Poland, more Germanic or Slavic?

[matbir]

Today I read here on Eupedia the article "interesting facts about Poland". I thing that majority of it is quite plausible, but paragraph entitled "Poland, more Germanic or Slavic?" is very radical, hence it can be seen in the comments of excitation by the controversy.
Rhetoric that uses the author is an exact copy of the rhetoric of German nationalists struggling against the facts for propaganda purposes to promote belief in the Germanic origin of original Polish lands. The need to propagate that belief was caused by expansion of kingdom of Prussia to ethnically Polish lands in 18th century - Kingdom of Prussia conquered most of Silesia, Greater Poland and Royal Prussia, parts of Lesser Poland, Mazovia and Podlachia (Partitions of Poland).
Acprussiamap2.gif
It Let's get to the facts:

About one third of modern Poland used to be ethnically, culturally and linguistically German.(...)
Pomerania, Prussia and Silesia (...) had been ethnically and culturally German for many centuries (for longer than the Americas have been Colonized by Europeans).

Belonging to Germany doesn't mean to be ethnically, culturally and linguistically German. In 18th century about half of Prussian Silesia was inhabited by Poles and about one third in the beginning of XX century. Johann Gottlieb Schummel wrote in "Reise durch Schlesien im Juni und August 1791"(Wrocław 1792) "Let's not start a trial of Silesia with Poles. We will lose him in the tribunal of history, both from low and higher instance"
Map showing Polish-speaking area in Silesia in 18th century:
Sląsk XVIII w.jpg Here in better quality.
Map showing Polish area in 20th century.
Prussia was also ethnically diverse area, there lived Polish Warmiaks and Masurians.

Pomerania was the most heavily Germanized area in 20th century. But in 17th century Polish language was still in official use in Duchy of Pomerania. In 25.07.1601 nobility from area around Koszalin and Słupsk made homage to the Duke Barnim X. The text of the oath was written in Polish because only three noblemen could speak German. Here is text in Polish.

This description shows situation far from that from article. One third of modern Polish territory belonged to Germany before WWII but not whole this area was ethnically German. If Polish minority in Germany was taken into account, then area ethnically German would drop from one third to one fourth. And certainly this one fourth wasn’t German for longer than the Americas have been colonized by Europeans, but for less than two centuries.

The duchy of Prussia merged with Margraviaviate of Brandenburg (around Berlin in East Germany) to form the Kingdom of Prussia in 1701, which progressively unified Germany and created the Second Riche in 1871. So it can be said that Germany was unified under the name of a historical area (“Prussia”) being now entirely in Poland.

Duchy of Prussia was established as vassal of Poland in 1525 and was inherited by Hohenzollerns from Brandenburg in 1618. In 1657 the Treaty of Bromberg (Bydgoszcz) canceled Prussian dependence of Poland. In 1701 Frederic III Elector of Brandenburg made an attempt to raise prestige of its realm by using the name of new gained province Prussia to become the King. So the area after which was named the kingdom which united Germany is not entirely in Poland as it’s seen here:
Podział Prus.jpg

Silesia (...) The region swore allegiance to the Holy Roman Emperor in 950 C.E.

That is new to me, I tried to search for that but no results… Does anybody know anything about that allegiance?

Although it had a large ethnic Slav community, the region became predominantly German-speaking during Middles Ages, due to immigration from Germany.

I proved it not to be even close to the truth, showing Polish-speaking area in 18th century.

Polish born astronomer Nicolaus Copernicus formulated the first explicitly heliocentric model of the solar system, thus starting the scientific revolution that transform Europe and weaken the dogma of the Catholic Church. Ironically, Poland is nowadays one of the most staunchly Catholic country in Europe.

Answering comment by Rasmus:

Ironically
Copernicus could be a bit surprised with the line about his research and the Church as he himself was a clergyman (cannon) within the Catholic Church, (actually very close to become a bishop...), serving it whole his adult life and being supported by the Church since childhood.

I have nothing to add to this comment.

What is your opinion about this article?

[LeBrok]

I don't think this short introduction of Poland on Eupedia meant to be comprehensive or accurate to the last detail. The last chapter, Poland Germanic of Slavic, is rather intriguing and thought challenging, although might not be 100% right. Same might be said about Prussia. Was it Germanic or Baltic, and in which century? Probably till the end of WW2, it was still genetically Baltic/Prussian but linguistically German. Once we are at it, is East Germany more German or Slavic? Probably depends on your view point. Are genes more important or culture?
One is for sure, the history of central Europe (same as history of rest of Europe) is messed up and it is hard to make one uniform conclusion. People, tribes, culture, languages were always on the move and constantly mixing.

I would like to add some more on this subject.
It will be very interesting to finally learn about supposed population replacement when Slavs moved west around 6th century AD. Was current Polish land empty, or did Slavs mixed with local populations, in some degree with East Germanic tribes, or their left overs like Goths, Vandals, Svabians, or whoever was left there? I think the land was depopulated but certainly not empty. Slavization of Germanic population most likely occurred.
Other interesting fact is huge Germanic demographics in Polish cities during middle ages. To the degree that in many cities official language was German, even in Polish capitol Krakow (Cracow).

One can notice that Poland was always the place where cultural pendulum was swinging from germanic to slavic from slavic to germanic, beck and forth many times over.

[matbir]

LeBrok you are missing the poit, the paragraph is cmposed out of 9 sentencies, 4 of them contains fals information and one uncertain fact. That mens it is only 50% correct, this is quite low quality of introduction to anything...

[LeBrok]

Today I read here on Eupedia the article "interesting facts about Poland". I thing that majority of it is quite plausible, but paragraph entitled "Poland, more Germanic or Slavic?" is very radical, hence it can be seen in the comments of excitation by the controversy.
Rhetoric that uses the author is an exact copy of the rhetoric of German nationalists struggling against the facts for propaganda purposes to promote belief in the Germanic origin of original Polish lands. The need to propagate that belief was caused by expansion of kingdom of Prussia to ethnically Polish lands in 18th century - Kingdom of Prussia conquered most of Silesia, Greater Poland and Royal Prussia, parts of Lesser Poland, Mazovia and Podlachia (Partitions of Poland).

