Talk:Pomerania/Archive 2

Pomeranian cultural and ethnic mix
Because of its rich history Pomerania has produced a unique cultural mix based on the local Pomeranian tradition with heavy Polish, Saxon, German,Danish and Swedish influences. For most of its history Pomerania was an object of conflict between Poland, Saxony, Roman Empire, Danmark, Brandenburg, Sweden, Prussia and Germany. Today the region is inhabited by the Poles, Kashubians, Pomeranians, Germans, Ukrainians and some Greeks.

'''History of Pomerania is very often written from Polish, German or Swedish point of view and very rarely from Pomeranian point of view. '''

Before reverting what you don't like or making flames plase consult the following publications which clarify much of the confusion produced by the 19th century nationalisms:

Pomerania in Polish-German relations in Middle Ages


 * (ed.) Rainer Riemenchneider, Die Rolle Schlesiens and Pommern in der Geschichte der deutschen-polnischen Beziehungen in Mittelater,, Georg-Eckert-Institut fuer Internationale Schulbuchforschung, Braunchweig 1980
 * (ed.) Marian Biskup, &#346;l&#261;sk i Pomorze w historii stosunków polsko-niemieckich w &#347;redniowieczu, XII Konferencja Wspólnej Komisji Podr&#281;cznikowej PRL-RFN Historyków 5-10 VI 1979 Olsztyn, Ossolineum, Wroclaw 1983, second edition: Instytut Zachodni, Pozna&#324; 1987.

Pomerania in Polish-German relations in 16th-18th centuries:


 * (ed.) Antoni Czubi&#324;ski, Zbigniew Kulak, &#346;l&#261;sk i Pomorze w stosunkach polsko-niemieckich od XVI do XVII w. XIV Konferencja Wspólnej Komisji Podr&#281;cznikowej PRL-RFN Historyków, 9-14 VI 1981 r. Zamo&#347;&#263;, Instytut Zachodni, Pozna&#324; 1987
 * German edition also available

--[User:caius2ga|Grzes of Poznan]

I am moving the all staff that is not specifically related to Pomerania to the Oder-Neisse-Line, where is an apropriate place to discuss this problem.

If Germany SIGNED an agreement with Poland recognizing something that de facto existed, doesn't that ipso facto make it de jure QED? JHK, having fun with language...

If you are on vacation or out of the country for a while and a transient breaks in your house and lives there. He lives de facto in your house. But does he de jure live in your house ???? user:H.J.

He is if you sign something that says he can live there. That's the definition of de jure. Duh! -- Paul Drye
 * Was just going to say that, Paul -- although, to complete the analogy, it's more like you found out someone was illegally living in your house, and then agreed in writing not to press charges -- this not only makes it de jure, but would set a precedent for future legal occupation...JHK

First : funny thing: "transient breaks in your house and lives there", so may be we should write on the page History/Germany that "Polish general Rydz-Smigly on 1 September 1939 attacked Germany, then burnt Berlin, built concentration camps in Germany and murdered best sons of German homeland (in the first place teachers, priests, doctors). The second, more important thing: Article 2 of treaty signed in 1990 by Kohl and ratified by Bundestag states that: "Agreeing Parties declare that existing between them border is infrangible now and in the future (...)", Article 1 states that "Agreeing Parties confirm existing between them border [here description of border] (...)", Article 3 states that: "Agreeing Parties  declare that they do not have any  territorial claims and that they will not have any claims of this kind in the future". Treaty states nothing about "de jure" or "de facto". Kohl didn't tell nothing about this strange distinction when he signed this document in Poland, so how is it ?

Kazik

Because he didn't need to, Kazik. De jure is the English expression (directly imported from Latin) meaning "legally". In other words, the effects of a signed treaty are by definition de jure. Saying something is de jure is not an attempt to evade the truth, as I think you may be saying here. --Paul Drye

To Kazik ,yes, truly a funny thing : about this Polish general Rydz-Smigly , who in March 1939 had a portrait of himself painted (by Herbert Smagon) riding through the Brandenburg Gate in Berlin, triumphantly taking over the capital city of Germany.( Never published until 2000.) And there exists a map by Polish history Professor Semkowicz , who shows all of Eastern Germany and including Western Germany south of Hamburg and Bremen at the Atlantic North Sea taken over and claiming it as Poland.

