Fate of the Slavs and Poles if the Nazis won?

[michael mills]

Here is a link to a book by a certain Tomasz Kamusella, which takes a particularist Silesian approach to the history of Silesia, ie one opposed to the orthodox Polish nationalist view.

https://books.google.com.au/books?id=Lt ... ng&f=false

The foreword to the book claims that Kamusella could not have published the book in Polish because "he dared to deviate from the orthodox narrative that unites citizens of his nation-state [Poland] at the expense of dividing them from their neighbours".

I note that the Australian national University library has a copy of another work by Kamusella, with the title "The Szlonzoks and Their Language : Between Germany, Poland and Szlonzokian Nationalism". I will retrieve it and see what it says; it could be interesting.

You will notice that on the first pages of the book that I have linked, there is an ethno-linguistic map of Upper Silesia which shows the Slavic language spoken there as "Szlonzok and Slunzak" rather than as Polish.

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

Here is a link to a book by a certain Tomasz Kamusella, which takes a particularist Silesian approach to the history of Silesia (...)

The foreword to the book claims that Kamusella could not have published the book in Polish because "he dared to deviate from the orthodox narrative that unites citizens of his nation-state [Poland] at the expense of dividing them from their neighbours".

FYROM also dared to deviate from the orthodox narrative that unites citizens of the Greek nation-state, by claiming that Ancient Macedon and its rulers, such as Alexander the Great, were in fact Fyromians not Greeks - and look what has happened because of that (a huge naming dispute!). Kamusella's narrative is similarly weird as Fyromian, just perceived as more "progressive" in the West.

You will notice that on the first pages of the book that I have linked, there is an ethno-linguistic map of Upper Silesia which shows the Slavic language spoken there as "Szlonzok and Slunzak" rather than as Polish.

Throughout 1000 years of history nobody has ever heard about "Silesian language", until ca. year 2007. You could as well say, that Silesian dialect of German was not German, but a separate language (does Kamusella do this too, or does he only do so in regard to Polish spoken in Silesia ???). As I wrote, outside of professional linguistics (and Kamusella is not a professional linguist as far as I know), distinguishing languages from dialects is mainly based on ideological considerations and political agendas today. I assure you that I understand everything from Silesian speech, and if two kinds of speech are mutually intelligible - then it is usual to classify them as one and the same language.

Besides I also remember you arguing that Scots is just a dialect of English, and not a separate language:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scots_language

So why would you adopt a different approach to differences between dialects of Polish ??? For political reasons?

There are similar problems with High German, Middle German, Low German or Lower Sorbian and Upper Sorbian.

Here is a link to a book by a certain Tomasz Kamusella, which takes a particularist Silesian approach to the history of Silesia

His approach can be compared to the particularist Macedonian approach to the history of FYROM, taken by its government.

And also can you tell me, why does he take his approach from Britain, instead of taking it from Silesia?

For something more neutral than Kamusella, check (in English):

"Cuius Regio? Ideological and Territorial Cohesion of the Historical Region of Silesia" (four volumes):

http://www.bibliotekacyfrowa.pl/dlibra/ ... a?id=49790

Volume 1 (1000-1526) in a PDF file: http://www.bibliotekacyfrowa.pl/Content ... _vol_1.pdf
Volume 4 (1918-1945) in a PDF file: http://www.repozytorium.uni.wroc.pl/Con ... _vol_4.pdf

I could not find volumes 2 and 3 available online anywhere (so far).

Short summary of volume 4: http://www.repozytorium.uni.wroc.pl/Con ... states.pdf

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.

When discussing the German invasion of the Soviet Union in June 1941, you argued that the invasion took the Soviets by surprise, even though they had been preparing their own invasion of Europe before. Preparing for defence is something different than preparing for attack.

So it is possible that the Germans were prepared to start their own uprising, but not to suppress the Polish uprising.

Just like the Soviets in 1941 were prepared to launch an invasion of Europe, but not to defend their own country.

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.

That was just one of reasons (another one was to pre-empt the suspected German uprising - according to W. Kempa's book).

