Fate of the Slavs and Poles if the Nazis won?

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

The German-speaking population of Royal Prussia consisted partly of immigrants from Germany (the Holy Roman Empire) and partly of native Pomeranians who had become linguistically and culturally germanised. Which category the family of the mother of Copernicus belonged to I do not know; quite probably her family was a mixture of German immigrants and germanised Pomeranians.

But the most relevant point is that citizenship of the Royal Prussian towns was not dependent on an individual's descent, but on his linguistic and cultural status. Thus a person like the father of Copernicus who probably had no German ancestry could become a citizen of Thorn through his acquisition of German language and culture.

Of course, the rural population of Royal Prussia remained to a large extent ungermanised. German-speaking citizens of the Royal Prussian cities made a habit of sending their sons to live for a time in the surrounding villages to learn the local Polish dialect so that they could do business with Poland in future. So it is quite possible that Copernicus learned to speak a Polish dialect.

Yes, I mostly agree with your post. But let's add something about the original Slavic population of Royal Prussia:

Pomeranians (Kaszubians) inhabited only one part of Royal Prussia to the west of Gdansk, while most of Slavic population of Royal Prussia were Greater Poles (Wielkopolans). Maps below show the extent and subdivisions of Greater Polish Dialect, next to Kashubian-speaking areas. Bory, Krajna and Kociewie were habitats of ethnographic groups of Borowiaks, Krajniaks and Kociewiaks - all of them subdivisions of Greater Poles, not Kashubians. Krajniak speech was Greater Polish but with strong Kashubian influence (it was an intermediary dialect). However, Borowiak and especially Kociewiak dialects did not show any significant Kashubian linguistic influences (see below).

After Gdansk became German-speaking Danzig, Kociewiaks still lived as far as the southern outskirts of Danzig, while Kashubians lived at its western outskirts. Before the Germanisation of Danzig, Slavic population of that area was probably a mixture of Kociewiaks and Kashubians (this map of dialects shows the border between Greater Polish and Kashubian running through the city):



Here Greater Polish dialect and its subdivisions is shown as III (also V is often counted as part of it - see above - but some linguists consider it to be a transitional dialect between Greater Polish and IV - Masovian), while Kashubian and its subdivisions is VI:



As for the origin of Kociewiaks (a subdivision of Greater Poles) - there are two theories on this. One theory says that they came there as settlers between the 10th and 12th centuries, another one says that they had lived there already before the 10th century.

I will translate posts describing both theories from "Kociewie - history of settlement" thread on historycy.org:

http://www.historycy.org/index.php?showtopic=82067

Question in the Opening Post:

"Welcome,
Contrary to Kashubia, Kociewie is a region inhabited by [Greater] Polish-speaking population. Does anybody know, when exactly did that settlement take place? Had that area once been inhabited by Kashubians, and only later Kociewiaks came?"

One of answers - by historian Adam Sengebusch (nickname Bazyli):

"This is a very hard question - some part of an answer can be found here: Wielkopolski Dialect - Kociewie Region (...) Some publications claim that south-eastern parts of Pomerelia were originally inhabited almost exclusively by Pomeranians (+ some small groups of Old Prussians). (...) Changes took place only after the conquest of Pomerelia by Poland [in the 10th century]. (...) During the reign of Boleslav III [in the 12th century] large part of population from Greater Poland, Cuiavia and Land of Dobrzyn started to migrated to southern and eastern parts of Pomerelia. The presence of Polish population in Pomerelia is confirmed without doubt by various sources from the 14th and 15th centuries (for example documents of Polish-Teutonic court trials from 1339). I will also remind that in another thread I quoted sources from the 14th and 15th centuries which say about presence in cities of Kociewie (such as Gniew / Mewe or Świecie / Schwetz) of Germans, Wends (most likely this refers to local Pomeranians) and Poles. I think that modern Kociewiaks emerged from a mixture of Poles and Polonized Pomeranians (+ groups of Prussians, Germans, and so on). An example of a native Kociewiak is Wojciech Cejrowski."

