Polish territory?

Discussions on other historical eras.
michael mills
Member
Posts: 8841
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 02 Jul 2003 05:25

Bromberg is in West Prussia, not Lower Silesia. That mistake seems to have caused some confusion.

User avatar
Musashi
Member
Posts: 4656
Joined: 13 Dec 2002 15:07
Location: Coventry, West Midlands, the UK [it's one big roundabout]

Post by Musashi » 02 Jul 2003 21:03

michael mills wrote:Bromberg is in West Prussia, not Lower Silesia. That mistake seems to have caused some confusion.

No, Bydgoszcz was, is and will be in Poland in the future. It has been German for 123 years only and more than 900 years Polish, OK? So your "West Prussia" is Polish Pomorze in fact.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8841
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 04 Jul 2003 00:52

Musashi wrote:

No, Bydgoszcz was, is and will be in Poland in the future. It has been German for 123 years only and more than 900 years Polish, OK? So your "West Prussia" is Polish Pomorze in fact.


Oh dear! Yet more senzuri from our Polish chauvinist friend with the Japanese nom de plume.

The purpose of my message was to correct a geographical error made by the initiator of this thread, Dan W. It was obvious that he was referring to the massacre of ethnic Germans that took place on 3 September 1939, ina place that is called Bromberg in German and Bydgoszcz in Polish; however, he mistakenly located it in Lower Silesia. I wanted to correct that error, since the information helpfully posted by Roberto did not give the location of Bromberg, and readers may have concluded that it was situated in Lower Silesia.

"West Prussia" is an accepted historical term for a particular geographical area situated on the lower Vistula, by which river it is separated from East Prussia. The validity of the term holds good, regardless of whether the area was politically a domain of the Teutonic Knights, of the Kingdom of Poland, of the Kingdom of Prussia, or of the German Realm.

As is well known, the name "Prussia" drives from the Borussi, a Baltic (NOT Slavic) people who inhabited the Baltic coast from west of the mouth of the Vistula to what is now Lithuania. Accordingly, it is historically valid to give the name "Prussia" to the geographic area centred on the lower Vistula.

Both East and West Prussia were conqured in the 13th century by the Teutonic Knights, who formed their own independent state owing allegiance to the Pope alone. In 1466, at the Peace of Thorn, the Teutonic Knights ceded West Prussia to the Polish Crown, while East Prussia became a fief of the Polish king. From then until 1772, West Prussia was a domain of the Kingdom of Poland, although its inhabitants continued to think of themselves as Prussian, regardless of whether they spoke German or Polish.

In 1772, West Prussia was annexed by the King of Prussia, Frederick II, in the First Partition of Poland. In 1867, as a component of the Kingdom of Prussia it became part of the North German Federation, and in 1871 part of the German Reich.

In 1919, West Prussia was transferred to Polish sovereignty under the Treaty of Versailles, after several months of terrorism of the ethnic German population perpetrated by Polish nationalist armed bandits. The Polish Government renamed the province Pomorze, as it wished to extinguish the name "Prussia". From 1939 to 1945 the territory was again part of the German Reich, reverting to the name West Prussia.

I do not think anyone has disputed that Bydgoscz is today part of the sovereign territory of the Polish Republic. It will eventually become one European city amongst many, once the Polish chauvinists get over their ethnocentric psychoses.

Ano, Musashi-kun! Hoka no tokoro de senzuri suru mon da!

User avatar
Musashi
Member
Posts: 4656
Joined: 13 Dec 2002 15:07
Location: Coventry, West Midlands, the UK [it's one big roundabout]

Post by Musashi » 04 Jul 2003 22:16

michael mills wrote:Ano, Musashi-kun! Hoka no tokoro de senzuri suru mon da!

I needn't do it, maybe you need, you clever guy! :lol: :lol: :lol:
BAKA!!!

David Thompson
Forum Staff
Posts: 23384
Joined: 20 Jul 2002 19:52
Location: USA

Post by David Thompson » 04 Jul 2003 23:47

Well, I didn't catch the meaning of Michael Mills' Japanese phrase, but in Musashi's post "Baka" means fool and I did understand that. Personal insults are not permitted here -- not in English and not in any other language. Be civil or be gone.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8841
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 05 Jul 2003 01:27

David Thompson wrote:

Well, I didn't catch the meaning of Michael Mills' Japanese phrase, but in Musashi's post "Baka" means fool and I did understand that. Personal insults are not permitted here -- not in English and not in any other language. Be civil or be gone.


Quite right! I withdraw my comment in the spirit of the guidelines.

It is apparent that "Musashi" understood my comment, and nobody else needs to, so let us let the matter rest there.

As for "Musashi's" reply, I take it with good humour. It was an appropriate riposte, even though it did not address the essential issue of whether "East Prussia" is a valid geographical term.