It Let's get to the facts:

Belonging to Germany doesn't mean to be ethnically, culturally and linguistically German. In 18th century about half of Prussian Silesia was inhabited by Poles and about one third in the beginning of XX century. Johann Gottlieb Schummel wrote in "Reise durch Schlesien im Juni und August 1791"(Wrocław 1792) "Let's not start a trial of Silesia with Poles. We will lose him in the tribunal of history, both from low and higher instance"
Map showing Polish-speaking area in Silesia in 18th century:
Here in better quality.
Map showing Polish area in 20th century.
Prussia was also ethnically diverse area, there lived Polish Warmiaks and Masurians.

Pomerania was the most heavily Germanized area in 20th century. But in 17th century Polish language was still in official use in Duchy of Pomerania. In 25.07.1601 nobility from area around Koszalin and Słupsk made homage to the Duke Barnim X. The text of the oath was written in Polish because only three noblemen could speak German. Here is text in Polish.

This description shows situation far from that from article. One third of modern Polish territory belonged to Germany before WWII but not whole this area was ethnically German. If Polish minority in Germany was taken into account, then area ethnically German would drop from one third to one fourth. And certainly this one fourth wasn’t German for longer than the Americas have been colonized by Europeans, but for less than two centuries.

I don't see you bringing new figures, like 20%, to make your point well. I don't think anyone can quantized it at all. Parts of Poland belonging to Germany were twice densely populated than Poland itself. Did you take this under consideration? Also there was huge german cultural influence in polish life before the war. It should be taken under consideration too, to get the percentage right. So let's leave this 1/3 alone as a rough figure. It is not false but imprecise.

Duchy of Prussia was established as vassal of Poland in 1525 and was inherited by Hohenzollerns from Brandenburg in 1618. In 1657 the Treaty of Bromberg (Bydgoszcz) canceled Prussian dependence of Poland. In 1701 Frederic III Elector of Brandenburg made an attempt to raise prestige of its realm by using the name of new gained province Prussia to become the King. So the area after which was named the kingdom which united Germany is not entirely in Poland as it’s seen here:

One sentence of all paragraph needs to be corrected. "...almost entirely in Poland". It is hard to call this paragraph false though.

Silesia (...) The region swore allegiance to the Holy Roman Emperor in 950 C.E.

That is new to me, I tried to search for that but no results… Does anybody know anything about that allegiance?

I'm not sure what Maciamo ment here? Through Mieszko Poland became christian therefore loyalty to Holy Roman Empire, Silesia included? Some say that Mieszko took powers in 950, so maybe that's why. This is a bit confusing and surely needs better explanation.
Again it is hardly a false paragraph.

Although it had a large ethnic Slav community, the region became predominantly German-speaking during Middles Ages, due to immigration from Germany.


I proved it not to be even close to the truth, showing Polish-speaking area in 18th century.

Definitely cities were predominantly German speaking. I doubt that most villages were german speaking during middle ages. This needs correction.
The map is roughly right, although it might show predominant languages in areas, otherwise things were quite mixed together I suppose.
It is also doubtful that polish language speakers referred to themselves as Polish people. I would guess that they called themselves Silesians (Slazacy), same goes to german speaking people in this area. It is really hard to label someone Polish or German in framework of today's national or ethnic definitions. The best example is Mazovians (Mazowszanie) who didn't call themselves polish till pretty much 16th century. We are talking about Silesia which was polish only during few short periods.
I would say it was mainly Slavic with strong Germanic influence.


So by my estimate the whole thing is not more than 10% incorrect or rather imprecise.

[matbir]

I don't see you bringing new figures, like 20%, to make your point well. I don't think anyone can quantized it at all. Parts of Poland belonging to Germany were twice densely populated than Poland itself. Did you take this under consideration? Also there was huge german cultural influence in polish life before the war. It should be taken under consideration too, to get the percentage right. So let's leave this 1/3 alone as a rough figure. It is not false but imprecise.

I didn’t bring new figures, because I sent the map of Polish-speaking areas where it is easily seen., but you are right, I should had done it.
1. Here is my estimation of German-speaking area in the beginning of 20^th century:
- Polish speakers in districts of East Prussia:

Olsztyn(Allenstein)	65.80%
Nidzica(Neidenburg)	71.10%
Szczytno(Ortelsburg)	77%
Mrągowo(Sensburg)	54.80%
Pisz(Johannisburg)	73.30%
Ełk(Lyck)	58.50%
Kwidzyń(Marienwerder)	48.90%
Ostróda(Osterode)	47.40%
Sztum(Stuhm)	46.50%
Giżycko(Lotzen)	40.80%
Olecko(Oletzko)	37.90%

- Polish speakers in districts of Posen-West Prussia:

Babimost(Bomst)

54.70%

- Polish speakers in districts of Upper Silesia:

Pszczyna(Pless)	92%
Lubiniec(Lublinitz)	90.5
Wielkie Strzelce(Gross Strehlitz)	88.90%
Koźle(Cosel)	88.60%
Oleśno(Rosenberg)	88.30%
Toszek-Gliwice(Tost-Gleiwitz)	85.50%
Rybnik	85.30%
Opole(Oppeln)	83.10%
Tarnowskie Góry(Tarnowitz)	82.30%
Katowice(Kattowitz)	74.70%
Bytom(Bauthen)	74%
Zabrze(Hindenburg)	65%
Kluczbork(Kreuzburg)	61.40%
Racibórz(Ratibor)	51.90%
Prudnik(Neustadt)	50.50%

- Polish speakers in districts of Lower Silesia:

Syców(GrossWartenberg)	47%
Namysłów(Namslau)	33.60%

I will not count cities, because of its low area, and high percentages of Polish speaking around them, so if I used them in calculation it wouldn’t change number of Polish- speaking districts.
For estimation I will use districts with ratio higher than 45% of Polish speaking. In Upper Silesia the estimation will be done by subtracting German-speaking area from area Province of Upper Silesia, in the rest of regions Polish-speaking area will be estimates using Wikipedia data of areas of districts. If some district do not have area information I will use modern Polish Districts.