Not only Russia had mobilized and wanted to attack Germany as Alexander Solshenizin had earlier documented and again recent books by Russian author Suworow verify. Poland had also mobilized and wanted to attack Germany. Poland had put a large ammunition depot in the Danzig harbor, against which the Danzig citizens protested. Starting 1922 Poland had built a large harbor called Gdynia at a tiny fishing village of Prussia's Gdingen (this with western financing).

And let us not forget Poland had militarily taken the Ukraine etc from Russia.

In summer 1939 50,000 Germans (1920 they became "Ethnic Germans in Poland") in 'Polish Corridor" were incarcerated and 5000 were butchered during a force death march through cities like Thorn, Bromberg etc.

And you may not know this, as a lot of Americans may not even know this, but the real policy makers behind F.D. Roosevelt ( Morgenthau Plan , White etc),who had called for total destruction of all of Germany and extermination of all Germans , later under Truman silently left the scene , when it surfaced that they were communists.

In 1947 an American Institute of Economics published a book : "Gruesome Harvest, The Costly Attempt To Exterminate The People of Germany". For Americans of that time it must have been a real eye-opener and soon after the Marshal-Plan was established.

May I also point out some books : "An Eye for an Eye" about German prisoners of Polish camps, by John Sack and "A Terrible Revenge" by Alfred deZaya.

As the books by author Suworow show, there are a lot of facts , that have been kept from the public in many countries by the victorious allies for many years.

So, yes it is a funny thing about this Polish general Rydz-Smigly. user:H.J.

"In summer 1939 50,000 Germans (1920 they became "Ethnic Germans in Poland") in 'Polish Corridor" were incarcerated and 5000 were butchered during a force death march through cities like Thorn, Bromberg etc." - I can not belive. Nazi propaganda still alive. Carry on! Poland attacked Germany in 1939. In Gliwitz of course. My congratulations.

The real policy makers behind Roosevelt? It is to laugh. Roosevelt was arguably the most independent of American presidents over the last 100 years. He was rightly notorious for listening to everybody, then doing exactly what he wanted to do. -- Paul Drye

To Paul Drye From what I have been told by older people in USA, who lived through it personally, Roosevelt was too sick, that he really could not handle things. But strangely, the same thing was written of Wilson, 80 years later. So, what is the truth ?

user:H.J. has written:

"And let us not forget Poland had militarily taken the Ukraine etc from Russia."

In my opinion this statement contains partial truth. Poland has taken militarily a part of Ukraine in 1918-1921, Poles have commited crimes on Ukrainians and murdered them. The difference between you and me is that I don't claim that Ukraine "has broken into Polish house" in 1944 or in 1990. Neither that despite treaty signed by Poland with Ukraine "we can't be sure that Lvov de jure belongs to Ukraine".

Kazik

To Kazik, I never claimed that either. user:H.J.

HJ -- you aren't actually clarifying. There is always a reason for what you insist on calling liens (this is NOT what they are called in English, but I'm not sure what you mean, because we usually use Latin terminology or derivatives from Latin) to change hands. You've gone to a lot of trouble to list all these facts, but what primary sources are they from? These kinds of changes were not regular -- for them to happen with such frequency indicats a great deal of insecurity and unrest.

Also, where you tried to rewrite the stuff from about 955-1100...what you are saying about Prussians and Pomeranians driving off the Poles is not supported by the facts as you listed them earlier (the stuff about the Boleslauses, Mieszko, and Canute). Somethine is off here, and I would like to think that it has more to do with your inexperience at using and correctly interpreting historical sources than with a deliberate attempt to twist history. However, given your track record, perhaps it would be better to simply answer the questions I have posed with facts and sources, and merely clarify what you mean by the statements I question. I will then turn this into good English and coherent history.

