Germans living in Eastern Europe pre-war

Discussions on other historical eras.
Serus
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 03 May 2005, 09:46
Location: Warsaw-Poland

#16

Post by Serus » 21 Jul 2005, 15:19

michael mills wrote:Once again Molobo falsifies history by repeating the myth of a "Teutonic" massacre of the "Polish" population of Danzig in 1308, as if that were a case of dacially-based extermination, even though the historical truth has been pointed out to him before.

The historical truth is as follows.

The Duke of Pomerelia (a Slav) rebelled against the King of Poland (a Slav), and claimed the crown for himself.

n order to gain the support of the Margrave of Brandenburg (a German), he promised to transfer to him the overlordship of Danzig (with a predominantly German population), which was part of his possessions.

The Margrave of Brandenburg arrived with his army and besieged Danzig. The city burghers opened the gates and allowed the Brandenburg army to enter. Only the citadel, which belonged to the King of Poland, held out, under the command of the King's Castellan, Bogusza (a Slav).

The King of Poland was not strong enough to reconquer Danzig, so he asked the Grandmaster of the Teutonic Order of Knights of the Cross to use his army to take the city.

The Grandmaster agreed on condition that the King of Poland meet all the Order's costs of the campaign, and allow them to hold Danzig in pledge until he had repaid those costs in full. The King of POland accepted those conditions.

The Army of the Order then attacked Danzig and captured it, relieving the citadel. A large number of the citizens of Danzig were then executed for treason against the King of Poland.

Although the execution of the Danzig citizens was carried out by soldiers of the Order, it had been ordered by Bogusza as the King's representative. It was by no means a massacre of Slavs by Germans. Indeed, most of the executed citizens were of German ethnicity.

The Grandmaster then pulled a swifty on the King of Poland. He presented a bill for costs so high that the hapless King could not possibly repay it. Thus, in accordance with the agreement, the Order retained Danzig as one of its possessions.

The story is one of a conflict between different rulers (the King of Poland, the Duke of Pomerelia, the Margrave of Brandenburg, the Grandmaster of the Teutonic Order) over the possession of territory, In that respect it was a typical conflict of the Middle Ages, like the Hundred Years' War between the Kings of England and France.

It was in no sense an ethnic conflict, since Germans and Slavs were found on both sides.
In general i agree - purely ethnic conflicts are late "invention". But on the other hand i fnd it very strange trying to reduce all Middle Ages conflicts to purely dynastic matters. Politics were heavily driven by individual/dynastical interests of rulers but it doesnt mean that national identity didnt play any role at all. I find it strange that you give exemple of Hundred Years War - late war French side was very heavily using "natonalism" as a tool of war to mobilise its population against Englishmen. There are many cases where national identity played a role in medieval politics - you just find it convenient to ignore those cases...

User avatar
maxxx
Member
Posts: 1743
Joined: 29 Apr 2004, 19:14
Location: austria
Contact:

#17

Post by maxxx » 23 Jul 2005, 20:30

Until the french revolution and the end of the roman empire "ethnic conflicts" were really not in the interest of an international ruling class that had no real concept of nationality. For example, the kings of France, of England, of Danmark, Poland, Hungary and, and, and.... were all also rulers in germany. (loreigne, Hannover, Schleswig, Saxony, Inner Austria,Bohemia.

Even the "ultragerman" Frederic the Great once stated: "To God I speak latin, to everybody else french, only to my dogs I speak german." How good was the english of George I-III of England and their family? Didn´t the polish once even offer the crown to the brother of the french king (who did not know a word polish?).

To say: "this was ruled by the King of Prussia/the king of Poland, so it is old Polish/ German country" is a total misunderstanding of medieval concepts of ruler and subject.