	Area [km2]
	For 45%	For 50%
East Prussia	11835	8505
Posen-West	1037	1037
Upper Silesia	7336	7336
Lower silesia	431	0
Sum	20639	16878

Total area gained by Poland after WWII 101 000km2
German-speaking area 101 000-20639= 80 361
101 000-16878=84 122
Modern Polish total area 312 679km2
80 361/312 679 = 0,257 = 1/4
84 122/312 679 = 0,269 what is still closer to 1/4 then to 1/3.


2. “Parts of Poland belonging to Germany were twice densely populated than Poland itself. Did you take this under consideration?” I didn’t because it is not true. Province of Pomerania 59.3/km2(1919); Pomeranian Voivodeship 57,1/km2(1921); East Prussia 54/km2(1939); Province of Brandenburg 79/km2(1939); Posnan Voivodeship 83/km2(1931); Warsaw Voivodeship 78/km2(1931); Lower Silesia 117,7/km2(1925); Lodz Voivodeship 118,4/km2(1921); Upper Silesia 368,2/km2(1925); Silesian Voivodeship 299/km2(1931).
3. German cultural influence does not make a difference or am I culturally German because I use words of German origin: warsztat, mistrz, cegła, rura?

Definitely cities were predominantly German speaking. I doubt that most villages were german speaking during middle ages. This needs correction.
The map is roughly right, although it might show predominant languages in areas, otherwise things were quite mixed together I suppose.
It is also doubtful that polish language speakers referred to themselves as Polish people. I would guess that they called themselves Silesians (Slazacy), same goes to german speaking people in this area. It is really hard to label someone Polish or German in framework of today's national or ethnic definitions.

Your guess is simply wrong, in 24.04.1826 Jerzy Treska peasant from Laskowice (Laskowitz)( about 20km east from Wrocław) was interrogated by landrat in the case of presentation of the protest petition against Germanisation policy to the court of Wrocław. He testified: "My native language is Polish, and even though I know the German language, as most of local Poles, the word of God in Polish is clear and dear to us.(...) The new order of devotions hurts Polish population, placing it in worse situation comparing to Germans"(my translation) Przegląd Zachodni volume 6, 1950 page 93(you can find it here and here, also in other publications by prof. Kazimierz Popiołek). The literature is in Polish and maybe some in German, but I don't know German language, so I will not post citations in other language.
Cities ware probably predominantly German speaking, but in 18th centuries they had strong Polish communities. As a result of Silesian Wars most of Silesia was gained ( in 1743) by Kingdom of Prussia, and guess what language was used by administration in Wrocław to communicate with citizens just before implementing of Germanisation policy? This poster will be helpful.
Furthermore Wrocław was surrounded by Polish speaking rural areas in the first half of 19th century, below is shown table comparing the number of Polish and German farms there:

	Polish	German
Laskowice	71	11
Nowy Dwór	38	4
Piekary	40	4
Dębno	42	7
Chwałowice	36	4
Dziuplina Duża	45	2
Dziuplina Mała	11	1
Jelcz	32	5
Ratkowice	58	7
Wojnowice	18	1

Data are from wikipedia. Keep in mind that this is 1826, at that time lived the third generation after beginning of Germanisation policy.

The best example is Mazovians (Mazowszanie) who didn't call themselves polish till pretty much 16th century.

What is this statement based on?

We are talking about Silesia which was polish only during few short periods.
I would say it was mainly Slavic with strong Germanic influence.

I am sorry, but this shows that you lack basic knowlage about Polish and Silesian history. Polish ethnic identity was created in middle ages, not in modern definition of nation, but it was based on common language which was called Polish. Even evangelical users of Kashubian dialect of Polish language which is also classified as separate one called their speech “puolski”, while their didn’t consider themselves as Polish, because this name was refering to Catholic Kashubians. Germans living nearby called their language as Polsch.

For the rest I will answer when I will have more time.

[LeBrok]

I didn’t bring new figures, because I sent the map of Polish-speaking areas where it is easily seen., but you are right, I should had done it.
1. Here is my estimation of German-speaking area in the beginning of 20^th century:

Total area gained by Poland after WWII 101 000km2
German-speaking area 101 000-20639= 80 361
101 000-16878=84 122
Modern Polish total area 312 679km2
80 361/312 679 = 0,257 = 1/4
84 122/312 679 = 0,269 what is still closer to 1/4 then to 1/3.

Thanks for your great effort putting many numbers together to prove your claims. I think you realize now how difficult it is to quantize these aspects, just based on language alone. We are not even entering full cultural comparison at this moment. The official german language, german population of cities, dominant german literature and news papers, etc, etc. When all things are taken under consideration, one third will be closer to one third, and still rough estimate.

2. “Parts of Poland belonging to Germany were twice densely populated than Poland itself. Did you take this under consideration?” I didn’t because it is not true. Province of Pomerania 59.3/km2(1919); Pomeranian Voivodeship 57,1/km2(1921); East Prussia 54/km2(1939); Province of Brandenburg 79/km2(1939); Posnan Voivodeship 83/km2(1931); Warsaw Voivodeship 78/km2(1931); Lower Silesia 117,7/km2(1925); Lodz Voivodeship 118,4/km2(1921); Upper Silesia 368,2/km2(1925); Silesian Voivodeship 299/km2(1931).

You are right here. I remembered average density in 1925 Germany at 133 and Poland at 73, but not province by province.

Here is an interesting table showing main languages spoken by population in province of Posen (Poznan):

Ethnic composition of the Province of Posen
year	1815[5]	1861	1890[6]	1910
total population[7]	776,000	1,467,604	1,751,642	2,099,831
% Poles (including bilinguals)[8]	73%	54.6%	60.1%	61.5%
% Germans	25%	43.4%	39.9%	38.5%

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Posen
We can assume that high number of german speakers lingered around there between wars as polish citizens. It will push germanic/slavic calculations to germanic side.

3. German cultural influence does not make a difference or am I culturally German because I use words of German origin: warsztat, mistrz, cegła, rura?