Finally, please don't answer anything with a Q.E.D. like, "feudal relationships were like this, so that explains it." Feudal relationships were rarely as you seem to understand them, and I am looking for real clarification here, not a justification. Thanks in advance for your help in trying to get this article straight. JHK

HJ -- what is the source for the name Pomesania coming into use in after 1100. What was the area called before that? JHK

JHK, Pomesania (Pomesanien not to be confused with Pommern or Pomerania) was one of the 12 Old Prussian lands. There are nany descriptions by Prussian historians throughtout the centuries ( Lukas David, Peter von Dusburg, Nikolaus von Jeroschin, Simon Grunau, Helmold von Bosau and Prof. Christoph Hartknoch. Martin Cromer also wrote down Prussian history even though it has many mistakes : website http://www.orteliusmaps.com/book/ort156.html. This sample site shows a PRVSSIAE map by Abr. Oertel plus parts of a Cromer description of Prussian tribes. It should state Pomeso (instead Pomego), but states Pomesania.

JHK, in case that you meant to ask about Pomerania (not Pomesania), Pomerania was first recorded at Kloster Altaich after 1046. Mieszko II in 1032 submitted to 'Oberherrschaft' of Conrad I and 1033 recognized 'Lehnshoheit' of the emperor. Pomerania territory (might have been called Slawien at that time) was in 1033 again independend of Poland. In the year 1046 the duke of Polanen, duke of Bohemia and duke Zemuzil (recorded at Kl. Altaich as "dux Bomeraniorum" pledged allegiance to king Henry III (emperor), who had ended a quarrel amongst the three dukes.

user:H.J.
 * You're right about my meaning Pomerania, HJ -- it was a typo. However, could you please actually answer the question?

What are your sources for saying that the name Pomerania was first used in the 11th century. You say it was "first recorded" at Kloster Altaich in 1046. How do you know that? I know that you haven't searched all of the extant European records (or even Central European Records) yourself -- that would take years!

Historians don't say things like this -- we say the "first known instance of a record..." or "first extant recording..." because documents get lost and destroyed.

I am not looking for one of your dubious history lessons. I don't even doubt that this is the first instance. I am just asking you to let us know where you got your information. JHK

I don't know if 'Szczecin' and 'Odra' designations are correct in this context. Are they readily understandable for English-speaking persons ? Referring to the present day geographical names we could give two names but referring to historical ones it'd probably be better to leave the original (?) names. Kpjas

I agree. And both Szczecin and Odra are the original names! Let's not forget, that when those names were already in use for at least a couple of centuries, the closest Germans were hundreds of miles away, behind the Laba river (today Elbe). Space Cadet

As far as I can see this page has false languagelinks, since some of them are not refereing to Pomerania in other languages but to Polish kings? Dan Koehl 21:28 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)

Why were my extensive comments with sources, from Heinz Neumeyer, not put on the page for discussion -- showing notably that the alleged massacre of Danzig German burghers in 1308 did not happen? I won't even go into the allegation on the Danzig page that the Brandenburg and Bohemian claims were "fictitious", since Pope and Emperor, the "public notaries of Christendom" (my expression) accepted both as being above whatever claim the Piasts had. But I'd like to know the basis for cutting out substantiated sources. [User: Thomas Reimer]

from ugly article edits:

''Note: this article is in a transitional phase, as it was merely a list of events with no sources. An attempt is being made at turning this into something coherent, but the reader should bear in mind that this is an uncited work in progress. Questions to be answered appear in italics. ''

This makes no sense, since the above paragraphs imply that Boleslaus had already conquered Pomerania.

Who began construction?

Liens-taker isn't English, and I'm not sure what this means

How did we get here -- what happened between 1164 and 1170 to transfer rule to Brandenburg?

''Why did he do this and where is Bogidslaw duke? The next paragraph implies that Bradenburg lost its rights, but then regained them -- what happened? And where (except with Canute in 1024) do the Danes come in? Does this mean that the Danes contested other claims?''