Yes, indeed the Allies initially planned to give Poland a smaller area than was in the end given (including none of industry). They changed their mind thanks to the uprising, eventually giving Poland also most of the Industrial District. Check the Percival-De Marini as well as Crowe & Stuart Lines - they wanted to give only the southern part to Poland. As the result of the successful uprising they granted to Poland both the southern and the eastern part - in total 30% of the plebiscite area with 47% of the population. So the uprising succeeded in increasing the Polish share of the plebiscite area from 25% to 30%, but - more importantly Poland gained most of Upper Silesia's heavy industry.

See: "De Marinis-Percival-Plan" (LINK)

Korfanty did not achieve his aim of seizing all of Upper Silesia and uniting it with Poland.

That was never Korfanty's aim. Korfanty never wanted 100% of the plebiscite area, but just 59% of it at the most.

Look up the Korfanty Line - according to that line, Korfanty wanted 59% of the plebiscite area. That was his claim:

http://www.britannica.com/place/Korfanty-Line

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

As for Kamusella's language maps - I saw his linguistic map of Central Europe in the 17th century, and he had entire East Prussia marked as German-speaking, without Polish language in the south and Lithuanian language in the east. So his maps are hardly reliable even when it comes to the extent of languages, regardless of naming issues (such as whether Polish dialect in Silesia should be called Polish or "Szlonzak").

Of course as we know (and as all of Germans also knew), southern part of East Prussia was Polish-speaking even in the 19th century.

Check this publication (in German):

http://www.zfo-online.de/index.php/zfo/article/view/134

PDF file: http://www.zfo-online.de/index.php/zfo/ ... le/134/134

See also this map by Ernst Zimmerriemer, "Die Verbreitung der protestantischen Polen in Masuren":

I note that the Australian national University library has a copy of another work by Kamusella, with the title "The Szlonzoks and Their Language : Between Germany, Poland and Szlonzokian Nationalism". I will retrieve it and see what it says; it could be interesting.

You will notice that on the first pages of the book that I have linked, there is an ethno-linguistic map of Upper Silesia which shows the Slavic language spoken there as "Szlonzok and Slunzak" rather than as Polish.

Interesting - does Kamusella say when did speakers of this new language appear in Silesia ??? After 1945 ??? After 1990 ??? After 2010 ???

Because I know a lot of German-made ethno-linguistic maps of Silesia, and they all show Polish and Czech, but no "Szlonzok" language.

For example this "Karte der Sprachgrenzen in Ober-u. Mittelschlesien 1790 u. 1890" by Joseph Partsch, published in Breslau in year 1896:

It shows Polish (pink colour) and Czech (yellow colour) languages in Silesia in year 1890 (as well as their former extent in 1790):

Original version: http://s10.postimg.org/r5ywa5ojr/Ethnic_Silesia.png

And here the same thing, but the extent of Polish-speaking population in 1790 underlined with red colour for better visibility:

(Click the map to open it in large size):

And here is the description:

Joseph Partsch, "Schlesien", Teil 1, Breslau 1896, chapter "die Sprachgrenze 1790 und 1890" (pages 364 - 367):

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.

And that would have been in violation of agreements made before the plebiscite, according to which the partition of the plebiscite area was going to be made based on results in each of its subdivisions (in each county / commune / municipality / village / town / city, etc.) and not on the overall result. Let's note that the plebiscite area included also some fully German or fully Germanized, and some fully Protestant regions, where the Polish side did not even excpect to win. Some of those regions - if I recall correctly - were not even parts of historical Upper Silesia, but of historical Lower Silesia (borders of German Regierungsbezirk Oppeln included also some bits of Lower Silesia).

Administrative divisions did not correspond exactly to historical / cultural regions, neither did borders of states.

Protestantism in Silesia dates back to 16th century Piast Dukes, some of whom adopted Protestantism.

For example Piast Duke Frederick II of Legnica/Leignitz (1499-1547), officially adopted Lutheranism for his Duchy in 1539.

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.