Off course it doesn't make you neither german nor polish. However we are trying here determine cultural influences of germanic and slavic input into what is now Poland. And as such german words in polish vocabulary count as germanic influence.
Knowing Maciamo, he probably thought more about genetic/population influence than language alone or even culture.

Your guess is simply wrong, in 24.04.1826 Jerzy Treska peasant from Laskowice (Laskowitz)( about 20km east from Wrocław) was interrogated by landrat in the case of presentation of the protest petition against Germanisation policy to the court of Wrocław. He testified: "My native language is Polish, and even though I know the German language, as most of local Poles, the word of God in Polish is clear and dear to us.(...) The new order of devotions hurts Polish population, placing it in worse situation comparing to Germans"(my translation) Przegląd Zachodni volume 6, 1950 page 93(you can find it here and here, also in other publications by prof. Kazimierz Popiołek). The literature is in Polish and maybe some in German, but I don't know German language, so I will not post citations in other language.

One example doesn't make it a rule, or general situation. Can you find any record what ordinary villagers called themselves in ethical sense?

Według Wojciecha Korfantego, w okresie międzywojennym 1/3 ludności w polskiej części Górnego Śląska nie miała skrystalizowanej świadomości polskiej lub niemieckiej i określała się po prostu jakoŚlązacy. Niektórzy, którzy wcześniej popierali Polskę, rozczarowani polityką polskich władz nierzadko akcentowali swoją śląskość lub niemieckość^[57]

I would say even less so the further back we go into history.

Ślązacy – osoby deklarujące odrębność narodową od Polaków, Czechów i Niemców, niekiedy traktujące mowę śląską jako odrębny język. Większość osób deklarujących narodowość śląskąmieszka na Górnym Śląsku – w środkowej części województwa śląskiego, wschodniej części województwa opolskiego^[3], jak również w Czechach. Narodowość ta nie jest uznawana prawnie przez Polskę^[b][4] i Czechy^[5][6]. Jednakże w oficjalnych wynikach spisów ludności w tych krajach zdeklarowało ją 847 tys. obywateli polskich (spis statystyczny w 2011^[7], w spisie z 2002 r. zadeklarowało ją 173 tys.^[8]) oraz 12,2 tys. osób^[9] (spis statystyczny w 2011) w Czechach.

Well, even today. So imagine how they identified themselves 400 years ago.

Cities ware probably predominantly German speaking, but in 18th centuries they had strong Polish communities. As a result of Silesian Wars most of Silesia was gained ( in 1743) by Kingdom of Prussia, and guess what language was used by administration in Wrocław to communicate with citizens just before implementing of Germanisation policy? This poster will be helpful.

Furthermore Wrocław was surrounded by Polish speaking rural areas in the first half of 19th century, below is shown table comparing the number of Polish and German farms there:
Data are from wikipedia. Keep in mind that this is 1826, at that time lived the third generation after beginning of Germanisation policy.

Look, I'm not arguing that there were no polish speakers in Silesia or Prussia or wherever else beyond polish borders. I'm barely pointing your attention to germanic/slavic competition for this area, since the history was written. Things got mixed and very complicated to have a simple answer. It, of course, means that we can find huge germanic influences even in today's Poland and even more in the past. I'm not going to lose my sleep if it is 55 or 15 percent of influence, or whatever. We are never going to narrow it down to a precise number.

What is this statement based on?

I've read it somewhere couple of times. I can't find quotes at the moment. Here is something similar I've found though:

Określenia Polska i Polak weszły do języka dużo później, dopiero w XVI w. Ale żeby tak się stało, musiało dojść do zmiany znaczenia przymiotnika polski. Jak już wspomniałem, słowo to rozumiano kilka stuleci temu inaczej - polski, czyli ‘związany z polem’.

http://obcyjezykpolski.strefa.pl/?md=archive&id=299
Before 15 century only citizens of Wielko and Malo-polska called themselve "Polaci". The rest of "Polish" (of closely related dialects) speakers called themselves names of their provinces and old tribes, Mazowszanka, Pomorzanie, Slezanie, itp.

I am sorry, but this shows that you lack basic knowlage about Polish and Silesian history.

I'm sorry that you can't see further than your nationalistic agenda.

Polish ethnic identity was created in middle ages

yes for Polans but not till Renaissance for rest of provinces, and definitely not for Silesians.

but it was based on common language which was called Polish.

You're missing a lot of other aspects which took part in genesis of polish ethnicity. What about cloths, music, religion, common history, etc.

Even evangelical users of Kashubian dialect of Polish language which is also classified as separate one called their speech “puolski”, while their didn’t consider themselves as Polish, because this name was refering to Catholic Kashubians. Germans living nearby called their language as Polsch.

Do we know when they started calling their dialect polish?

[matbir]

I'm not sure what Maciamo ment here? Through Mieszko Poland became christian therefore loyalty to Holy Roman Empire, Silesia included? Some say that Mieszko took powers in 950, so maybe that's why. This is a bit confusing and surely needs better explanation.
Again it is hardly a false paragraph.

I checked few things about Silesia in 10th century. First is Bohemian rule:

At the beginning of the 10th century Vratislaus I subdued the Golensize and soon afterwards seized Middle Silesia. Wrocław was possibly founded by and named after him. His son Boleslaus I subdued the Boborane between 950 and 965 and later also the Opolane and Dedosize. The town of Bolesławiec bears his name.

Secound is Polish rule:

At the end of the 9th century Silesia came within the sphere of influence of two neighbours, the Holy Roman Empire and Poland. In 971, in order to proselytise Silesia to Christianity, Holy Roman emperor Otto I donated the tithe of the Dziadoszyce area to the Diocese of Meissen, and in 996 Otto III defined the Oder up to the spring as the border of the Margraviate of Meissen. This was without practical consequences as the expanding Polish state of Mieszko I conquered Silesia at the same time. The Dziadoszyce area was already incorporated c. 970 . In 990 Mieszko annexed Middle Silesia and its main township Niemcza with the help of the Holy Roman Empire, which supported Poland in order to weaken Bohemia.