''Presumably Danzig, Schwetz, and Altdamm are in Pomerania...except I thought that some might be in Prussia? But if they are in Prussia, why are they here? Also, I think we need clarification on "his brother's parts" -- does this mean "his brother's lands or holdings?''

''This is very unclear -- where do the Teutonic knights come in? Also, from what is said earlier, it appears that Boleslaw III also held Pomerania for several years, and that Pomerania had once been under Polish suzereignty...?''

''How did Adolf get the right to do this? Also, can we get a better translation for Lehnshoheit?''

Here follows a 500 year gap in Pomerania's history -- what happened?

''Question--is there any substantiaton for this alleged massacre? Even a basically pro-Polish page such as http://stabi.hs-bremerhaven.de/whkmla/region/eceurope/gdanskpre1309.html does not mention this.'' ''Answer -- even a fanatically pro-German book "The Vanished Kingdom" by James Charles Roy talks about the massacre in detail. And why are you calling this German site -"basically pro-Polish"?'' However, rulers of Poland believed they are legal proprietors of Pomerania. Since the wealth of the province was incurred by the trade and the main trade route for the country was the Vistula river, that linked the Pomerania with the rest of Poland, citzens of the province, despite of their language and nationality were driven more and more into links with Poland.

JohnOwen -- I reverted back -- the comments in italics weren't talk -- they were questions that remain to be answered. If you read through this tal page, you'll see that we wen't through a lot of revision just to get here, because one of our old users, user:H.J., who was banned for her inability to work with others, insisted on promoting irredentist nationalist POV that she couldn't support. The questions are ones that some of us added to make it clear that the work was still incomplete. If you can answer the questions, then please do so, and only then remove them. otherwise, it makes sense to leave them in. Thanks! JHK

From Thomas, user. Concerning the slaughter of 5,000 unarmed civilians in Bromberg in the early September days 1939, read Richard Blanke, Orphans of Versailles. He teaches at the University of Maine.

But about that Danzig "massacre," let me condense from Heinz Neumeyer, Westpreussen: Geschichte und Schicksal (Munich: Universitas Verlag 1993), p. 115 and p.153n17-19, that there is no mention of any kind of such a "massacre" in any writing, not even in the complaints from Poland about the Order seizing Pomerellen from 1312, 1320, and 1339--though this would have been prime material. As Neumeyer, based on Keyser and others, shows, this is what happened (and I hope that whoever is the censor here will leave this here THIS TIME:

During the struggle over the succession of duke Mesrwin II (d. 1294), and Przemyslaw of Poland (d. 1296), Duke of Greater Poland, King Wenzel of Bohemia was elected King of Poland and also accepted as Duke of Pomerania by the local nobles, led by the family of Swenza. King Wenzel II called in the Teutonic Order to repulse attacks from other claimants, notably Wilzlaw of Ruegen, which the Order did in 1301. Wenzel II died in 1305, his son Wenzel III in 1306 (murdered). But he already had sold his rights to Brandenburg (which seems to have had another claim as well, for Neumeyer speaks that it strengthened the claim). But the Brandenburger did not move at once, allowing Wladislaw of Kujavia to take the area. But the Swenza and other nobles did not like his rule, and when Otto and Waldemar of Brandenburg arrived with an army in Spring 1308, the local nobles supported them. Bogussa, whom Wladislaw had made governor of Pomerellen, called the Order for help to hold Danzig. The population of Danzig, 2,000 overwhelmingly Germans, were against Wladyslaw as well, and supported the Swenza family's policies. The Order repelled attacks by the Brandenburger. Then Bogussa refused to pay, and in the resulting fight, the Polish garrison was killed ("massacre" if you want). The German population of Danzig and the Pomeranian population of the villages was not happy. Fifteen or Sixteen mounted Pomeranian knights, probably with foot soldiers as well, attacked the Order's troops in guerilla style, with the support of the German Danziger. The Order was upset. On November 14, it had 4,000 men ready to storm Danzig if the city did not surrender, including the guerillas. The city surrendered, the Pomeranian knights were executed. That's all. After 1945, there was an attempt by some Polish historians (and adopted by some Germans) that traces of burnt timber MUST be from a city-wide fire in 1308. There may have been a fire in those decades. But there is no proof that it happened in 1308 and in any way shows a "massacre."

