:07

The idea was that no single European power should be allowed to achieve hegemony over Europe.
Germany didn't have an army worth speaking of so understandably the British were concerned that France was a probable candidate for a new hegemon.
What happened in the thirties was irrelevant as they had no access to a time machine.

France, quite reasonably, wasn't concerned with protection of Poland, and in the treaty promised help, not protection.

Hitler didn't need Danzig for anything, Polish diplomats were convinced Ribbentrop, driven by his ignorance - believing the Poles were quitters, pushed him over the edge, and then it was all downhill since then.

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: A 1933 proposal to resolve the Polish Corridor dispute

#118

Post by Futurist » 01 Jan 2020, 00:53

wm wrote:
02 Dec 2019, 21:07
The idea was that no single European power should be allowed to achieve hegemony over Europe.
Germany didn't have an army worth speaking of so understandably the British were concerned that France was a probable candidate for a new hegemon.
What happened in the thirties was irrelevant as they had no access to a time machine.
Eventual German rearmament was not viewed as a realistic possibility back in 1919? If so, why object to a German union with Austria if Germany is always going to be harmless?

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: A 1933 proposal to resolve the Polish Corridor dispute

#119

Post by wm » 07 Jan 2020, 00:24

An nescis, mi fili, quantilla prudentia mundus regatur?

Futurist
Member
Posts: 3642
Joined: 24 Dec 2015, 01:02
Location: SoCal

Re: A 1933 proposal to resolve the Polish Corridor dispute

#120

Post by Futurist » 07 Jan 2020, 00:54

In English, please!

Post Reply

Return to “Poland 1919-1945”