The holy Roman Emperor tried to establish its rule over Silesia but it rather was a wish then the real action, Silesia was alredy conquered by Mieszko, but it happened in 70' and 90' not in 50'.
Confirmed by Dagome iudex(991):

"Also in another volume from the times of Pope John XV, Dagome,^[2] lord,^[3] and Ote, lady,^[4] and their sons Misico and Lambert^[5] (I do not know of which nation those people are, but I think they are Sardinians, for those are ruled by four judges^[6]) were supposed to give to Saint Peter one state in whole which is called Schinesghe,^[7] with all its lands in borders which run along the long sea,^[8] along Prussia to the place called Rus, thence to Kraków and from said Kraków to the River Oder, straight to a place called Alemure,^[9] and from said Alemure to the land of Milczanie, and from the borders of that people to the Oder and from that, going along the River Oder, ending at the earlier mentioned city of Schinesghe."

Here is map based on this document:
Attachment 6270

So by my estimate the whole thing is not more than 10% incorrect or rather imprecise.

One sentence of all paragraph needs to be corrected. "...almost entirely in Poland". It is hard to call this paragraph false though.

Let's make summary:
1. Sentence:"About one third of modern Poland used to be ethnically, culturally and linguistically German."
Disproved in post 5.
2. "Silesia (in the south-west of Poland) was setteled in ancient times by the Lugii, an East Germanic Tribe."
Correct.
3. "The region swore allegiance to the Holy Roman Emperor in 950 C.E."
This is uncertain.
4. "Although it had a large ethnic Slav community, the region became predominantly German-speaking during Middles Ages, due to immigration from Germany."
Disproved in post 5, it becamed predominatly German-speaking under Prussian rule in 18th/19th century.
5. "In the north-west of modern Poland, Pomerania is a region setteled by Germanic tribes since ancient times, wchich stretches all the way between Gdansk (Danzig) and Stralsund, in East Germany."
Correct.
6. "The north-east of Poland constitues the historical region of Prussia, which was originaly setteled by Baltic people, but controlled by the Teutonic knights since the 13th century, and progressively Germanised."
Correct.
7. "The duchy of Prussia merged with Margraviaviate of Brandenburg (around Berlin in East Germany) to form the Kingdom of Prussia in 1701, which progressively unified Germany and created the Second Riche in 1871."
Correct
8. "So it can be said that Germany was unified under the name of a historical area (“Prussia”) being now entirely in Poland."
Disproved in post 1, part of it is today in Russia Kaliningrad Oblast.
9. "Pomerania, Prussia and Silesia ware ceded by Germany to Poland as war reparations in 1945, but had been ethnically and culturally German for many centuries (for longer than the Americas have been Colonized by Europeans)."
Disproved, in post 1 and 5, I've mentioned about Masurians, Western Pomeranians (Kashubians), Polish Silesians and Warmiaks. Pomerania was fully Germanized until the end of 18th century, so in that case Pomerania was German ethnically and culturally for about 150-200 years and it is not "for longer than the Americas have been colonized by Europeans". If you need I will try to estimate area of Poland that had been German for longer than the New York was established. Fort New Amsterdam was built in 1625, some data to make the estimation of German settlement in Poland in XVII century are available.

There are nine sentences, one uncertain, four incorrect and four correct. So 44.4% of the paragraph is incorrect and potentially it is 55.6% incorrect. I understand that this paragraph meant to be intriguing, but there is no need to fabricate the facts. As I mentioned before these paragraph shows very low quality of introduction.

I would like to add some more on this subject.
It will be very interesting to finally learn about supposed population replacement when Slavs moved west around 6th century AD. Was current Polish land empty, or did Slavs mixed with local populations, in some degree with East Germanic tribes, or their left overs like Goths, Vandals, Svabians, or whoever was left there? I think the land was depopulated but certainly not empty. Slavization of Germanic population most likely occurred.
Other interesting fact is huge Germanic demographics in Polish cities during middle ages. To the degree that in many cities official language was German, even in Polish capitol Krakow (Cracow).

One can notice that Poland was always the place where cultural pendulum was swinging from germanic to slavic from slavic to germanic, beck and forth many times over.

That is very interesting subject for new thread in History&Civilisations subforum.

[matbir]

So by my estimate the whole thing is not more than 10% incorrect or rather imprecise.

I'm not sure what Maciamo ment here? Through Mieszko Poland became christian therefore loyalty to Holy Roman Empire, Silesia included? Some say that Mieszko took powers in 950, so maybe that's why. This is a bit confusing and surely needs better explanation.
Again it is hardly a false paragraph.

I checked few things about Silesia in 10th century. First is Bohemian rule:

At the beginning of the 10th century Vratislaus I subdued the Golensize and soon afterwards seized Middle Silesia. Wrocław was possibly founded by and named after him. His son Boleslaus I subdued the Boborane between 950 and 965 and later also the Opolane and Dedosize. The town of Bolesławiec bears his name.

Secound is Polish rule:

At the end of the 9th century Silesia came within the sphere of influence of two neighbours, the Holy Roman Empire and Poland. In 971, in order to proselytise Silesia to Christianity, Holy Roman emperor Otto I donated the tithe of the Dziadoszyce area to the Diocese of Meissen, and in 996 Otto III defined the Oder up to the spring as the border of the Margraviate of Meissen. This was without practical consequences as the expanding Polish state of Mieszko I conquered Silesia at the same time. The Dziadoszyce area was already incorporated c. 970 . In 990 Mieszko annexed Middle Silesia and its main township Niemcza with the help of the Holy Roman Empire, which supported Poland in order to weaken Bohemia.

The holy Roman Emperor tried to establish its rule over Silesia but it rather was a wish then the real action, Silesia was alredy conquered by Mieszko, but it happened in 70' and 90' not in 50'.
Confirmed by Dagome iudex(991):

"Also in another volume from the times of Pope John XV, Dagome,^[2] lord,^[3] and Ote, lady,^[4] and their sons Misico and Lambert^[5] (I do not know of which nation those people are, but I think they are Sardinians, for those are ruled by four judges^[6]) were supposed to give to Saint Peter one state in whole which is called Schinesghe,^[7] with all its lands in borders which run along the long sea,^[8] along Prussia to the place called Rus, thence to Kraków and from said Kraków to the River Oder, straight to a place called Alemure,^[9] and from said Alemure to the land of Milczanie, and from the borders of that people to the Oder and from that, going along the River Oder, ending at the earlier mentioned city of Schinesghe."