Kociewiak Cejrowski: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wojciech_Cejrowski

So according to Sengebusch, Kociewiaks are Medieval Polish settlers, who replaced (and partially assimilated) previous population - Kashubians. But another user - Kmat - says that Polish Kociewiaks lived there originally, and that Kashubians had never lived there. Quote:

"When it comes to Kociewie I would bet autochthonical [= pre-10th century] character. Primo - natural routes of settlement / migration go along the Vistula from Cuiavia and Mazovia to the north; secundo - Kashubian substrate is not visible in Kociewiak dialect, unlike in Krajna."

So, Kociewiak dialect is "pure" Wielkopolish - without any linguistic influence from Kashubian. This suggests no Kashubian substrate.

If Kmat is right then Kociewiaks could be the original Slavic population of the area of Danzig and areas to the south of it,

During Slavic migrations, dialectal differences between migrating groups emerged - but when did Kashubian and Wielkopolish emerge as two distinct kinds of speech from their common ancestral North-West Slavic (Lechitic) language, is uncertain. And it is uncertain where was their original border (i.e. who was first in the area which later became Free City Danzig - Kociewiaks, Kashubians, or both).

[michael mills]

Some very interesting and useful information, Peter, as usual. I wonder though what time period the map you posted refers to, as the borders shown are those of Poland after 1945.

For example, the map shows in the former East Prussia "nowe dialekty mieszane", which I assume are Polish dialects spoken in a formerly German-speaking area. Does that mean that the map is showing the present distribution of Polish dialects, ie after the settlement of Poles in formerly German areas?

For example, the map shows the whole of the Danzig area being inhabited by either Kashubians or Kociewiaks, which cannot have been the case before 1945.

Also, there appear to be differences between the two maps in relation to dialect boundaries.

I note that Sengebusch seems to regard Pomeranians (Kashubians) and Poles as historically separate Slavic peop0les. Is that a common view?

Would it be true to say that the modern Polish people is the product of the merging of originally different Slavic peoples, in the same way that the Germans are the product of the merging of different Germanic peoples such as Bavarians, Saxons, Franks, Hessians etc.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi Michael,

There are no "pure" races unless they have been living in long term isolation from the rest of humanity. Eurasia is a continuum from one side to the other. Within it virtually, perhaps literally, all peoples are to some degree mixed - even outliers like Iceland (with an Irish element) and Japan (with an Ainu element).

The Poles are hardly likely to be any different.

Modern states are often the result of the centralizing of tribal peoples, like the English (assorted Britons, Angles [themselves North Folk and South Folk], Saxons [themselves Northumbrians, Mercians, men of Wessex, Essex, Middlesex, Sussex, etc., etc.], Jutes, Frisians, Danes, etc., etc.).

The Slavic tribal world tended to coalesce round major centres such as Kiev, Mosccow and Warsaw. In some areas the actual border owing alegiance to these centres remains in dispute. Galicia was one such area in dispute between Moscow and Warsaw, at a time when Kiev had no real independence. The current problem in eastern Ukraine comes from Moscow's refusal to recognize that this area should look towards Kiev. Indeed, many Russian nationalists do not recognize that a Ukrainian nationality separate from the Russian exists at all! Slavdom's nationalities and borders are still to consolidate even today.

Cheers,

Sid

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

Some very interesting and useful information, Peter, as usual. I wonder though what time period the map you posted refers to, as the borders shown are those of Poland after 1945.

For example, the map shows in the former East Prussia "nowe dialekty mieszane", which I assume are Polish dialects spoken in a formerly German-speaking area. Does that mean that the map is showing the present distribution of Polish dialects, ie after the settlement of Poles in formerly German areas?

The map is generally showing the traditional (pre-WW2) distribution of dialects, with the exception of "nowe dialekty mieszane" ("new mixed dialects") - which emerged after WW2 from mixing of people speaking different Polish dialects following the population movements after WW2 and the resettlement of ethnic Poles from various regions into formerly German-speaking areas.

For example, the map shows the whole of the Danzig area being inhabited by either Kashubians or Kociewiaks, which cannot have been the case before 1945.