Molobo
Banned
Posts: 629
Joined: 14 Feb 2005, 15:20
Location: Poland

#18

Post by Molobo » 23 Jul 2005, 21:02

Frederic the Great once stated:
That Poles are nothing more the Iroquis of Europe and thrash.
http://www.oslo2000.uio.no/program/pape ... kbourn.pdf
These European parallels with the Americas expressed contempt towards "uncultivated" peopleswithin Europe itself. In the German case, this meant Poles, and the motif runs through the 18th-century history of Prussian reclamation. The line of the Prussian "improvements" ran eastwards. Itbegan immediately to the east of Berlin in the Electoral March, then crossed the Oder to the Wartheand Netze marshes before turning south-east towards Silesia and north-east, to newly acquired partsof Pomerania and above all to West Prusia, the booty from the first Polish partition. On the easternmargins of protean Prussia, reclamation and settlement "secured" the border -for how could youprotect or even define a frontier that was under water half the year?Officials carried contempt for the indigenous Poles with them. The draining of the Oderbruch wasintended to plant good German colonists where "superstitious" Wendish fishermen had lived, amental connection that was even stronger when it came to the new eastern territories. Frederick'sown views on "the slovenly Polish trash" of West Prussia were expressed in unflattering NewWorld parallels. They were like "Iroquois". Or: "I have seen this Prussia; I believe Canada is bettercultivated". This was "a barbarous people sunk in ignorance and stupidity" (note the metaphoricalundertones of the French verb "croupir" -sunk in, wallowing in, stagnating)
interest of an international ruling class that had no real concept of nationality.
Szlachta in Poland believed itself to be a nation on its own with distinct culture and traditions, and was hostile to surrounding absolutist states, due to freedoms they enjoyed in Rzeczpospolita.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szlachta
The Polish nobility enjoyed many rights that were not available to the noble classes of other countries and, typically, each new monarch conceded them further privileges. Those privileges became the basis of the Golden Liberty in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Despite having a king, Poland was called a noble "republic" (Rzeczpospolita) because the king was elected by all interested members of the nobility and Poland was considered to be the property of this class, not of the king or the ruling dynasty. This state of affairs grew up in part because of the extinction of the male-line descendants of the old royal dynasty, and the selection by the nobility of the Polish king from among the dynasty's female-line descendants.
The Polish nobility differed in many respects from the nobility of other countries. The most important difference was that, while in most European countries the nobility lost power as the ruler strove for absolute monarchy, in Poland the reverse process occurred: the nobility actually gained power at the expense of the king, and the political system evolved toward a partial democracy (and eventually, anarchy).[/quote]
Polish noblewomen, early 17th century.Poland's nobility were also more numerous than those of all other European countries, they formed some 8-10% of the population, and in some poorer regions (e.g. Mazowsze, the area centred on Warsaw) nearly 30%. By contrast, the nobilities of other European countries, except for Spain, amounted to a mere 1-3%.

There were a number of ways to upward social mobility and the achievement of nobility. Poland's nobility, unlike France's aristocracy, was not a rigidly exclusive, closed class. Many low-born individuals, including townsfolk, peasants and Jews, could and did rise in Polish society. Thus Poland's noble class was more stable than those of other countries, and so was spared the societal tensions and eventual disintegration that characterised the French revolution. Each szlachic had enormous influence over the country's politics, in some form even greater that what is enjoyed by the citizens of modern democratic countries. Between 1652 and 1791 any nobleman could nullify all the proceedings of a given sejm (Commonwealth parliament) or sejmik (Commonwealth local parliament) by exercising his individual right of liberum veto (Latin: I don't allow), except in the case of a confederated sejm or confederated sejmik.
So as you see Polish nobility in general wasn't interested in being ruled by other states (or at least wasn't indifferent to it) and had a sence of being different and unique in relation to others.In fact it is reasnoble to claim it was a nation on its own.


You also ignore examples shown by Szopen.
As to Holy Roman Empire it played no major role in Polish identity or affairs.