Yes and I never claimed so - I wrote that the First Uprising (and the Second too) were caused by German oppression.

The Third Uprising was not caused by German oppression because such oppression had already ceased by May 1921.

================================

Edit:

That was just one of reasons (another one was to pre-empt the suspected German uprising - according to W. Kempa's book).

Here is the link to his book (it is in Polish; PDF available via website of the City Museum of Siemianowice Śląskie):

http://www.muzeum.siemianowice.pl/wydaw ... ARTACY.pdf

I will try to find again, and maybe translate, the relevant excerpts which say about the planned German uprising.

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

Yes and I never claimed so - I wrote that the First Uprising (and the Second too) were caused by German oppression.

The Third Uprising was not caused by German oppression because such oppression had already ceased by May 1921.

Regarding the causes of the Second Silesian Uprising in 1920 - F. Gregory Campbell wrote that it was provoked by Anti-Polish violence of German mobs following the false news that the Bolsheviks had captured Warsaw (after which German mobs in Kattowitz started to celebrate the Bolshevik conquest of Poland and to attack Polish stores). From Campbell's "The Struggle for Upper Silesia", page 365:

"Despite mounting tensions in Upper Silesia, the first grave dispute
arose only in August 1920. With Polish fortunes in the war with the
Soviet Union at their nadir, a false report spread in Upper Silesia on
August 16 that the Soviet army had captured Warsaw. Riots immediately
broke out in Kattowitz as a result of German demonstrations celebrating
the supposed Russian victories. French troops remained passive
as German mobs attacked and burned the Polish propaganda headquarters
and sacked Polish stores. Korfanty reacted by issuing a call
to arms to the Polish population, and for a week young Polish bands
roamed the eastern part of the province, upset civil administration,
and committed occasional atrocities. The main object of Polish efforts
was the disbandment of the German security police since it was largely
through that body that Germans continued to exercise influence in the
area. The interallied commission had promised to replace the security
police with a gendarmerie composed equally of Poles and Germans,
but what the commission had not yet carried through peacefully the Polish
insurgents accomplished by force. In every area where they gained control,
they dissolved the old German police system and established their own"

Korfanty did not achieve his aim of seizing all of Upper Silesia and uniting it with Poland.

That was never Korfanty's aim. Korfanty never wanted 100% of the plebiscite area, but just 59% of it at the most.

Look up the Korfanty Line - according to that line, Korfanty wanted 59% of the plebiscite area. That was his claim:

http://www.britannica.com/place/Korfanty-Line

And Korfanty's demand was justified by fact that in that 59% of the plebiscite area, around 6/10 of all votes were for Poland:

The treaty had declared that the commune vote was to be the basis for any division of the area; but after the plebiscite, Germany claimed all of Upper Silesia. In response, Korfanty, who was a native of the region and the Polish representative on the Allied commission, suggested that Poland receive the southeastern portion of Upper Silesia. This area, which included the major mining and industrial region of Upper Silesia, had given 59 percent of its votes for incorporation into Poland, and about three-quarters (673) of its communes also had voted in favour of union with Poland.

The commissioners, however, failed to reach a unanimous decision on the area’s division, and the Poles staged a third uprising (May 2–3, 1921). Led by Korfanty, who had opposed the previous insurrections, they drove the Germans out and occupied almost all the southeastern territory within a few days. The Germans resisted bitterly for six weeks until British troops under the commission’s command brought about a cease-fire. With the commission still unable to reach agreement, the dispute went to the Council of the League of Nations. The compromise accepted by the Allied powers on Oct. 20, 1921, was less favourable to the Poles than was the Korfanty Line. Germany got most of the territory and population of Upper Silesia, but Poland was allotted almost 1,300 square miles (3,400 square km), containing 1,000,000 inhabitants, three-quarters of Upper Silesia’s coal-producing area, and two-thirds of its steelworks.

[michael mills]

With regard to Kamusella, I have not yet read his books, so I cannot comment on the validity of his theses. Of course, as a non-Polish outsider, I am in no position to make any judgement, all I can do is note his views and the fact that they conflict with official Polish historiography.