There existed a Non-German minority in the Free City Danzig, and it mostly comprised Kociewiaks and Kashubians, so I think the map is correct (remember that it shows only the distribution of Polish dialects, without paying attention to German dialects spoken by part of population in those areas - in Free City Danzig German-speakers were clear majority, but some Polish-speakers also lived there).

Also, there appear to be differences between the two maps in relation to dialect boundaries.

Yes but relatively minor differences, reflecting slightly different views of different scholars.

I note that Sengebusch seems to regard Pomeranians (Kashubians) and Poles as historically separate Slavic peoples. Is that a common view?

Classification of Kashubian is problematic - some scholars suggested that it is a dialect of Polish, others that it is a separate language within the Lechitic (North-West Slavic) branch of Slavic family, but most closely related to Polish. Even if Kashubian and Polish are two separate languages, rather than Kashubian being a very specific dialect of Polish, then Polish and Kashubian are still much more closely related to each other, than to any other existing (such as Lower and Upper Sorbian) or known but extinct (such as Polabian) Slavic languages.

As some people say, languages are often just dialect with an army, while dialects are languages without armies - for example Standard Spanish and Standard Portuguese "languages" are supposedly more mutually intelligible, than some "dialects" of Han Chinese language. So technically either these Chinese dialects should be classified as two distinct languages, or Spanish and Portuguese should be classified as just two dialects of the same language. When it comes to how Pomeranians / Kashubians were perceived - generally already since the Middle Ages, Kashubians living in Pomerelia (Eastern Pomerania) were being called Poles by most of sources (including Teutonic Order's and other German sources). Later on, after the Reformation, Catholic Kashubians generally called themselves Poles and were also perceived as such by Germans. But Lutheran Kashubians in Pommern (Western Pomerania), even though their speech was no different from that of neighbouring Catholic Kashubians, were usually called "Cassubians, Wends, Slovincians" rather than Poles. But often even those Kashubians were classified as poles - for example in a German-made map from 1847, "Polacken / Polen / Lechen" extend up to the city of Stolp in Pommern.

I think there is a similar problem with Dutch language - if I am not mistaken, Dutch is basically the same language as Low German, but for purely political reasons some people distinguish it from German. Low German dialects spoken on the German side of the border, even though essentially the same as Dutch dialects spoken on the Dutch side of the border, are considered to be German.

That said, modern Standard German language is based mostly on High German, and Standard Dutch - on Low German "Dutch".

I think that the difference between Kashubian and Polish is similar to that between Low German and High German.

The difference between Lower Sorbian and Upper Sorbian - the two indigenous Slavic languages which still exist in Germany - is probably also similar to Kashubian vs. Polish. Yet, I have not seen anyone claiming that Sorbs are two ethnic groups, rather than one.

Would it be true to say that the modern Polish people is the product of the merging of originally different Slavic peoples, in the same way that the Germans are the product of the merging of different Germanic peoples such as Bavarians, Saxons, Franks, Hessians etc.

Yes I think it would be true. Poles as an ethno-linguistic group were emerging during the Early and High Middle Ages, from ca. 900 AD to ca. 1300 AD, in areas between the Carpathians-Sudetes mountain ranges and the Baltic Sea, chiefly in the basins of the Oder and the Vistula rivers, from a diverse conglomerate of Slavic-speaking communities, united politically and culturally in a realm called Poland by the Piast dynasty. Poles speak Slavonic dialects, and developed a literary language called Polish (earliest texts dating back to the 13th century).

Historically Kashubians did not develop their own literary Standard Language in the Middle Ages, because they became culturally dominated by Poland and Germany. Only recently attempts have been made to create a standardized, Kashubian written language.

There are some texts apparently written in Pomeranian / Kashubian, from the 16th and 17th centuries (published in Western Pomerania), and they sound very much like Polish, even more so than modern Kashubian dialects spoken in the 19th century and later.

[michael mills]

What about the Mazovians. Were they originally a distinct Slavic people, different from the people of Great Poland? I understand that at one time Mazovia was a quasi-independent state, not part of the Kingdom of Poland proper.