The idea of a massacre was first purported by the 15th century Polish historian Jan Dlugosz, without documentary evidence (this was not the fashion then), and the story found itself in both Polish but also some German historians. I do not know the James Charles Roy book you cited earlier, and so cannot tell if it is "fanatically pro-German" or not. But check if the source he cites originates with Dlugosz or not. Just because a falsehood is old, even antique, does not make it truer. But since you asked about the Bremen Webseite, let me stress that a lot of German historians (esp. the '68er generation) by no means favor Germans, rather, they tend to believe anything the other side alleges, whether proven or not, in a misguided way for atoning for 1945. I lived there till 1984, and it has become worse today among some intellectuals.

I may add (at the risk of being banned) that I feel that the site is prejudiced against the former native people of the area (the Reimer are from Elbing and surroundings, BTW), and more inclined to believe Polish nationalist views which implicitly defending the ethnic cleansing of 1945-47 (which is not even mentioned, which means implicitly defending it) than those of the ethnically cleansed German natives. Now I may be wrong, but suddenly seeing Wikipedia, that's the impression I get, it makes me feel upset because my family comes from there, and also uncertain about the reliability of this source). I just hope that your treatment of Armenia is not on the same lines, dissing "revanchists" Armenians (worse, "irrendentist" for dreaming to get their homeland back, no matter how small the chance), or Palestinians--I just checked the page of Al-Latrun, since the city of Thorn was founded by the Teutonic Order and named for the castle of Toron in Al-Latrun, and I wanted to read more on that. There was no mention at all of the former Palestinians population of Al-Latrun. If this is a pattern....please tell me and I won't waste my time with you guys, but leave you to your dreams.


 * Thomas Reimer -- please try to understand the history of this and many other pages dealing with territories where there is a long history of changing borders and ethnic interests (especially, unfortunately, German ones). Once upon a time, there was a constant user called user:H.J. -- you can find her on many talk pages.  She had no sense of historic method, and no understanding that nations in the modern sense really didn't exist before a couple of hundred years ago.  Moreover, she had problems understanding that people could speak one language (for example, German as in Pomerania) and choose to be ruled by someone who spoke another language -- because it was the quality of the overlord or his laws that was more important -- not a national identity in the post von Herder sense.  Because the cause of the Heimatvertriebene is near and dear to user:H.J.'s heart, she had no sense of perspective and refused to accept any viewpoint other than that areas like Pomerania were really German and had been forcibly taken from Germany -- you seem to understand that the facts argue for a much richer and complex history.

WHat is on this page is still very much in revision -- but is partly such a mess because it turned into a real struggle between user:H.J. and several Polish contributors. Those who just wished for a neutral, more factual approach generally haven't had time to do any research themselves, so when something gets put in that seems one-sided or unsubstantiated, there are calls for citations, etc. SOmetimes good stuff gets edited out, too, but it's still in the areticle history and can be incorporated. My suggestion for you is that, if you have a real interest in making this a solid article without and agenda (that is, if you can come into it without wanting to prove that Pomerania is either inherently German OR inherently Polish, you should look at the article history and the talk page, find the people you think are like-minded, and try to work with them. JHK


 * "n Bromberg in the early September days 1939, read Richard Blanke, Orphans of Versailles. He teaches at the University of Maine."


 * Actually, there is much literature which proves that there was no such thing as Bydgoszcz massacre, unless you are referring to shooting few hundreds of Poles. Germans were trying really hard to prepare proofs, but the point is that much of so called "documents" are contradicting themselves and other facts.


 * Second point is that Germans are not natives to Pommern area.
 * About Gdansk massacre, Teutons were officially accused about that in trial between Teutonic Order and Poland. The pope ordered Teutons to pay indemnities and return Pomorze to Poland. Which they never did.

User::Szopen

Szopen: Thank you for your kind words.