I suppose it comes down to whether the dialect spoken in Upper Silesia is to be regarded as merely a dialect of Polish, or as a separate West Slavic language closely related to Polish. I take the point that Polish-speakers can easily understand the Upper Silesia dialect, but I have read that Poles and Czechs can understand each other's speech to a certain extent, even though Polish and Czech are regarded as separate languages.

I think there is also the question of how the Slavic inhabitants of Upper Silesia regarded themselves historically. The region had belonged originally to the Piast Polish Kingdom, but it had been part of the lands of the Bohemian Crown since the middle of the 14th Century, and remained so for 400 years, until it was annexed by the Hohenzollern Monarchy in the middle of the 18th Century. So the question is whether the people of Upper Silesia, being under the Bohemian Crown, ever came to regard themselves as being part of the Czech people.

Or did they preserve a sense of being part of the Polish people, despite not being part of the Polish State? Conversely, did they traditionally regard themselves as being a separate Silesian people, the Shlonzoks as Kamusella apparently calls them, neither Polish nor Czech?

Once I have read his books, I will be in a better position to comment on the issue.

With regard to Korfanty, I note that in an irony of history he ended up being persecuted to death by the Polish State that he desired so much. He was imprisoned by Pilsudski in 1930, and exiled from Poland in 1935. In the summer of 1939, in the pre-war crisis, he returned to Poland to join the fight against Germany, but was immediately arrested, and there is a view that the ill-treatment he received in prison contributed to his death only two weeks before the German invasion.

In a way he was lucky, since if he had still been alive when the Germans conquered Poland, he would almost certainly have been killed by them. But his fate shows that there was enormous conflict between different Polish factions, just as much as between Poles and Germans.

It has to be said that Korfanty was not disadvantaged as a German citizen by his Polish ethnicity. He received his education in German universities, and was able to serve as a member of parliament in both the Prussian Landtag and the German Reichstag.

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

Michael,

but I have read that Poles and Czechs can understand each other's speech to a certain extent

This is not really the case - apart from some single words, Poles can't understand Czechs, Moravians and Slovaks (and vice versa). I could not understand them, and I've visited both Slovakia and Czech Republic. Even words which sound similar, often have a different meaning.

Czech-Polish transitional dialect spoken in Hlucinsko area (see the link below), sounds more familiar to me, but still quite strangely:



This song is in a dialect which is classified as a transitional between Czech or Moravian and Polish - and it is spoken in this region:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hlučín_Region

The region had belonged originally to the Piast Polish Kingdom, but it had been part of the lands of the Bohemian Crown since the middle of the 14th Century, and remained so for 400 years, until it was annexed by the Hohenzollern Monarchy in the middle of the 18th Century. So the question is whether the people of Upper Silesia, being under the Bohemian Crown, ever came to regard themselves as being part of the Czech people.

Did the ethnic Germans of Lower and Upper Silesia (or even the ethnic Germans of Bohemia, for that matter - including the Sudetenland), being under the Bohemian Crown, ever come to regard themselves as Czechs? As far as I know - nope. And the same is the case with Poles.

On the other hand, undoubtedly lots of ethnic Poles in Lower Silesia were coming to regard themselves as Germans from the Middle Ages until the 19th century, even when they were under the Bohemian Crown. Czechization was never taking place there, unlike Germanization.

Before Lower Silesia became German-speaking, it was inhabited not just by Polish-speakers but also by Sorbian-speakers along the eastern banks of the Oder and Lusatian Neisse rivers (the Polish-Sorbian ethnic border was not exactly along the present-day Polish-German border).

There were groups of Czech-speaking settlers in Silesia, but they became later for the most part either Germanized or Polonized.

According to Dr. Georg Hassel's 1823 book titled "Statistischer Umriß der sämmtlichen europäischen und der vornehmsten außereuropäischen Staaten, in Hinsicht ihrer Entwickelung, Größe, Volksmenge, Finanz- und Militärverfassung, tabellarisch dargestellt", Erster Heft, "Welcher die beiden großen Mächte Österreich und Preußen und den Deutschen Staatenbund darstellt", in Upper and Middle Silesia (Oppeln and Breslau Regencies), there lived apart from "Polen" also a few other Slavic groups (he mentions: "Slawische Mährer" and "Tschechen").