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

Nope, there are no any significant ethnic differences between Mazovians, Silesians, Greater Poles, Lesser Poles, etc. While the controversy on whether Pomeranians were the same ethnos as other Poles is similar to that whether Ancient Macedonians were the same ethnie as Ancient Greeks (some scholars think they were, others say that they were distinct but closely related ethnies), the question whether Mazovians and Greater Poles were the same ethnos would be like asking whether Spartans and Athenians were both Greeks (the answer is yes).

As for tribal communities - the existence of such tribes as "Polans" or "Mazovians" is only hypothetical, because there is no direct evidence that such tribes ever existed. Names of the regions were coined much later, long after the unification of these lands by the Piast dynasty.

The existence of a tribe called "Silesians" (Sleenzane) is confirmed, but that tribe inhabited only lands near modern Wrocław/Breslau and along the Sleza river and near Mountain Sleza - or about 1/8 of the total area which later became known as Silesia. While the remaining 7/8 of Silesia was inhabited by seven other tribes - Dyadosans (Dadodesani) near Głogów/Glogau, Tryebovians (Trebouane) near Legnica/Liegnitz, Bobrans (Poborane) along the lower and middle course of the Bóbr/Bober river, Opolyans (Opolini) near Opole, Golensizians (Golensizi) near Racibórz-Cieszyn-Opawa/Ratibor-Teschen-Troppau, Lupiglaa near Głubczyce/Leobschütz and Psyovians (Psouane) near Pszów/Pschow.

So the idea that there is continuity between tribes and modern ethnographic, cultural or regional Polish groups is wrong.

=========

Edit:

One source mentioned also some Charvati (Croats) living in Upper Silesia, between Sleenzane and Psouane. That could be just another name for Opolini (Opolyans), though. It is probable that Croats had emigrated from White Croatia (Lesser Poland and Upper Silesia) to Balkan Croatia, which took place in the 7th-8th centuries - and later local leftovers of Croats mixed with and got absorbed by other Slavic groups, forming in that area another tribe called Opolyans. But the name of previous inhabitants was apparently sometimes still applied to them.

Opolini lived between Sleenzane and Psouane, in the same area where that particular source mentioned those Charvati.

That source which mentioned Charvati, failed to mention Opolini - another suggestion that it could be the same group.

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

Below I quote excerpts from M. Turda, "Blood and Homeland: Eugenics and Racial Nationalism in Central and Southeast Europe".

Marius Turda cites evidence that among the main problems that the Nazis faced, was that of distinguishing Poles from Germans:

Part 1 - http://s14.postimg.org/z5c4ts8a9/Part1.png

Part 2 - http://s14.postimg.org/k5js5xre9/Part2.png

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

As for physical differences between various populations from Poland - I'm from West-Central Poland (Wielkopolska) and I think that in our region people tend to be lighter-haired compared to Upper Silesia - by lighter I mean not only a higher percent of blondes, but also a higher percent of intermediate colours (various shades of brown). My impression is that among native Upper Silesians there are comparatively more of genuine brunettes (black-haired people), while comparatively fewer of light-haired, both brown-haired and blond-haired, individuals.

I don't have any kind of statistical figures to support these "impressions", though. Just photos of individual Upper Silesians.

See the hair colour of the lead singer of band "Oberschlesien" - hair dark as coal, IMO something frequent in Upper Silesia:



I like this band, they sing in Silesian dialect, stick to regional culture (but have some Pan-Polish patriotic songs too):

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

Here is a song by Oberschlesien about the 3rd Silesian Uprising in 1921, which was - according to SIlesian historian Wojciech Kempa, author of several studies about that uprising and the 2010 book "Śląscy Czwartacy" (LINK) - the most massive popular uprising in entire history of Poland (over 60,000 Silesian men took their arms against Germany, supported by ca. 5,000 volunteers from various regions of Poland):

Oberschlesien - "Powstaniec" ("Insurgent"):



Another Silesian musician - Dawid Hallmann - and his "Project 1921", also composed a song about the 3rd Silesian Uprising:

https://www.youtube.com/user/HallmannTV/videos



Hallmann speaks Silesian Dialect:



Text from the video above:

Urodziyłech siy na Ślónsku. Tak jak mój łojciec, starzik i staroszek. Wiynkszość ujków robiyła abo na grubie, abo na hucie. Wszyscy zawdy siedzieli na Ślónsku i nikaj siy niy ruszali. No może z wyjontkiym łojca starzika ze strony mamulki, kery był we AK.