There are of course other examples of nationality defined before events you talk about :
http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showre ... 4846635492
Chapter Seven, "Peopling Eastern Europe, Part I: Barbarians in Ancient History and Modern Anthropology," is about the eighteenth-century attempt to reconstruct the ancient history of barbarian migrations with existing populations in Eastern Europe. The movement of Scythians from the east into the west, or Slavs from the north into the south, could be traced by studying languages. Eastern Europe was a chaotic blend of many migrations; the job of a good eighteenth-century linguist was to sort through the evidence about multiple movements of peoples and sort out their origins and pattern of settlement. The chapter explores in particular Gibbon's Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire and Herder's Journal of My Voyage in the Year 1769 for how they contributed to definitions of barbarian peoples and languages associated with Eastern Europe. In his efforts to establish a "map of mankind" through folklore studies, Herder submerged the uniqueness of Poland into a generic Slavdom and thus transformed Eastern Europe into a region of Slavs whose distinctive costumes, songs, and dances served (and still serve today) as a subject of "complex condescension" (p. 331).

Lars EP
Member
Posts: 582
Joined: 16 Mar 2002, 23:44
Location: Presently the Netherlands

#19

Post by Lars EP » 24 Jul 2005, 01:29

Hmm...

This discussion seems to be drifting of topic. However, I cannot resist to comment anyway... ;)

First, I, unfortunately, have to agree. Not all, but many Poles are expressing overly nationalistic view-points, when in discussions regarding Poland. I have encountered this phenomen in discussions far to often, both on the internet, and face to face.

Second, nationalism is a relatively new concept, and definately not something that existed in the middle-ages. Napoleon was the one who first seriously fueled his armies and population with nationalism.

Somebody used an example of the hundred years wars, where the king urged people to fight for France. True, but who did he urge? The peasants? Not a chance. The merchants? Scum of the earth! The guilds? The guilds did not go to war. No, he urged the NOBILITY to fight for France. Because, that was the problem, wasn't it? That the nobles had estates in England, France, Flanders and where ever as well. Cross-bred and intermarried.

They where the ones he urged, because they where the ones with armies. The population? The population was a commodity to be used, or maybe specialists to be employed, but their view-points where utterly un-interesting. And these people, when forced to fight as levies, fought for their master. Because otherwise he would throw them off his lands. They did certainly not fight for France, Poland, Denmark or any other country.

The French king tried to convince the nobles of France, that they where French, more than English. That fighting for France, him, was a sacred duty. And this is where it often goes wrong, when people of today read medieval history: When the French king talks of France, he does not talk of the land. He talks of himself. He IS France. Likewise any other European monarch in the middle-ages.

So forget the nationalism. It did not exist!

Regards --- Lars

Frederick the Great
Member
Posts: 20
Joined: 25 Feb 2004, 22:05
Location: Canada

#20

Post by Frederick the Great » 24 Jul 2005, 08:23

maxxx wrote:Even the "ultragerman" Frederic the Great once stated: "To God I speak latin, to everybody else french, only to my dogs I speak german."
:wink:

Molobo
Banned
Posts: 629
Joined: 14 Feb 2005, 15:20
Location: Poland

#21

Post by Molobo » 24 Jul 2005, 16:43

Not all, but many Poles are expressing overly nationalistic view-points, when in discussions regarding Poland. I have encountered this phenomen in discussions far to often, both on the internet, and face to face.
Perhaps its simply your insistance to apply west european traits to other culture ?
No, he urged the NOBILITY to fight for France. Because, that was the problem, wasn't it? That the nobles had estates in England, France, Flanders and where ever as well. Cross-bred and intermarried.

They where the ones he urged, because they where the ones with armies. The population?
Your problem is again looking only at western europe and applying its traits to other countries and regions.I have no problem with nobility as Polish nation, simply because in many cases population was the nobility in Poland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szlachta
Poland's nobility were also more numerous than those of all other European countries, they formed some 8-10% of the population, and in some poorer regions (e.g. Mazowsze, the area centred on Warsaw) nearly 30%. By contrast, the nobilities of other European countries, except for Spain, amounted to a mere 1-3%.

There were a number of ways to upward social mobility and the achievement of nobility. Poland's nobility, unlike France's aristocracy, was not a rigidly exclusive, closed class. Many low-born individuals, including townsfolk, peasants and Jews, could and did rise in Polish society. Thus Poland's noble class was more stable than those of other countries, and so was spared the societal tensions and eventual disintegration that characterised the French revolution. Each szlachic had enormous influence over the country's politics, in some form even greater that what is enjoyed by the citizens of modern democratic countries
The French king tried to convince the nobles of France, that they where French, more than English. That fighting for France, him, was a sacred duty. And this is where it often goes wrong, when people of today read medieval history: When the French king talks of France, he does not talk of the land. He talks of himself. He IS France. Likewise any other European monarch in the middle-ages.