I disagree with a few comments, though:

The massacre of 5,000 plus Germans in September 1939 is well-established, incl. by Polish historians, and I suggest you look at Blanke's book to see the documentary evidence. Recently, the Polish historian Wlodimierz Jastrzebski confirmed this in an interview with the Express Bydgoski of 20 Dec. 2002, cited in Der Westpreusse, 19 April 2003, p. 6.


 * I'm sorry, but you are wrong. Closest thing to your allegations was fighting inside of Bydgoiszcz between Polish army and sabotageurs. Few of them was caught, IIRC few was shot on place and the rest was send for trial, but during the mess in September they most probably were killed. Few civilians also died in march, but one of them was killed when trying to take pistol from Polish escort, and few others were killed by Luftwaffe. Number in victims in total wasn't even close to one hundred.

Germans are of course native of Pomerania,for how would you call by 1945 people who settled there in the 13th century, and intermarried with the local people, who then became German as well? They became natives, and the former
 * So, Americans are natives of America?

Pomoranian natives lived in their German descendants who were killed/ethnically cleansed in 1945-46, and not in the people settled there by the Polish state after 1945. Most of the area was of course German in a legal sense as well from 1181 when the Dukes of Western Pomerania joined the German Empire, through the German Confederation, the 2nd


 * Notwithstanding that Eastern Poland was part of Poland and never part of HRE, and with Polish majority, and western part had Slavic majority until XV century, and most Slavic dukes had very strong ties with Poland. But ok, I see that i can't write IIRC, i will take my historic books and post comments.

Empire and so on till 1945. So user:H.J. was not wrong on that, and you could show some understanding for the pain of ethnically cleansed people if they become emotional. Now


 * You know, I understand the pain of expelled people, although they weren't so empatic when their sons and fathers were expelling (ethnic cleansing) Poles from eastern Pommern, Silesia and Greater Poland during the war.

being already born after the Vertreibung, I accept that my ancestors' homeland is part of another legal ensemble (which the EU will make less relevant anyhow), but the ethnic cleansing still hurts. And this


 * Part of my ancestor were expelled from what is now Belarus, from territory with almost 100% Polish population (villages around the Grodno)

acceptance/resignation does not make me accept the theories of Gerard Labuda, Karol Gorski and other luminaries of postwar Polish historiography about the character of Pomerania in the middle ages.


 * G. Labuda are the best from Polish medieval historian. He is not propagandist, but honest scientist, who just happened to have different opinion that pre-War German historians.

About the 1308, you are correct that they were accused (I apologize for my too quick glance at Neumeyer--the footnotes shows that Dlugosz expanded on the alleged massacre, but that indeed it was made in 1308, though as Neumeyer notes on p. 153, n. 17, based on Erich Keyser, that while it was used to get the Pope to create an investigation about the legality of the Order's possession of Pomerellen, it was not made an official accusation in 1312, 1320 or 1339. This is also admitted by Heinz Lingenberg, who otherwise believes that there was a massacre. Rather, the allegations of the massacre was used as background noise to poison the proceedings, but did not have to be proven since it was not part of the accusation. The Papal legates, such as Francois of Moliano, from Laon in France, in 1312, called only witnesses proposed by the Polish side. But the Emperor, the other person who had to right to investigate and judge such international cases in Christendom, here Emperor Henry VII of Luxemburg, after seeing that the massacre was not true and the Order had bought the rights of the Brandenburger (which were better than the claims of Poland), confirmed the legality of the Order's possession in 1311, and also put the territory under the protection of the Empire to protect the Order from further Polish claims through Papal courts. After Poland got another biased investigation started, Emperor Ludwig in 1338 even forbade the Order to accept Papal jurisdiction in that matter. The local clergy, from the abbots of Oliva to the monks of Elbing, Danzig, Kulm, Thorn, Dirschau and Brzesc, all testified for the Order, but their testimonies were not accepted by the Papal legates (p. 120-121). But in 1342 the new Pope Clemens VI refused to continue this policy. And so King Kasimir of Poland in the Treaty of Kalish in 1343 surrendered all claims to Pomerellen. (Neumeyer, 114-121, notes 153-155)


 * Actually I agree that ther is hard to prove 10.000 numbers of victims. Most of historians i've read (real ones, not popular) believe that number of victims was much lower, and moreover most of victims were Germans - Polish part of city was mostly saved - plus Polish knights.