User avatar
Musashi
Member
Posts: 4656
Joined: 13 Dec 2002 15:07
Location: Coventry, West Midlands, the UK [it's one big roundabout]

Post by Musashi » 05 Jul 2003 11:52

michael mills wrote:David Thompson wrote:

Well, I didn't catch the meaning of Michael Mills' Japanese phrase, but in Musashi's post "Baka" means fool and I did understand that. Personal insults are not permitted here -- not in English and not in any other language. Be civil or be gone.


Quite right! I withdraw my comment in the spirit of the guidelines.

It is apparent that "Musashi" understood my comment, and nobody else needs to, so let us let the matter rest there.

As for "Musashi's" reply, I take it with good humour. It was an appropriate riposte, even though it did not address the essential issue of whether "East Prussia" is a valid geographical term.

"BAKA" is a very mild Japanese phrase, one can not compare it to the phrase Michael Mills had written. However I did not feel to be offended, it was VERY funny for me :D Of course I don't speak Japanese very well, I speak a few hundreds words ony.... :)
So I asked my Japanese friend about it by ICQ. He replied with characteristical for Japanese kindness:(Quote) "It's very impolite. So......"
I replied: "Please don't worry, translate me it".
When I saw the translation I was l laughing for a minute :lol:
So I am not offended and MM, too
BTW
Michael, I suppose you don't speak Japanese. Did somebody from Japan translate it for you?
Not only you have Japanese friends :D .......

User avatar
Dan W.
Financial supporter
Posts: 8477
Joined: 12 Mar 2002 01:53
Location: IL.

Post by Dan W. » 05 Jul 2003 18:20

I think BAKA has something to do with the bodily discharge of fluids. A most unpleasant thought if you ask me.

michael mills
Member
Posts: 8841
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 12:42
Location: Sydney, Australia

Post by michael mills » 06 Jul 2003 04:32

Dan W wrote:

I think BAKA has something to do with the bodily discharge of fluids. A most unpleasant thought if you ask me.


A mistaken interpretation. The Japanese word "baka", meaning "foolish", actually derives from Sanskrit, although it is written with the two characters meaning "horse" and "deer".

User avatar
Roberto
Member
Posts: 4505
Joined: 11 Mar 2002 15:35
Location: Lisbon, Portugal

Post by Roberto » 06 Jul 2003 21:15

michael mills wrote:Dan W wrote:

I think BAKA has something to do with the bodily discharge of fluids. A most unpleasant thought if you ask me.


A mistaken interpretation. The Japanese word "baka", meaning "foolish", actually derives from Sanskrit, although it is written with the two characters meaning "horse" and "deer".


I don't read or speak Japanese, but according to Japanese acquaintances of mine "baka" is one of the worst insults a Japanese can throw at another.

User avatar
Musashi
Member
Posts: 4656
Joined: 13 Dec 2002 15:07
Location: Coventry, West Midlands, the UK [it's one big roundabout]

Post by Musashi » 06 Jul 2003 22:41

Roberto wrote:
michael mills wrote:Dan W wrote:

I think BAKA has something to do with the bodily discharge of fluids. A most unpleasant thought if you ask me.


A mistaken interpretation. The Japanese word "baka", meaning "foolish", actually derives from Sanskrit, although it is written with the two characters meaning "horse" and "deer".


I don't read or speak Japanese, but according to Japanese acquaintances of mine "baka" is one of the worst insults a Japanese can throw at another.

I am not angry at Michel Mills and he is not angry at me. We explained each other some things in private messages and everything is OK :)

User avatar
lukeo
Member
Posts: 370
Joined: 29 Jun 2003 11:03
Location: Gondor

Post by lukeo » 07 Jul 2003 23:58

michael mills wrote:Musashi wrote:



"West Prussia" is an accepted historical term for a particular geographical area situated on the lower Vistula, by which river it is separated from East Prussia. The validity of the term holds good, regardless of whether the area was politically a domain of the Teutonic Knights, of the Kingdom of Poland, of the Kingdom of Prussia, or of the German Realm.

As is well known, the name "Prussia" drives from the Borussi, a Baltic (NOT Slavic) people who inhabited the Baltic coast from west of the mouth of the Vistula to what is now Lithuania. Accordingly, it is historically valid to give the name "Prussia" to the geographic area centred on the lower Vistula.

Both East and West Prussia were conqured in the 13th century by the Teutonic Knights, who formed their own independent state owing allegiance to the Pope alone. In 1466, at the Peace of Thorn, the Teutonic Knights ceded West Prussia to the Polish Crown, while East Prussia became a fief of the Polish king. From then until 1772, West Prussia was a domain of the Kingdom of Poland, although its inhabitants continued to think of themselves as Prussian, regardless of whether they spoke German or Polish.

In 1772, West Prussia was annexed by the King of Prussia, Frederick II, in the First Partition of Poland. In 1867, as a component of the Kingdom of Prussia it became part of the North German Federation, and in 1871 part of the German Reich.

