Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

German Rule in Poland

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Full Monty
    Ethnic and linguistic borders in that area are so vague ....
    They are also migratory.
    Barcsi János ispán vezérőrnagy
    Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2003 & 2006


    "Never pet a burning dog."

    RECOMMENDED WEBSITES:
    http://www.mormon.org
    http://www.sca.org
    http://www.scv.org/
    http://www.scouting.org/

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Janos
      They are also migratory.
      Further muddying the water. Makes the relatively arbitary formation of nation-states a-la post WW1 a near impossible task to achieve without inflaming ethnic tensions somewhere.
      Signing out.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Full Monty
        Further muddying the water. Makes the relatively arbitary formation of nation-states a-la post WW1 a near impossible task to achieve without inflaming ethnic tensions somewhere.
        Absolutely. When one says that the treaties at the end of WW1 caused WW2, they are not referring only to abuse heaped on Germany (rightly or wrongly is not the point) -- the creation of unstable states (Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia) and borders shifted without regard for the local population (German lands to Belgium and Poland and the dismemberment of Hungary), on top of Communist destabilization of Central and Western Europe (Germany, Hungary, etc.) led to a situation which made it easy for a nationalist and a socialist like Hitler to take power. It was a bad deal all around and the world paid for it.

        Let's hope we learned a lesson from it.
        Barcsi János ispán vezérőrnagy
        Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2003 & 2006


        "Never pet a burning dog."

        RECOMMENDED WEBSITES:
        http://www.mormon.org
        http://www.sca.org
        http://www.scv.org/
        http://www.scouting.org/

        Comment


        • #49
          As a further to German lands being used to create Poland; the region of Silesia was actually given a plebiscite to decide, if it should join Poland or Germany, post-WW1. Despite the treaty of Versailles (i think) stating that the region should be partitioned according to districts if a unanimous (sp?) decision was not made, Germany refused to release most of the Upper Silesian districts, which had voted overwhelmingly to join Poland. These regions were predominantly Polish in ethnicity.

          This refusal by the Germans, which btw was directly against the treaties signed by Germany, lead directly to the 3 Silesian uprisings, IIRC in 1919-1921. At the third attempt the Polish uprising was successful in that the League of Nations then ruled that those districts, which had voted in favour of joining Poland should be allowed to do so.

          Comment


          • #50
            My interpretation if the events in Silesia is that even though the plebiscite voted in favour of staying in Germany, the Poles still attempted to take it over. It was the German Freikorps that was deployed to defend German land.

            http://www.shtetlinks.jewishgen.org/...n/beuthen.html
            Signing out.

            Comment


            • #51
              Hey Janos

              Are you unknowingly blaming the victims by saying: "the world paid of it"? Am I to suppose you mean Hitler's war machine punished the world because the world objected and later actively assaulted his Greater Germany in which he had united germans outside old german boundary by annexing those territories of neighboring nations to bring those suffering germans under the New Reich? Is Hitler justified by forcing these new annexed lands in which he showed the proper "regard for the local population" of germans? Does this mean you support all ethic groups to follow Hitler's methods of how he gave "regard to" his own population (germans) therefore they all must engage in sectarian ethinic group war, political and/or militarily, until the pure ethic group of said Poles, Croats, Serbs, Moslim, Checzhs, etcs have all given proper "regard for the local population? My goodness how many Hitlers would this logic create?

              You are very correct in saying this is exactly how Hitler came about as an extreme nationalist/populist and a socialist under the Nationalist Socialist Party but not easy like you claim. The very state systems you call unstable were in fact successful for a time in stopping these Hitler types. That they failed is not due to the error of their creation but the failure of their fortitude to resist the little Hitlers of every ethic group seeking their hitler. The original german Hitler was an evil genius who had to overcome many opponants and is a very interesting tale.

              With regards to "communist destablization", I assume you mean how Hitler was excellent and the first grand master at using anti-communistic propaganda in luring in the support of conservatives and reactionaries germans which greatly helped Hitler to be elected into power lawfully without revolution. Hitler never saw the communistic and/or socialist as a serious threat to Germany or himself but this was not revealed for the public. Hitler's extreme nationalism/populism and socialism caused most of these types to enroll into the National Socialist Party after he rose to power and had sucessful foreign policy victories and the rest he murdered. He had a lot to be thankful for the socialists that he used. You are correct again.