But according to Hassel, 96 percent of all Slavs in that area were "Polen", and only 4 percent were other, Non-Polish Slavs.

Once I have read his books, I will be in a better position to comment on the issue.

Let me know please what kinds of sources he ussed, especially when it comes to German sources. I suppose that he does not use old German sources, because all of them always mention ethnic Poles as the main Slavic ethnic group in Silesia. So if he wants to claim that there were no ethnic Poles in Silesia, he needs to deliberately ignore entire German literature on the subject from the 18th and 19th centuries.

The idea that Silesians were not Poles only appeared in German minds when Polish separatism emerged in Silesia, and a similar nationalist movement supporting those Silesian separatists emerged in Poland. That paradigm of showing Silesians as Non-Poles even increased in German historiography after WW2. I'm not sure what are they trying to achieve by claiming so, because surely revision of borders is impossible. People who identify as anything other than Poles are just a tiny fraction of the population of Silesia, regardless of whether they are of native stock or post-1945 stock. And there are no perspectives for convincing a lot more people that they are Non-Poles. Catalonian scenario is impossible there. So probably it is a purely historical revisionism, an attempt to deconstruct historical ethnic ties and rewrite history.

I wonder if Kamusella uses also "racial" arguments in his book. Probably not because Silesians tend to be genetically much closer related to Poles than to Czechs (for example Czechs and Slovaks have much different frequencies of major Y-DNA haplogroups than Poles and Silesians).

The Nazis when they tried to claim Non-Polishness of certain groups, they resorted to racial arguments. For example they did so in case of Kashubians. But modern science has shown that Kashubians are genetically the same as Poles, practically indistinguishable.

Today I have added a section on Genetics to English wikipedia article about Kashubians (I relied on data from few studies):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kashubians#Genetics

Genetics

According to a study published in September 2015, by far the most common Y-chromosome DNA haplogroup among the Kashubians who live in Kashubia, is haplogroup R1a, which is carried by 61,8% of Kashubian males. It is followed in frequency by I1 (13,2%), R1b (9,3%), I2 (4,4%) and E1b1b (3,4%). Altogether these account for over 9/10 of the total Kashubian Y-DNA diversity.[42] A study from January 2010 reported no significant differences between Kashubians from Poland and other Poles as far as Y chromosome polymorphism is regarded.[43] When it comes to mitochondrial DNA haplogroups, according to a January 2013 study, the most common major lineages among the Kashubians, each carried by at least 2,5% of their population, include J1 (12,3%), H1 (11,8%), H* (8,9%), T* (5,9%), T2 (5,4%), U5a (5,4%), U5b (5,4%), U4a (3,9%), H10 (3,9%), H11 (3,0%), H4 (3,0%), K (3,0%), V (3,0%), H2a (2,5%) and W (2,5%). Altogether they account for almost 8/10 of the total Kashubian mtDNA diversity.[44]

Moreover, there was also a study which found no significant genetic differences between Kashubians with Slavic surnames and Kashubians with German surnames, even though instances of imposing surnames on Slavic population are not recorded in historical documents from this region (unlike for example in case of Jews, to whom surnames were assigned arbitrarily Prussian and Austrian authorities - see below*). So if some person in that region has a German surname, he most likely is really descended at least partially from native German-speakers. So why is there no statistically significant difference between bearers of Slavic and German surnames? It seems that those Germans with whom they mixed were for the most part genetically "Slavic" to begin with, descended from previously Germanized Slavic-speakers. On the other hand - there are significant genetic differences between Kashubians and Germans with no migration background from today's Germany.

Here is the exact quote from the study that I have described above: "(...) Comparison of Y chromosomes associated with etymologically Slavic and German surnames (with frequencies provided in Table 1) did not reveal genetic differentiation within any of the three Polish regional populations for all three (FST, FST and RST) genetic distances. Moreover, the German surname-related Y chromosomes were comparably distant from Bavaria and Mecklenburg as the ones associated with the Slavic surnames. (...)"