Here is map based on this document:

There is one more thing:

The chronicle of Thietmar poses some problems of interpretation of the information regarding the attack of Margrave Gero on the Slavic tribes, as a result of which he purportedly subordinated to the authority of the Emperor Lusatia and the Selpuli (meaning the Słupian tribes) and also Mieszko with his subjects. According to the majority of modern historians,^[16] Thietmar made an error summarizing the chronicle of Widukind, placing the Gero raid there instead of the fighting that Mieszko conducted at that time against Wichmann the Younger. Other sources make no mention of such conquest and of putting the Polans state on the same footing with the Polabian Slavs. On the other hand, the supporters of the Gero's invasion theory^[17] believe that the Margrave did actually carry out a successful invasion, as a result of which Mieszko I was forced to pay tribute to the Emperor and also was compelled to adopt Christianity through the German Church. The thesis that proposes the introduction of Christianity as a result of this war finds no confirmation in German sources.
The homage is then a separate issue, since, according to the chronicle of Thietmar, Mieszko actually paid tribute to the Emperor from the lands usque in Vurta fluvium (up to the Warta River).^[18] In all probability Mieszko decided to pay tribute in order to avoid an invasion similar to the one that Lusatia had suffered. This homage would take place in 965, or in 966 at the latest. Very likely the tribute applied only to the Lubusz land, which was in the German sphere of influence.^[19] This understanding of the tribute issue explains why already in 967 Mieszko I was described in the Saxon chronicles as the Emperor's friend (or ally, supporter, Latin: amicus imperatoris).

So nothing to confirm statement from article. The answer from Maciamo would be needed here.

So by my estimate the whole thing is not more than 10% incorrect or rather imprecise.

One sentence of all paragraph needs to be corrected. "...almost entirely in Poland". It is hard to call this paragraph false though.

Let's make summary:
1. Sentence:"About one third of modern Poland used to be ethnically, culturally and linguistically German."
Disproved in post 5.
2. "Silesia (in the south-west of Poland) was setteled in ancient times by the Lugii, an East Germanic Tribe."
Correct.
3. "The region swore allegiance to the Holy Roman Emperor in 950 C.E."
This is uncertain.
4. "Although it had a large ethnic Slav community, the region became predominantly German-speaking during Middles Ages, due to immigration from Germany."
Disproved in post 5, it becamed predominatly German-speaking under Prussian rule in 18th/19th century.
5. "In the north-west of modern Poland, Pomerania is a region setteled by Germanic tribes since ancient times, wchich stretches all the way between Gdansk (Danzig) and Stralsund, in East Germany."
Correct.
6. "The north-east of Poland constitues the historical region of Prussia, which was originaly setteled by Baltic people, but controlled by the Teutonic knights since the 13th century, and progressively Germanised."
Correct.
7. "The duchy of Prussia merged with Margraviaviate of Brandenburg (around Berlin in East Germany) to form the Kingdom of Prussia in 1701, which progressively unified Germany and created the Second Riche in 1871."
Correct
8. "So it can be said that Germany was unified under the name of a historical area (“Prussia”) being now entirely in Poland."
Disproved in post 1, part of it is today in Russia Kaliningrad Oblast.
9. "Pomerania, Prussia and Silesia ware ceded by Germany to Poland as war reparations in 1945, but had been ethnically and culturally German for many centuries (for longer than the Americas have been Colonized by Europeans)."
Disproved, in post 1 and 5, I've mentioned about Masurians, Western Pomeranians (Kashubians), Polish Silesians and Warmiaks. Pomerania was fully Germanized until the end of 18th century, so in that case Pomerania was German ethnically and culturally for about 150-200 years and it is not "for longer than the Americas have been colonized by Europeans". If you need I will try to estimate area of Poland that had been German for longer than the New York was established. Fort New Amsterdam was built in 1625, some data to make the estimation of German settlement in Poland in XVII century are available.

There are nine sentences, one uncertain, four incorrect and four correct. So 44.4% of the paragraph is incorrect and potentially it is 55.6% incorrect. I understand that this paragraph meant to be intriguing, but there is no need to fabricate the facts. As I mentioned before these paragraph shows very low quality of introduction.

I would like to add some more on this subject.
It will be very interesting to finally learn about supposed population replacement when Slavs moved west around 6th century AD. Was current Polish land empty, or did Slavs mixed with local populations, in some degree with East Germanic tribes, or their left overs like Goths, Vandals, Svabians, or whoever was left there? I think the land was depopulated but certainly not empty. Slavization of Germanic population most likely occurred.
Other interesting fact is huge Germanic demographics in Polish cities during middle ages. To the degree that in many cities official language was German, even in Polish capitol Krakow (Cracow).

One can notice that Poland was always the place where cultural pendulum was swinging from germanic to slavic from slavic to germanic, beck and forth many times over.

That is very interesting subject for new thread in History&Civilisations subforum.

[matbir]

Here is an interesting table showing main languages spoken by population in province of Posen (Poznan):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Province_of_Posen

This table is showing row data from census which includes German garrison and officials, furthermore Province of Posen was not transferred as a whole to Poland it was divided to Polish Poznan Voivodeship and German Posen-West Prussia. For the comparison Polish census from 1921: Poles - 83,2%; 1.636.316; Germans - 16,7%; 327.846.

We can assume that high number of german speakers lingered around there between wars as polish citizens. It will push germanic/slavic calculations to germanic side.

Off course it doesn't make you neither german nor polish. However we are trying here determine cultural influences of germanic and slavic input into what is now Poland. And as such german words in polish vocabulary count as germanic influence.
Knowing Maciamo, he probably thought more about genetic/population influence than language alone or even culture.

