Talk:Ducal Prussia
|
|
1660 Treaty
I would like to point out, that it is indeed an interesting footnote of history, that the treaty of 1660 accounts for the case if Hohenzollern looses rulership of prussia, the territory should revert to poland. Though, in this exclusive form this is pointed out here, it seems only rightful that east prussia was, after germany lost the war it began in 1939, going back to poland. This legal consequence might have been inevitable in the 1600's, but in the 1900's, especially at a time when the united nations just were created it was not. At that new time, usually the defining criteria was ones language and cultural heritage which decided what was which territory. This is as opposed to the 1600's when Germany, Russia etc. had many different territories under their rule not only by force of conquest, but also because it was usual for a king to have subjects of different nationalies under his rule. The Austro-Hungarian Empire as the last example of this concept ceased to exist in 1918, since then the nationalities usually live in their own statehood. As a footnote i might add that East Prussia was not joined to Poland at a time, when both Germany and Poland were relatively equal partners in the 1920's and when the league of nations brokered the new territorial border between this countries at the end of world war I. This fact contributes to the impression, that the treaty of 1660 was not valid anymore.
To declare him still valid, would mean to unconditional apply principles of 1660 to 1945 AND to negate all the treaties after 1660 which effectively annulled this clause at the same time.
To sum up: I like the fact that this clause is mentioned (i did not know yet !) but urge not to justify the 1945 annexation of german territory (just as Germany annexed before polish territory) with some 3 centuries old treaty between feudal lords.
Chris
- I agree - the last paragraph in particular sounds like it belongs to a tract from a Polish nationalist's organisation. (Anon user)
- Last paragraph changed. Should be more NPOV now (?) — Jor 14:31, Jan 13, 2004 (UTC)
Some answers to above conversations: About that 1660 treaty above, it was written, that 'in case the Hohenzollern died out, Prussia would revert to the king of Poland. There were constantly ongoing family arrangements with all the royal rulers of European territories. The last king of Poland abdicated, Stan Aug Poniatowski, abdicated in 1795. A kingdom of Poland was re-established by Austria and Germany at Treaty of Brest-Litowsk, but then the USA stepping in in WW I and completely altered the outcome. The ethnic Polish people (and 1/3 none-Polish people) in a newly created state Poland got a dictatorship.
I had inserted this in the article previously, but poor S.C., who honestly tries to understand, what strange country to the north of the actual Poland, some of his relatives have wound up in, reads not only his former countrymens rants but also American books on Prussia and thereby gets doubly confusing babble. He actually has been to (oops politically correct Former) Prussia, is learning the Prussian names and has taken lots of photos. He loves to create his maps and I believe he came up with this statement all by himself, because he is so proud of it. He is not an organization, but it is possible, that he read it somewhere.
Image
I have changed the image Ducal.png to image Royal_Ducal.png because they are mostly similar, and I believe Royal_Ducal.png is more clear. If nobody objects to this change, I will ask for Ducal.png to be deleted tomorrow.
It is true (and often forgotten) that Germany was the first state to officially reinstate Poland during WW I. It was of course only a political game. The reasons were to recruit Polish soldiers to fight for Germany. The puppet "polish" government was completely dependent on Germany. All those plans were abolished during the treaty of Brest Litovsk, which established a German-Soviet border.
Removed entirely the notion of the treaty clause, that prussia should go to Poland if Hohenzollern dies out. In the form it was presented here (and intentionally presented so, i presume), it seemed logical that 1918 Prussia would revert to Poland, with the explicit mentioning of Hohenzollern Rule ended, and the Kingdom of Poland existing, etc. etc. I dont think there is a way of mentioning the clause, without suggesting that Prussia should have reverted by right to Poland as it did 1945 - Uups, thats exactly the point. Prussia did not go to Poland due to this ancient treaty, it went to Poland due to a lost war. Let us not mudden the facts...
Chris
It's definitely a fact worth mentioning. History is supposed to be the Teacher of Life - Historia Magistra Vitae! Isn't it cool that this time it can teach us something about irony.Space Cadet 02:30, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
IF there would be a way of mentioning it WITHOUT justifying by the mention the takeover of prussia in 1945 by Poland, i am for it. Though, i doubt given the size of the article, the simple mentioning is already a severe bias - not to mention the centuries and the changes they brought with them after this treaty with this particular clause was signed.
THEREFORE i am against ist, because it is not only an interesting fact, but rather it serves the function of giving legacy to the Polish annexation of Prussia. And, again, i suspect the mentioning of this detail is exactly intended to do so.
Chris
Polish town names on the map?
I think the use of polish names for cities in Pomerania and Ducal Prussia is a bit misleading. Maybe even for Royal Prussia. Most of the cities at the time were almost completely inhabited by Germans, and the english speaking world surely used the german names. The map looks like an attempt to create a consistent polish history to justify the new borders after '45.
- If you look closer at the map, you'll most surely notice that the map uses both Polish and German names. The latter are there because most of the inhabitants of the region spoke German at the time and the former are there because those were the names used in administration. Halibutt 16:58, May 12, 2005 (UTC)