And such a chart showing genetic distances: Distances - and below the Legend to this chart:

Bavaria, Mecklenburg = Germans with no any recent (not post-WW2) migration background
Kociewie.1 = Kociewiaks with German surnames; Kociewie.0 = Kociewiaks with Slavic surnames
Kaszuby.1 = Kashubians with German surnames; Kaszuby.0 = Kashubians with Slavic surnames
Kurpie.1. = Kurpie with German surnames; Kurpie.0 = Kurpie with Slavic surnames

The three regional populations mentioned above were: Kashubians, Kociewiaks (from Kociewie), and Kurpie:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurpie

*For example in the Austrian Partition, Jews were given surnames by this decree of Joseph II, from 1787:

http://www.hebraisztika.hu/szovgyujt/KG_chrest_077.pdf

[sarahgoodson]

Peter K,

Why do you feel the need to copy and paste so much, you could easily just keep it short and sweet by getting straight to the point. You seem to derail every single thread you post on as well. I have a feeling you do this to feed your ego by trying to prove you are always "right".

You said:

This is not really the case - apart from some single words, Poles can't understand Czechs, Moravians and Slovaks (and vice versa). I could not understand them, and I've visited both Slovakia and Czech Republic. Even words which sound similar, often have a different meaning.

This is where my suspicions that you're not really Polish is pretty much confirmed.

Michael Mills is right. Now I don't need to discuss my personal life and you have no idea what my native language is or what languages I can speak but I can elaborate further on what Michael Mills has asked, so there is a little clue...

Czech and Polish are both West Slavic languages and some words are very similar, thus Czechs and Poles can communicate with each other to a certain degree. To try and deny this is an absolute load of rubbish.

Any ethnic groups which belong linguistically to the same subdivision of languages will be able to understand to a CERTAIN (key word!) degree communicate with each other e.g Ukrainians and Russians, English and Germans, Spaniards and Portuguese, Latvians and Lithuanians, etc.

[michael mills]

Did the ethnic Germans of Lower and Upper Silesia (or even the ethnic Germans of Bohemia, for that matter - including the Sudetenland), being under the Bohemian Crown, ever come to regard themselves as Czechs? As far as I know - nope. And the same is the case with Poles.

German-speakers living in Bohemia certainly called themselves "Bohemians", eg Wallenstein, who was bilingual in Czech and German. "Bohemian" was a regional and political identity rather than an ethnic one; thus a "Bohemian" could be ethno-linguistically either Czech or German, or indeed be both.

The question I am asking (and to which I do not know the answer yet) is how the people of Upper Silesia identified themselves in Medieval and Early Modern times. For example, in late Medieval-Early Modern times, the designation "Pole", or "polonus" in Latin, was a political term denoting a member of the nobility of the Kingdom of Poland, which consisted of persons of different ethnicities ("natione polonus, gente rutenus").

Since the people of Upper Silesia were not part of the Kingdom of Poland, and the local aristocracy did not belong to the Polish "szlachta", the term "Polish" would not seem to apply to them in the Medieval and Early Modern periods. So the question arises as to when and how the term "Polish" began to be applied to the people of Upper Silesia. The examples you have given show that by the 19th Century, outsiders were describing the Slavic people of Upper Silesia as "Polish". However, there is still the question of when the Upper Silesians themselves began to identify as ethnically Polish, ie as belonging to the same people as the inhabitants of the Polish Kingdom.

[Jan-Hendrik]

Hm...with my poor polish skills I understand ca. 40% of what czechs are talking about, slovaks about 25-30%. Ukrainians about 50%...serbocroats about 1/3...

Jan-Hendrik

[GregSingh]

Since the people of Upper Silesia were not part of the Kingdom of Poland, and the local aristocracy did not belong to the Polish "szlachta", the term "Polish" would not seem to apply to them in the Medieval and Early Modern periods.