As far as I am concerned logic is needed to make discussion conclusive. So we are talking about statement which have "and" between ethnically, culturally and linguistically that means this is conjunction. Conjunction is true if every parts of it are true, so I chose the easiest part to disprove which is language. I have proved that not only German language was spoken in that areas and that in many places it was language of minority. QED

One example doesn't make it a rule, or general situation. Can you find any record what ordinary villagers called themselves in ethical sense?
I've read it somewhere couple of times. I can't find quotes at the moment. Here is something similar I've found though:

http://obcyjezykpolski.strefa.pl/?md=archive&id=299
Before 15 century only citizens of Wielko and Malo-polska called themselve "Polaci". The rest of "Polish" (of closely related dialects) speakers called themselves names of their provinces and old tribes, Mazowszanka, Pomorzanie, Slezanie, itp.

I would say even less so the further back we go into history.

Well, even today. So imagine how they identified themselves 400 years ago.

yes for Polans but not till Renaissance for rest of provinces, and definitely not for Silesians.

You're missing a lot of other aspects which took part in genesis of polish ethnicity. What about cloths, music, religion, common history, etc.

But I have quoted already what was the opinion of Johann Gottlieb Schummel, I have written about Germanisation I am not a ethnographer whose specialization is Silesia. I can recommend you "Polska Piastów" Pawel Jasienica, very interesting book, you can read about Polish knights, Polish Dukes, unification of Poland, foreign and internal policy. There are also books about Germanisation( you can found them quoted in Wikipedia), how Prussian government tried to implement local identification among Silesians, Kashubians, Warmiaks, Masurians and Poles from Grater Poland - who was called Wasserpolish to distinguish them from the rest of Poles. I see that you know Polish so Jasienica's book has easy language so it is enjoyable to read.

Look, I'm not arguing that there were no polish speakers in Silesia or Prussia or wherever else beyond polish borders. I'm barely pointing your attention to germanic/slavic competition for this area, since the history was written. Things got mixed and very complicated to have a simple answer. It, of course, means that we can find huge germanic influences even in today's Poland and even more in the past. I'm not going to lose my sleep if it is 55 or 15 percent of influence, or whatever. We are never going to narrow it down to a precise number.

I thing that you misunderstood my statement. In 9th sentence there is statement how it was in the past, so I tried to show how it really was.
Mixed and very complicated doesn’t mean we do not know how it was. Since the history was written what is 9/10th century the competition for Silesia was between Czech and Polish, Germans came to the scene in 14/15th century.

Do we know when they started calling their dialect polish?

I do not know, but I read somewhere that schools in Pomerania used Polish books until reformation.

I'm sorry that you can't see further than your nationalistic agenda.

Oh I understand, throwing invective at me is your way to disprove my point. Ironically as I mentioned in the beginning you are defending nationalist side.

I found it tiresome to fight with made up thing like "everything mixed" "there is no simple answer" - I am not university teacher to correct everything and explain how it really is. I just tried to show that statements in article are mostly not true, and not to elaborate whole history of Poland. And I proved my points.

[LeBrok]

Thanks for the response. I'm going to need some time to digest.

In mean time we can contemplate how different nations drow same borders differently.

I believe this is Lithuanian version of borders:

When compared to polish map a big part of Mazowia belongs to Baltic Yatvings and Galindians.

Or this one:


It might also mean that all maps are correct and what Mieszko "united" wasn't only made of Slavic tribes.

[Sile]

Thanks for the response. I'm going to need some time to digest.

In mean time we can contemplate how different nations drow same borders differently.

I believe this is Lithuanian version of borders:

When compared to polish map a big part of Mazowia belongs to Baltic Yatvings and Galindians.

Or this one:


It might also mean that all maps are correct and what Mieszko "united" wasn't only made of Slavic tribes.

AND the ancient Goths ( origins) lived on the west of the vistula ( bordering your prussians ) river and this is proven by archeological remains. neither germanic nor slavic.

Was this coastal corridor in Poland really either Germanic or Slavic ...............I see both as invaders

[LeBrok]

AND the ancient Goths ( origins) lived on the west of the vistula ( bordering your prussians ) river and this is proven by archeological remains. neither germanic nor slavic.

Was this coastal corridor in Poland really either Germanic or Slavic ...............I see both as invaders

It certainly could be the truth. In same sense t is also true for all European countries.

[LeBrok]

It is extremely hard to be certain of any borders or correct ethnic locations without detailed written records or detailed maps (or any maps) created in 9-10 century. The only maps available are from recent centuries made by historians. The problem arises when comparing maps done by historians of neighboring countries. It is immediately clear that they all skew ancient borders towards benefit of their ethnicity or nationality. Written records from this period and location are very few if any.

I have big hopes that in close future the DNA analyses of ancient bones will show population movements, replacements, remnants, mixing in this area which we can correlate with known history and solve many puzzles. I just can't wait.

[martiko]

by the way! after the Ukraine...I tease ;))

[LeBrok]

by the way! after the Ukraine...I tease ;))

Unfortunately Ukraine and Moldova might be the last ones if it comes to archeological genetic testing. I don't think their governments will have surplus money to pay for this type of research in these countries. It is a shame because this place is rich in european history and population movements. It is the place where old Cucuteni culture existed and place where many IEs entered main Europe and many Steppe/Hunic invasions happened.

[Beavrrit]

My take? How could it be for a land to be one human ethnic subdivision more or the other? Maybe more evergreen Taiga or deciduous forested or steppe, Tundra or desert perhaps? But Slavic or Germanic, Celto-Baltic, Catholic, Lutheran or Pagan???....perhaps more true to Real Madrid or Inter of Milano, ask the local animals or birds what they care more and maybe you would hear that they wish us all humans gone.

[Beavrrit]

As for the human population of those places, i guess that however their ancestors may have arrived coming from different directions and past folks into a present pot of many % by towns or/and individuals, they may feel very comfortable being fine Poles. Id be proud, even if my Pole ancestors were, and among my many generations of grandparents I had Celts, Germans, Scythians, Gypsies, Balts, Jews or even White Russians. And of whatever other peoples were called but "disappeared", before these past metal Age ethnicities developed from other mixings and came along to exist and for us to be known...as if they existed always since before the Iron Age Greeks spoke about them. What is a German Pole, like a Cashubian or Swedish Pole? There were even Danes and Irish in the Pole Army and Aristocracy, and one of their Royal Dynasties was even Italian!