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Full Monty
                My interpretation if the events in Silesia is that even though the plebiscite voted in favour of staying in Germany, the Poles still attempted to take it over. It was the German Freikorps that was deployed to defend German land.

                http://www.shtetlinks.jewishgen.org/...n/beuthen.html
                I have read a slightly different version, and having a quick look on the net found that Wikipedia (for what its worth) also supports this view. In brief though the overall result across the whole of Silesia was in favour of Germany, the treaty of Versailles did stipulate that if different districts of Silesia were to vote in different directions then the region was to be separated up by the various districts. This, the splitting up of Silesia by the various districts, was the final decision of the League after the three uprisings.

                http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesian_Uprisings

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by wwagstyl
                  I have read a slightly different version, and having a quick look on the net found that Wikipedia (for what its worth) also supports this view. In brief though the overall result across the whole of Silesia was in favour of Germany, the treaty of Versailles did stipulate that if different districts of Silesia were to vote in different directions then the region was to be separated up by the various districts. This, the splitting up of Silesia by the various districts, was the final decision of the League after the three uprisings.

                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesian_Uprisings
                  It's a very complicated issue and it's echoed in what was attempted in Bosnia-Herzegovina. I saw the Wikipedia article but thought the other one might have a little more weight.
                  Signing out.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Bo Archer
                    Hey Janos
                    Hey Bo.
                    Originally posted by Bo Archer
                    Are you unknowingly blaming the victims by saying: "the world paid of it"? Am I to suppose you mean Hitler's war machine punished the world because the world objected and later actively assaulted his Greater Germany in which he had united germans outside old german boundary by annexing those territories of neighboring nations to bring those suffering germans under the New Reich? Is Hitler justified by forcing these new annexed lands in which he showed the proper "regard for the local population" of germans? Does this mean you support all ethic groups to follow Hitler's methods of how he gave "regard to" his own population (germans) therefore they all must engage in sectarian ethinic group war, political and/or militarily, until the pure ethic group of said Poles, Croats, Serbs, Moslim, Checzhs, etcs have all given proper "regard for the local population? My goodness how many Hitlers would this logic create?
                    I don't know if I did it without knowing. If I did, it was unintentional.
                    My feeling, after having seen a few of them, is that no war is a good thing and, to varying degrees, we all lose in all of them. I do not mean that Hitler was "God's tool of choice" to punish us (and I acknowledge that you didn't say that). The rest of your paragraph seems to go overboard, respectfully, far further and down a path that I did not go or intend to go, nor would I ever go.
                    Originally posted by Bo Archer
                    You are very correct in saying this is exactly how Hitler came about as an extreme nationalist/populist and a socialist under the Nationalist Socialist Party but not easy like you claim. The very state systems you call unstable were in fact successful for a time in stopping these Hitler types. That they failed is not due to the error of their creation but the failure of their fortitude to resist the little Hitlers of every ethic group seeking their hitler. The original german Hitler was an evil genius who had to overcome many opponants and is a very interesting tale.
                    I did not say that communist states were unstable, I say that they were destabilizing. I am referring here to Rosa Luxemburg, Bela Kun, and others, who embraced communism as a world-wide movement and instituted revolutions in their home countries.
                    Originally posted by Bo Archer
                    With regards to "communist destablization", I assume you mean how Hitler was excellent and the first grand master at using anti-communistic propaganda in luring in the support of conservatives and reactionaries germans which greatly helped Hitler to be elected into power lawfully without revolution. Hitler never saw the communistic and/or socialist as a serious threat to Germany or himself but this was not revealed for the public. Hitler's extreme nationalism/populism and socialism caused most of these types to enroll into the National Socialist Party after he rose to power and had sucessful foreign policy victories and the rest he murdered. He had a lot to be thankful for the socialists that he used. You are correct again.
                    Your assumption is wrong. I neither said nor intended any of that. See the section I wrote above.

                    You seem to think I am a Nazi or a supporter of Nazis. If so, that is another false assumption. I my world, one can be anti-communist and not be a Nazi.
                    Barcsi János ispán vezérőrnagy
                    Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2003 & 2006


                    "Never pet a burning dog."

                    RECOMMENDED WEBSITES:
                    http://www.mormon.org
                    http://www.sca.org
                    http://www.scv.org/
                    http://www.scouting.org/

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Hey Janos

                      We jointly misunderstood each other's position it appears. I was trying to get more detailed information from you. Cheers to you sir.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by Bo Archer
                        Hey Janos

                        We jointly misunderstood each other's position it appears. I was trying to get more detailed information from you. Cheers to you sir.
                        ..and to you! (Sorry I didn't respond earlier...lost track of this thread and just found it today.)

                        Did you get the info from me you were looking for?
                        Barcsi János ispán vezérőrnagy
                        Time Magazine's Person of the Year for 2003 & 2006


                        "Never pet a burning dog."

                        RECOMMENDED WEBSITES:
                        http://www.mormon.org
                        http://www.sca.org
                        http://www.scv.org/
                        http://www.scouting.org/

                        Comment

                        Latest Topics

                        Collapse

                        Working...
                        X