There is nothing in the recorded proceedings establishing a massacre, merely allegations from the Polish side that one happened. Some historians believe it, especially as Dlugosz gave what seemed believable details. But there is no proof that this is true.


 * and no proof otherwise. I guess in final version there had to be mentioning about it.


 * Now, to explain my stance: maybe i too fast turned into anti-user:H.J. mode. I turned very nervous during my discussions with her. She simply could not admit that Poland had ever any claims on the territories and different other strange theories. I know that Germans expelled were not colonizers, at least most of them - i am not talking about Baltic Germans and others settled in Greater Poland during the war for example, but about those living in Prussia, Pommern, Silesia etc. I understand what they can feel since part of my family was also expelled. But The problem with Germn historiography is that it usually ignores Polish historiography, very often is turning blind eye to many things signaled by Poles etc (take simple thing: so called German colonisation, where usually Germans were taking _all_ village settled on German law as settled by Germans etc). I am however open for normal discussion.

ACTUALISATION: I've found the itnerview with Jastrzebski. He indeed confirms that massacre mya had place. But he said that verified number of victims is 358 persons and 5.000 is taken from air. User::szopen

(Thomas, user) But Blanke showed it were 5,000, and his numbers were not disproven so far. About "native"--yes, Americans are becoming natives, too. Like the Slavs did, though they settled on land inhabited by Germans before, and before that by Illyrians and other groups we can't identify. So who is really "native" to any area save the first group of homo sapiens who came there. You brush off the crimes against German civilians a bit too easily. Fortunatly, Wikipedia will be probably seen as a P.C. enterprise anyway, so whatever schmonzes you write won't matter really.

The lands east of Laba (Elbe) were never "inhabited" by Germans, before the German invasion of Polabian Slavic teritories in X and XI centuries. Archeology tells us about some nomadic Germanic (not German!) tribes wandering through those lands before III century, leaving behind old fire places and camp sites. A couple of centuries after these tribes migrated away, the Slavs settled in with highly organized Slavonic countries, with well developed cities, administrative organisations, very advanced judiciary systems and rich religious life. Space Cadet 13:40 25 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Well, i do not think that the territories east of the Elbe were ever completely empty, so "highly organized" Slavs with "very advanced judiciary systems and rich religious life" could colonise an empty, cultureless, having-to-be-grateful-for-slawic-culturebringing-invasion, not inhabitated area. The point is, that always when you enter a country, there are some native inhabitants. If they are settled down or roving the lands, it does not matter that much - you have to displace other people. Happened when slawic tribes came in Century III or whatever, and happened again in Century X and after when the Germans came. Happened again in 1945 when the Polish came. So what ? No invasion is better than the other one...

CHris

Kashubians _are_ Poles, even if using distinct language. In recent census people reporting separate "Kashubian" nationality were close to nonexistent, while there are vigourous Kashubians organisation in the area.

lol, so those kaschubians stating their kaschubian ethnicity are wrong? anyway, this article should be careful with "pommerellen". Traditionally pommerellia as distinct from pomerania was just the small region highly correspondent west of east prussia and danzig and east of the old duchy. In other words, the coastal corridor region.

user:Tridesch

If large majority of Kashubians think about themselves as Poles, and large majority ofPoles consider Kashubians Poles, then "Kashubian" used in such context leades to wrong conclusion.

WELL, YOU REFUSE TO DISCUSS THE EVIDENCE, AND JUST GIVE AS EXCUSE SOME POLISH-NATIONALIST RANTING (WHICH PASSES AS HISTORY FOR YOU). IT DOES NOT HELP WIKIPEDIA BECOME A MAINSTREAM ENCYCLOPEDIA. THOMAS REIMER