Szkoda yno, że z tej Afryki niy przysłoł żodnyj kartki. We familiji zresztom nigdy siy ło tym jakoś niy spuminało. Kedyś yno ciotka Truda na stypie siy wygodała, że go Niemce wziyli. Do tyj Afryki właśnie.

A z tymi Ślónzokami na wojniy było przeca różnie. Słyszołech kajś, że jak Poloki łod Andersa były we Italiji, to przelazły jedyn most i łod razu po drugiyj stroniy wylozł ze krzoków jakiyś synek, i godo we ślónskiyj godce: "Wiycie, pierona kandygo... Ale mieliście furgać do luftu! No ale żech niy mioł sumienio. Biercie mie teroz do niywoli". No i rychtig most był zaminowany. Tych Ślónzoków Anders gibko potym wyciongoł z lagrów. Ale ło to, wiela Ślónzoków prało Niymców i ginyło za Polska, to już żodyn niy zapyto.

Historyjo niy je bioło abo czorno. Jo niy byda mojygo staroszka łocynioł. Po prowdzie, to łon do tyj Afryki blank niy chcioł leźć. I nawet wskoczył do krzipopy kaj rosły pokrziwy coby Niemce pomyśleli, że mo łospa. A łoni siy pierońsko boli zaźnych chorób. Tak było. Godom jak je. I to wiym, że żodyn siy za Rajch proć niy mioł ochoty. Za to moc Ślónzoków poszło do powstanio i ginyło za Polska. U mie we wsi dwóch synków lygło. Już niy wstali, ale do dzisiej siy ło nich pamiynto.

Za co łoni szli siy prać? Za "frajsztat łoberszlyjzien"? No pierona kandygo, niy! Łoni siy prali ło to, żebych dzisiej mógł godać po ślónsku i rzykać pociyrze we katolickiym kościele. Bo prowda je tako, że w Rajchu żodyn nos niy zrozumie i jyno w Polsce mogymy czuć siy dobrze. No a jak mi kto pokoże Prusaka, co godo po noszymu i je katolik, to mu dom bombona.

[michael mills]

(over 60,000 Silesian men took their arms against Germany, supported by ca. 5,000 volunteers from various regions of Poland):

Strictly speaking, the uprising was not against Germany but against the League of Nations, which had been given control over Upper Silesia pending its final disposition according to the results of a plebiscite. That plebiscite had been held in March 1921, and the results had favoured Germany; 60% of the voters preferred to remain part of Germany, even though 60% of the population was ethnically Polish, meaning that considerable numbers of the ethnic Polish inhabitants had voted for Germany.

Accordingly, the uprising, organised by Korfanty, represented an attempt to nullify the results of the referendum by armed violence, and to force the award of Upper Silesia to Poland, against the expressed wish of a majority of the population.

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

The will of the population as a whole was not going to matter, but the will of the population of each commune/municipality separately.

Less than 60% voted for Germany. But already before the plebiscite it was agreed by both sides, that in determining the future border, results by each commune and by each municipality were going to be taken into account separately, and not overall results. So whether the overall vote was 45/55 or 55/45 had no impact on borders, but what mattered was who won in which administrative division. And in such terms there was a clear dichotomy - in eastern and southern regions Poland won, while in western and northern regions Germany won. The result was nowhere near as "homogeneous" as during the 2014 Scottish referendum, in which - despite getting almost 45% of all votes - Scottish separatists lost in virtually all regions (see here). In the Silesian Plebiscite pro-Polish separatists actually won in 682 communes and municipalities (56%), while Germany won only in 536 communes and municipalities (44%). But Germany won in all of large cities, so they got more votes in total.