[Ike]

German-Slavic division maps from 9th century? Hm.... :)

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

[Beavrrit]

Fun, just to notice that in that map of Baltic folks one can find among them, from where and whom (carried on his own name) the Prussian ancestors of that fine Swede, Max von Sydow, came from to Scandinavia

[Beavrrit]

Curiosity? What were the Yatvingians? By their name and different spellings, could it be that the "Danes" were already among them as later (Viking Age Russ-Varangians) or/and maybe earlier (Goth/Burgundians/Herules). Once in Sweden i found crazy that they called or rather pronounced Gotheborg not as one would expect in Vastergothland but with a soft 'G' (> Juteborg) as if from their neighbor Jutland, Goths=Gutes=Jutes? Jot-vingians?

[Sile]

Curiosity? What were the Yatvingians? By their name and different spellings, could it be that the "Danes" were already among them as later (Viking Age Russ-Varangians) or/and maybe earlier (Goth/Burgundians/Herules). Once in Sweden i found crazy that they called or rather pronounced Gotheborg not as one would expect in Vastergothland but with a soft 'G' (> Juteborg) as if from their neighbor Jutland, Goths=Gutes=Jutes? Jot-vingians?

some people will argue , but all below spoke different language

goths = an East Germanic people, two of whose branches, the Visigoths and the Ostrogoths,

gutes = Gutnish is among Gotlanders (Gutes)

geats = The name of the Geats also lives on in the Swedish provinces of Västergötland and Östergötland, the Western and Eastern lands of the Geats, and in many other toponyms.

IMO, none are related to each other

[Sile]

Curiosity? What were the Yatvingians? By their name and different spellings, could it be that the "Danes" were already among them as later (Viking Age Russ-Varangians) or/and maybe earlier (Goth/Burgundians/Herules). Once in Sweden i found crazy that they called or rather pronounced Gotheborg not as one would expect in Vastergothland but with a soft 'G' (> Juteborg) as if from their neighbor Jutland, Goths=Gutes=Jutes? Jot-vingians?

Yotvingians (also Jatwings, Sudovians), a Prussian tribe, ethnically close to the Lithuanians. The Yotvingians lived in a region known as Sudovia, located between the middle course of the Neman River and the upper course of the Narew River. Their main occupations were land cultivation, hunting, and fishing; they also produced handicrafts.

[matbir]

Thanks for the response. I'm going to need some time to digest.

In mean time we can contemplate how different nations drow same borders differently.

I believe this is Lithuanian version of borders:

When compared to polish map a big part of Mazowia belongs to Baltic Yatvings and Galindians.

Or this one:


It might also mean that all maps are correct and what Mieszko "united" wasn't only made of Slavic tribes.

I suppose that first one is not professional in contrary to second one which seems to be in some of Baltic languages. North-Eastern part of Mazovia was probably ethnically mixed. Here I drew approximated border line of Mieszko's Poland on second map:
baltai1.2.jpg
But if so it was not big minority. Interesting thing is that Polish Dukes and Kings tried to conquer Prussia by many means. They tried military conquest, Christianizing mission many times. The last successful attempt was to employ Teutonic Knights to take over Prussia and to give the land back to Konrad I of Masovia. But how this agreement worked every one knows...
I have added two red dots which represents early Slavic gords. First one further to the north is Kolno and second is Wizna interestingly this name have no Slavic etymology but it could have Baltic or Germanic origin but it is not certain.

[Sile]

I suppose that first one is not professional in contrary to second one which seems to be in some of Baltic languages. North-Eastern part of Mazovia was probably ethnically mixed. Here I drew approximated border line of Mieszko's Poland on second map:
baltai1.2.jpg
But if so it was not big minority. Interesting thing is that Polish Dukes and Kings tried to conquer Prussia by many means. They tried military conquest, Christianizing mission many times. The last successful attempt was to employ Teutonic Knights to take over Prussia and to give the land back to Konrad I of Masovia. But how this agreement worked every one knows...
I have added two red dots which represents early Slavic gords. First one further to the north is Kolno and second is Wizna interestingly this name have no Slavic etymology but it could have Baltic or Germanic origin but it is not certain.

thats interesting, because polish scholars present this as the goths land over time which are near by.........maybe the goths infiltrated into prussians tribes

i cannot remember the order, but I think it was
orange
blue
yellow
and last green

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

[LeBrok]

I suppose that first one is not professional in contrary to second one which seems to be in some of Baltic languages. North-Eastern part of Mazovia was probably ethnically mixed. Here I drew approximated border line of Mieszko's Poland on second map:
baltai1.2.jpg
But if so it was not big minority. Interesting thing is that Polish Dukes and Kings tried to conquer Prussia by many means. They tried military conquest, Christianizing mission many times. The last successful attempt was to employ Teutonic Knights to take over Prussia and to give the land back to Konrad I of Masovia. But how this agreement worked every one knows...
I have added two red dots which represents early Slavic gords. First one further to the north is Kolno and second is Wizna interestingly this name have no Slavic etymology but it could have Baltic or Germanic origin but it is not certain.

Great job. Thanks

I was alway wondering how empty was the "Polish" land during Slavic expansion. We can assume it wasn't populated a lot. It was times of Atilla the Hun and other nomad conquests, obviously culminating in exodus of many Germanic tribes in area, and ethnically mixed Vandals. It was also time of global cooling (little ice age 1), failed crops and epidemics, like Justinian Plague. Archeological evidence tell us that not more than 10% of original population survived. Although I'm yet to read how many Slavs arrived in comparison to local demographics.
We can assume that quite more than locals, because Slavic language became easily dominant. Although harshness of Polish speech, when compared to other Slavs, might have something to do with East Germanic substratum of locals.

There might be some true in Piast Legend about Lech, Czech and Rus. Lech coming to empty land and taking it because of white eagle sign. There is no mentioning of glorious battles and war heroes. It is a very anticlimactic story, wouldn't you say?