So forget the nationalism. It did not exist!
Ok but we were talking about Poland not France.Are you suggesting that Poland and France are the same countries ?

And of course :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Szlachta
The szlachta's prevalent mentality and ideology were manifested in "Sarmatism," a name derived from supposed ancestors of the szlachta, the Sarmatians. This belief system became an important part of szlachta culture and affected all aspects of their lives. It enshrined traditional village life, peace and pacifism; popularised oriental-style apparel (the żupan, kontusz, sukmana, pas kontuszowy, delia); and made the scimitar-like szabla, too, a near-obligatory item of everyday szlachta apparel. Sarmatism served to integrate the multi-ethnic nobility as it created an almost nationalistic sense of unity and pride in the szlachta's Golden Freedom (złota wolność).

Second, nationalism is a relatively new concept, and definately not something that existed in the middle-ages. Napoleon was the one who first seriously fueled his armies and population with nationalism.
Not really.

http://www.polishworld.com/polemb/const/tk.html
May 24th 1794
"I swear to the whole Polish nation that I shall not use the power vested in me for private oppression but that I shall exercise this power only in the defense of the whole of the frontiers and to regain the independence of the Nation and to establish universal freedom"
Tadeusz Kosciuszko during his national uprising.

Lars EP
Member
Posts: 582
Joined: 16 Mar 2002, 23:44
Location: Presently the Netherlands

#22

Post by Lars EP » 24 Jul 2005, 20:17

Molobo: You may be right, I don't know.

But until you produce another source than Wikipedia, I don't believe it.

My own sources are in Danish. I shall see what I can come up with in English, later.

Carl Grimberg: Korstogstiden.

Carl Grimberg: Opdagelser og Reformation.

Heiki Kirkinen: Europas fødsel.

Sverre Bagge: Højmiddelalderen.


Regards --- Lars

Molobo
Banned
Posts: 629
Joined: 14 Feb 2005, 15:20
Location: Poland

#23

Post by Molobo » 24 Jul 2005, 21:23

But until you produce another source than Wikipedia, I don't believe it.
And what do you not believe in ? The high number of nobility in Poland ? Its different character from nobility in other countries ? Or privileges that they enjoyed ?
As to wikipedia-in cases of unique information and disputes its not advisable to use it.However it summs up nicely basic knowledge.


http://www.citinet.net/ak/polska_11_f2.html
By the mid-sixteenth century the szlachta included Poles, Lithuanian and Ruthen boyars, Prussian and Baltic gentry of German origin, as well as Tatars, and smaller numbers of others. The szlachta made up nearly ten per cent of the population. Since they extended from the top to the bottom of economic scale, and right across the board in religion and culture, they represented a wider cross-section as well as a greater percentage of the population than any enfranchised class in any European country until the nineteenth century. To be a member of the szlachta was like being a Roman Citizen. The szlachta were the nation, the populus Romanus, while the rest of the people inhabiting the area were the plebs, who did not count politically.
While the Habsburgs of Austria, the Bourbons of France, the Tudors of England, and every other ruling house of Europe strove to impose centralized autocratic government, ideological unity and increasing control of the individual through a growing bureaucracy, Poland alone of the major states took the opposite course. The Poles had made an article of faith of the principle that all government is undesirable, and strong government is strongly undesirable. This belief was not based on some kind of inherent love of chaos, but on a deeply felt conviction that one man had no right to tell another what to do, and that the quality of life was impaired by unnecessary administrative superstructure.
Excerpts from the book "The Polish Way" by Adam Zamojski
(John Murray-Publishers Ltd. London 1987)

As you can see it polish nobility was different from the rest of European noble class.And they did consider themselfs a nation on its own.