The main failure of Poland was its loss in the highly urbanized Industrial District as a whole, where Poland got 197,436 and Germany 226,416 votes - what ensured Germany's victory there were votes of 40,441 emigrants from that District, around 90% of whom were recruited by German Committees, while only 10% were recruited by Polish Committees (Poland blamed German authorities, claiming that they didn't allow pro-Polish emigrants to return to the Plebiscite Area and therefore only a small number of pro-Polish emigrants could cast their votes).

Emigrants were people who had been born in the Plebiscite Area, but no longer lived there (usually because of "Ostflucht"). 191,308 emigrants took part in the plebiscite - of them 40,441 in the Industrial District and most of the rest in western and northern regions.

Due to Poland's loss (by a narrow margin) in the Industrial District, it was partitioned between the two states (rather than Poland getting all of it), and large rural areas located to the west of it where Silesian peasants voted mostly for Poland - were granted to Germany.

The final delineation of the border in Upper Silesia left in Germany very large rural areas and some towns which voted to be united with Poland, but it also granted to Poland several large city "enclaves" which voted to remain parts of Germany (such as Stadt Kattowitz).

60% of the voters preferred to remain part of Germany, even though 60% of the population was ethnically Polish, meaning that considerable numbers of the ethnic Polish inhabitants had voted for Germany.

Yes ethnic Poles were around 60% of the population but because of ethnic differences in age structure - lower median age of ethnic Poles than Germans (higher percent of Poles were children, lower percent were old people) - Poles were less than 60% of eligible to vote.

Eligible to vote in the plebiscite were only people who were at least 21 years old.

Also it can be noted that while overall percent of votes for Poland was still smaller than percent of ethnic Poles among eligible voters, in some areas the opposite was the case, suggesting that either some of ethnic Germans there preferred to be incorporated to Poland, or that German official census figures underestimated the number of Poles there. I'm talking about such areas as Beuthen Land, Tarnowitz, Hindenburg, Ratibor Land and also two cities - Kattowitz Stadt and Gleiwitz Stadt (in both of those two cities Poland suffered crushing defeats, but still more people voted for Poland there than was the number of Polish inhabitants in those cities according to German census figures).

[michael mills]

Peter, your post, although highly informative, is not really relevant to the issue of the Third Silesian Uprising, which was an illegal attempt to pre-empt by force of arms the decision by the League of Nations on the disposition of Upper Silesia.

As I stated, in 1921 Upper Silesia was under the control of the Allied Powers and occupied by Allied troops, mainly French, who favoured Poland. The local German administration was subject to the orders of an Allied Commission headed by the pro-Polish French General Le Rond. There were no Reichswehr units in the province, only a police force that was subject to the orders of the Allied Commission; in fact, when the uprising began, the Allies prevented the German Government from sending Reichswehr units into Upper Silesia to engage the insurgents.

The fact is that the uprising was not against German rule, which no longer existed in Upper Silesia, nor against the German army, which was not present there, but against the German part of the population, in an attempt to drive them out so as to make the province more purely Polish and thereby enforce Poland's claim to it. It was also an attempt to coerce Britain and Italy to agree to the intention of France to give all of Upper Silesia to Poland.

The uprising was suppressed, and the results of the plebiscite were honoured by the League of Nations, in that those parts of Upper Silesia where a majority had voted for Poland were for the most part awarded to that country, including about half the population and the greater part of the industrial area. Thus, the uprising was totally unnecessary and unjustified, and hence can reasonably be described as illegal and even criminal; if it had not occurred, it is likely that the partitioning of Upper Silesia would have taken place in the same way as it did in historical reality.

All that the three Polish uprisings in Upper Silesia achieved was to introduce an element of terrorist violence into the fraught relationship between Germans and Poles in the borderlands, which returned in a greatly magnified form in 1939 to victimise the Polish people.

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

The local German administration was subject to the orders of an Allied Commission headed by the pro-Polish French General Le Rond. There were no Reichswehr units in the province, only a police force that was subject to the orders of the Allied Commission; in fact, when the uprising began, the Allies prevented the German Government from sending Reichswehr units into Upper Silesia to engage the insurgents. The fact is that the uprising was not against German rule, which no longer existed in Upper Silesia, nor against the German army, which was not present there

The German rule existed, even if under Allied supervision (as you wrote). You mentioned German administration yourself. But the uprising was against Kampforganisation Oberschlesien under command of Generalleutnant Karl Höfer (formerly commander of 117. Infanterie-Division during World War 1), which was a German equivalent of Polska Organizacja Wojskowa Górnego Śląska, and which was later renamed Selbstschutz Oberschlesiens on 03.05.1921. Kampforganisation Oberschlesien was also planning to start an uprising in case if even some part of Upper Silesia was to be granted to Poland, and therefore the Polish uprising was an attempt to pre-empt the German uprising.