Upper Silesia seemed to be part of Kingdom of Poland from around 1000 to 1290 ?

[Jan-Hendrik]

and the 750 years after? Bohemien hegemony started already in 12th/13 century...


Jan-Hendrik

[GregSingh]

Hi, I am not sure about 750 years after, but around 900 years after it looked like that, unless statisticians in Berlin falsified data for some reason?

Weber

[GregSingh]

Bohemians were still making numbers in some areas...

Weber

Weber.jpg (46.66 KiB) Viewed 914 times

[GregSingh]

And here are numbers according to Richard's Böckh "Der Deutschen Volkszahl und Sprachgebiet in den europäiches Staaten", Berlin 1869 - going back as far as 1828 in Regierungsbezirk Oppeln.

Böckh

[Piotr Kapuscinski]

Since the people of Upper Silesia were not part of the Kingdom of Poland, and the local aristocracy did not belong to the Polish "szlachta", the term "Polish" would not seem to apply to them in the Medieval and Early Modern periods.

Totally wrong according to all sources, including German ones.

Barthel Stein in his book from 1513 while describing the ethnic structure of Silesia, mentioned only two groups - Deutschen and Polenö:

Quote:

"(...) Zwei Volksstämme, die sich nicht nur nach ihren Wohnsitzen, sondern auch nach ihren Sitten scheiden, bewohnen es; den nach Westen und Süden gelegenen Theil nehmen die Deutschen ein, den Theil nach Osten und Norden zu die Polenö beide trennt als eine ganz sichere Grenze die Oder von der Neißemündung ab, sodaß auch in den Städten diesseits die deutsche, jenseits die polnische Sprach vorherrscht. Man erkennt zwischen beiden Völkern einen starken Gegensatz. (...)"

Also Duke Henry III of Glogow while describing the ethnic structure of his own Silesian subjects in 1302, mentioned only Polen and Dutsch:
(we can argue, that "Dutsch" means "Dutch people" rather than "Germans" - but can we argue that "Polen" means "Szlonzoks" ? )

Quote:

"(...) Wir, Heynrich, von Gotes Genaden eyn Erbe des Kunicriches czu Polennerlant, Herczoge von Zlezien, Herre czu Glogovv und czu Pozna, tun kunt allen Ldten, daz wir mit unsers selbis Liebe sin gegenwortik gewest in der erbern Stat czu Wratislaw vor den erbern Mannen, den Ratmannen derselben Stat czu Wratislaw, in eynem vullen Rate und haben sy gebeten umme dise Recht, wenne wir und unser Stat czu Glogow in irme Rechte sin und lygen, das sy di Recht uns und unser Stat czu Glogow gebin und fruntlich myete teileten. Derselben unser Bete sy geneygit wurden und goben uns und unser Stat Glogow dise Recht, di von Worten czu Worten hie her noch beschriben sten: (...) §. 2. Ist is ouch also, daz ein Lantman einem Burgere adir ein Burgere eyneme Lantmanne binnen der Stat Wichbilde ein Pfert anesprichet adir swaz sines Gutes sy, her si Polen adir Dutsch, und sich jener an synen Geweren czuit und den benûmet und derselbe Gewere kome vor Gerichte, her sy Ritter adir swer er si, und bekenne der Gewerschaft, der muz nach der Stat Rechte aida vor Gerichte bekennen, wie daz Pfert adir daz Gut an in komen si und czuit sich der denne an einen anderen Geweren, da muz im jener volgen, alse er sich vor- mizzit nach der Stat Rechte. (...)"

Rudolf Virchow, in his book "Mittheilungen über die in Oberschlesien herrschende Typhus-Epidemie" from 1848, wrote:

"(...) Sehen wir uns nun die Bewohner dieses Landes an. Ganz Oberschlesien ist polnisch (...)":



Perhaps you can find some "Szlonzoks" or "Czech majority" in the region before the late 19th century, you will get a Nobel Prize if you do.

Then you will certainly find employment in the Fyromian Ministry of Propaganda to prove that God was Macedonian, etc.