User avatar
maxxx
Member
Posts: 1743
Joined: 29 Apr 2004, 19:14
Location: austria
Contact:

#24

Post by maxxx » 24 Jul 2005, 22:34

Well, Molobo, maybe Poland is and has been so different and peculiar than the rest of europe. It still doesn´t make it something better than us common western europeans, does it?
Welcome to 21st century United Europe!

BTW: If "up to 30% of the population was aristocracy" it most have been a nightmare to be a "commoner" over there....

Molobo
Banned
Posts: 629
Joined: 14 Feb 2005, 15:20
Location: Poland

#25

Post by Molobo » 24 Jul 2005, 23:12

Well, Molobo, maybe Poland is and has been so different and peculiar than the rest of europe. It still doesn´t make it something better than us common western europeans, does it?
Why the question ? Did it occur to you that it is better then others ? Besides British, Germans or French are different from each other also etc.
We were discussing the differences between organisation of social life between various countries.Of course each has its merits and flaws.
If "up to 30% of the population was aristocracy" it most have been a nightmare to be a "commoner" over there....
Why ?
I think it depends on noble involved.Many of them lived life not so different then other commoners though.The high class aristocracy was rather a small minority in Poland though.

szopen
Member
Posts: 814
Joined: 21 May 2004, 16:31
Location: poznan, poland

#26

Post by szopen » 25 Jul 2005, 10:45

1) 8-10% of nobles in Poland is seemd to be exxageration by some modern historian. E.g. Topolski examined number of nobles in Greater Poland and it was a bit smaller than believed before. He concluded that even though percentage of nobles in Masovia and elsewhere, with whoel villages inhabited by nobles was very high, it still may means that real noble percentage in Poland COULD be smaller.

2) Did the concept of nations and ethnic conflicts existed in middle ages? Yes. I see no point in arguing it. It was not the nationalism in modern sense, but just read something about Hussite wars for God's sake.

3) Did the nationalism existed? In what sense? In XIX century sense? No.

4) The concept of nation and ethnicity was continously changing. It was nonsense to say that in there was no difference between concepts in XV century and XX century. While in XIV/XV century you can find a lot of bad references to Germans in Polish medieval sources (like stereotypical: "typical german arrogance" 'whenever Germans come they show typical pride and they take everything from others" etc etc), you could hardly find any like that in earlier times. Also, in XV century the language and ethnicity played a role.

Why Danzig/Gdansk supported Habsurg candidate for Polish crown? Why Polish nobles didn't wanted it? Why they demanded that They should be addressed only in POlish with contacts with German burghers? Why noble writers in XVI century where concerned that there are German masses in Cracow?!

In western world there was no place for nationalism, BECAUSE the king was the state, as you more or less correctly write it. But not so in Poland. In Poland, there was a nation, of which king was only servant, highest clerk. Also, ethnic tensions on the level comparable to Bohemia and Poland did not existed in France.

Serus
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 03 May 2005, 09:46
Location: Warsaw-Poland

#27

Post by Serus » 28 Jul 2005, 17:56

maxxx wrote:Well, Molobo, maybe Poland is and has been so different and peculiar than the rest of europe. It still doesn´t make it something better than us common western europeans, does it?
Welcome to 21st century United Europe!
Where he stated (or at least implied) that Poland is "something better", can i get a quote please ? Or maybe you just have a stereotype of a Pole that is ultra-nationalistic so you see words that were never written ?

First, I, unfortunately, have to agree. Not all, but many Poles are expressing overly nationalistic view-points, when in discussions regarding Poland. I have encountered this phenomen in discussions far to often, both on the internet, and face to face.
Lars EP - > And you only encountered this phenomen in discussions with Poles ? Strange because i can say the same about many Germans, Russians even Americans and people of many different nationalities i encountered on this forum and elsewhere. Btw nationalism is not always a bad thing - Americans for exemple are in general very nationalistic (in a good way) people compared to western Europeans - do you think they are worse than Europeans because of it ?

Nationalism as it is known today, the nationalism as IDEOLOGY didnt exist in Middle Ages - no one is arguing that it did ! But it doesnt mean that the differences in language/culture between various "nations" didnt play any role at all. I find it iritating that some people are just repeating ad nauseam "nationalism didnt exist back then" (it is true in general of curse) and think they explained everything, how convenient ! Sorry for off topic...