The uprising was suppressed

The 3rd Silesian Uprising was not suppressed - it was victorious, it achieved the majority of its objectives - on the map below the green area shows the territory controlled by the Polish side when the fighting came to an end. The only areas regained by German counterattacks (after 21 May and after 4 June) were strips of land to the east of Krapkowice, and that strip between Kluczbork and Olesno:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... 85skie.PNG

All that the three Polish uprisings in Upper Silesia achieved was to introduce an element of terrorist violence into the fraught relationship between Germans and Poles in the borderlands, which returned in a greatly magnified form in 1939 to victimise the Polish people.

The First Uprising was provoked by German terrorist violence against Silesian Poles, which started when President Joseph Bitta issued a decree qualifying any "pro-Polish agitation" as treason, and Otto Hörsig declared the state of martial law in Upper Silesia on 13 January 1919 in order to suppress peaceful Polish demonstrations. However, the final spark which lit the fire was the Massacre in Myslowitz on 15 August 1919, when German Grenzschutz opened fire to protesting Polish miners with families, killing 7 men, 3 women and a child.

[michael mills]

The 3rd Silesian Uprising was not suppressed - it was victorious, it achieved the majority of its objectives - on the map below the green area shows the territory controlled by the Polish side when the fighting came to an end. The only areas regained by German counterattacks (after 21 May and after 4 June) were strips of land to the east of Krapkowice, and that strip between Kluczbork and Olesno:

It was suppressed in the sense that the Inter-Allied Control Commission ruling Upper Silesia compelled the Polish insurgents to withdraw from most of the territory they had conquered, and to accept the decision of the League of Nations on partition of the territory. Thus, Korfanty did not achieve his aim of seizing all of Upper Silesia and uniting it with Poland.

The initial success of the insurgents was due to the fact that they had the covert support of the French troops, which formed the largest part of the Allied occupation forces. The head of the Inter-Allied Control Commission, the French General Le Rond, was duty bound to prevent the Polish forces from overthrowing the results of the plebiscite by armed force, but he refused to use his troops against the insurgents. It was only when additional British troops arrived and began advancing against the insurgents that the uprising ended, with the issuing of a general amnesty for all illegal acts committed during it.

The Wikipedia article on the Third Uprising does not mention any planned uprising by German organisations. It states that the Polish uprising was triggered by fears that Britain was intending to use the overall German victory in the plebiscite to award all of Upper Silesia to Poland.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesian_ ... .281921.29

I am left wondering whether the claim of a planned German uprising was merely an excuse used by Korfanty to justify his own illegal actions. However, I am willing to be persuaded otherwise on the basis of impartial evidence.

The basic point I was trying to make is that it would be a misrepresentation of historical reality to depict Korfanty and the insurgents of May 1921 as having "saved" the ethnic Polish population of Upper Silesia from German "oppression", since the province was already under the control of the Allies, who were required by the Treaty Of Versailles to decide its future based on the results of the plebiscite.

[michael mills]

I found this interesting site of the Museum of the Silesian Uprisings in Swietochlowice:

http://www.mpsl.pl/en/historia/silesian-uprising/

In its description of the events leading to the Third Uprising, it says nothing about any plan by Germans for an uprising. Rather, it says that Korfanty's decision to launch the uprising was prompted by the decision of the Inter-allied Control Commission, based on the results of the plebiscite (59.4% for Germany) to give only 25% of the plebiscite area to Poland.

The article also says that the Polish uprising took the Germans completely by surprise, which suggests that the Germans were not preparing for an uprising themselves.

Since the above site is an official Polish one, I think it can hardly be suspected of pro-German bias.