In 1919, West Prussia was transferred to Polish sovereignty under the Treaty of Versailles, after several months of terrorism of the ethnic German population perpetrated by Polish nationalist armed bandits. The Polish Government renamed the province Pomorze, as it wished to extinguish the name "Prussia". From 1939 to 1945 the territory was again part of the German Reich, reverting to the name West Prussia.

I do not think anyone has disputed that Bydgoscz is today part of the sovereign territory of the Polish Republic. It will eventually become one European city amongst many, once the Polish chauvinists get over their ethnocentric psychoses.



You are Very wrong. The Prussians (Baltic tribes) inhabited only the territory that is known as Eastern Prussia. The whole Baltic Coas from Vistula River on the East up to modern Lubeck on the West was inhabited in the early medieval by the SLAVS! The territory between Oder and Vistula were in Polish state as province of Pomorze (latin Pomerania, german Pommern) Poland's lost western Pomorze in the 12th century. The Eastern Pomorze (including the main city - Gdansk/Danzig) was conquered by the Teutonic Order in 14th century. Poles recaptured it in 1454.
This province in 1772 was againd saised by the Germans - by the Prussian Kingdom. It was a separate province known as WESTERN PRUSSIA or PEMMERLEIN (not Pommern!). This very strange name was used by the Germans in order to show, that it is not Polish land (dispite the fact it was inhabited by Slavs). When Poland regained its independence in 1918, most of "Western Prussia" came again under the Polish rule. Because it separeted the German provinces, the Germans started to call it "the Corridor". In fact, "Western Prussia" was inhabited by the Poles and Kashubians, southern parts of East Prussia, was mainly Polish Land. And Silesia also was inhabited by the Poles.

But you all don't know that Bydgoszcz/Bromberg IN NOT IN POMORZE/ POMMERN/ WESTRERN PRUSSIA at all, but in historical region of Kujawy (pron. kuyavy)!! It is now in different Polish province.

viriato
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 13:23
Location: Porto,Portugal

Post by viriato » 10 Jul 2003 14:17

lukeo wrote:

The whole Baltic Coas from Vistula River on the East up to modern Lubeck on the West was inhabited in the early medieval by the SLAVS!


Yes Slavs, but not exactly Poles. Poland conquered Pomerania! This means she conquered it from someone else! Besides Poland only held Pomerania for a short period as she had to fight against the Danes and some Germans for it possession. Already in the XII century the (Slav) Dukes of Pomerania made themselves and their territory vassals of Germany as a way of gaining some peace.

The territory between Oder and Vistula were in Polish state as province of Pomorze (latin Pomerania, german Pommern) Poland's lost western Pomorze in the 12th century. The Eastern Pomorze (including the main city - Gdansk/Danzig) was conquered by the Teutonic Order in 14th century. Poles recaptured it in 1454.


There is a difference between the German Pommern "Pomerania" - it does not include, and never did, Danzig and the Kashubian inhabitated part of West Prussia, sometimes referred as Pommerelen "Pomerelia" in German. As to the Polish they think of both parts as Pomorze.

But that is only a part of West Prussia. Almost half of West Prussia was on the right bank of the Vistula, and had been inhabited by the old Prussians too.

Bromberg/Bydgoszcz from the times of partition to 1920 was attached to Posen/Poznan.

User avatar
Musashi
Member
Posts: 4656
Joined: 13 Dec 2002 15:07
Location: Coventry, West Midlands, the UK [it's one big roundabout]

Post by Musashi » 10 Jul 2003 15:02

viriato wrote:lukeo wrote:

The whole Baltic Coas from Vistula River on the East up to modern Lubeck on the West was inhabited in the early medieval by the SLAVS!


Yes Slavs, but not exactly Poles. Poland conquered Pomerania! This means she conquered it from someone else! Besides Poland only held Pomerania for a short period as she had to fight against the Danes and some Germans for it possession. Already in the XII century the (Slav) Dukes of Pomerania made themselves and their territory vassals of Germany as a way of gaining some peace.

The territory between Oder and Vistula were in Polish state as province of Pomorze (latin Pomerania, german Pommern) Poland's lost western Pomorze in the 12th century. The Eastern Pomorze (including the main city - Gdansk/Danzig) was conquered by the Teutonic Order in 14th century. Poles recaptured it in 1454.


There is a difference between the German Pommern "Pomerania" - it does not include, and never did, Danzig and the Kashubian inhabitated part of West Prussia, sometimes referred as Pommerelen "Pomerelia" in German. As to the Polish they think of both parts as Pomorze.

But that is only a part of West Prussia. Almost half of West Prussia was on the right bank of the Vistula, and had been inhabited by the old Prussians too.

Bromberg/Bydgoszcz from the times of partition to 1920 was attached to Posen/Poznan.

I don't know whether I should laugh whether cry reading a such post.

viriato
Member
Posts: 717
Joined: 21 Apr 2002 13:23
Location: Porto,Portugal

Post by viriato » 10 Jul 2003 15:26

Musashi, before you laugh or cry because of my post, maybe you could state what is wrong on each of my three assumptions. 8)

Return to “Other eras”