Dexx
Member
Posts: 55
Joined: 02 Jan 2005, 00:37
Location: Europe

#28

Post by Dexx » 06 Aug 2005, 16:05

Hi,

I would be VERY careful with molobo, because there do exist some "discussions" on wikipedia where "a" molobo with exact the same interests participates in edit wars. Whenever he refers to wikipedia as a source, it can be written by himself. Some of the people there accuse him of pursuing a hidden agenda (pro Polish/anti-German, pro-polish right wing parties, homosexuality). But have a look for yourself:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Erwin_Rommel

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Konrad_Adenauer

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Maciej_Giertych

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Roman_Giertych

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Rywin_affair

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ansbachdragoner

Serus
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 03 May 2005, 09:46
Location: Warsaw-Poland

#29

Post by Serus » 23 Aug 2005, 00:39

And the last commentary is tied with the topic of this discussion how ? (other than being an attack ad personam at one of the discutants - attack his arguments not the person or his beliefs)

Molobo
Banned
Posts: 629
Joined: 14 Feb 2005, 15:20
Location: Poland

#30

Post by Molobo » 11 Sep 2005, 21:41

An interesting article on differences between Western European state traditions and Poland:
http://www.iwm.at/index.php?option=com_ ... Itemid=415
The divergence of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from Western European absolutist trends

Historically the formation of the modern European system of states, the Westphalian system that later gained worldwide expansion, and the post-Reformation dissolution of Western Christendom into competing churches were interrelated and reciprocally conditioned processes. In the early absolutist phase practically every state and church in Europe tried to reproduce the model of Christendom according to the principle cuius regio eius religio, which de facto meant that the national churches fell under the caesaropapist control of the absolutist state.

Even before the triumph of Erastian principles in Protestant countries, Spain’s Catholic Kings had been able to obtain from the papacy the series of royal privileges known as Patronato Real that allowed them to transform the Catholic Church in Spain and its colonies into an organ of state administration. Everywhere the alliance of national hierarchy and national ruler had the same effect. As Benedict Anderson has pointed out, the modern nation has to be understood as the combined successor of the dynastic monarchy as political system and of the church as a religious community.[3] With the dissolution of medieval Christendom, the old transnational sacred community integrated by Latin as a sacred language was transformed into fragmented, pluralized, and territorialized churches. The new state churches functioned as community cults of the absolutist state and as national religious communities integrated by the emerging national vernaculars. The process of nationalization of the state churches, exemplified by the Anglicanization of the Church of England, was most pronounced in Protestant countries, but became generalized also in Catholic and Orthodox countries, as shown by the Gallicanization of the French Catholic Church and by the Russification of the Orthodox Church under Peter the Great.

The divergent development of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth offers the most significant exception to this general modern European trend of centralized state absolutism and identification of church and state. The 1505 Nihil Novi statue established parliamentary (Sejm) limits on royal power. The 1569 Union of Lublin structured the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth as a decentralized multinational federal aristocratic res publica. The Statue of General Toleration, promulgated by the Confederation of Warsaw in 1573 and passed by the Sejm during the interregnum despite the opposition of the Catholic bishops, included the guarantee that neither force nor compulsion should be used in religious matters. At a time of generalized religious warfare and state repression of dissenting religious minorities in the rest of Europe, the Commonwealth offered an striking example of peaceful coexistence of various Christian churches (Catholic, Lutheran and Orthodox), of toleration of dissenting Christian sects (Calvinists, Anabaptists, Brethren, Anti-Trinitarians and Armenian monophysites) and of religious freedom for non-Christian minorities (Jews, Karaites, and Muslim Tatars). In fact, early modern Poland became a haven for dissenting faiths fleeing generalized religious warfare in Europe. It was at this time that Poland emerged as the largest center of Jewish settlement in the world and would remain so until the Holocaust. Even after the Counter Reformation reasserted Catholic hegemony in Polish culture and the war with Sweden awakened a strong anti-Protestant reaction, Poland still continued to set a striking example of religious tolerance.

Post Reply

Return to “Other eras”