Talk:Prussia

Talk:Prussia/Archive 1

Contents

1 New draft article 2 Feeder articles 3 "Preußen or Preussen" 4 the German Empire, the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich from 1871 to 1945. 5 Kaliningrad and Prussian revival 6 Factual accuracy dispute

New draft article

Here is a proposed new article. Comments and suggestions are welcome, but I am not interested in arguments about whether people or places should be called by German, Polish or Klingon names. All names are in English and should remain so. If there are no violent objections I will replace the current article with this one, and also redirect the Republic of Prussia and History of Prussia articles to this one. Draft new Prussia article.

Adam 15:32, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

That looks excellent to me. john 19:40, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Marvelous. My hat is off sir. Mackensen 23:55, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I am going to replace. If there is objection, it can always be reverted. john 01:26, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Feeder articles

I have renamed and/or redirected all the other Prussian history articles to link into the text of this article, so that readers can get more detail on particular periods. Some of those articles still need work, but this is now a much better structure I think. Adam 03:14, 7 Feb 2004 (UTC)

--

Very beautiful but quite dissappointing to see the heavy Brandenburg agenda came out here which I have now corrected. Prussians still exist. 12,000+ have migrated back from exile in Siberia and Central asia to the Kaliningrad region. They call themselves Preussischers even if the official papers call them ethnic Germans they do not consider themselves German. Those who have settled in Germany prefer to use Russian to distinguish themselves from the Germans they hold responsible for the destruction of their homeland. These days only a few German families with Brandenburg royal origins insist on userping the name Prussia for Brandenburg, it is good to see the article mentions the minority nature of this desire, but it would also be nice to see the article mention the minority in exile who still consider themselves Prussians as distinct from Germans and that the only real and propper Prussia is the combined province of East & West Prussia. I do like the way you went about this though, very logical. Zestauferov 07:00, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of these people. Do you have an English-language reference on this? If so I will add some material. Adam 07:28, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I did my research in Poland so most info was in Polish, Lithuanian, Russian and German I don't know what I can turn up. And I see it was fair to clarify that since the Prussian state covered many German lands the majority of self-described Prussians would have been German (This is comparable to certain Northern Irish considering themselves as English) and it is actually only a minority of Germanized or Polanized Prussians from the province (regions 2 & 13 on the map) considere themselved distinct from Germans. Zestauferov 07:33, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Very strange. I always thought that Prussians believed they are better then other Germans. Moreover,Adenauer said, that East of Elbe immidiately starts Azia. So Prussia was sometimes viewed as something enemy to Germans.

If we have distinct article about Prussia, this Prussia-German differences should be also described. Cautious 10:49, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is just the sort of Polish-German etc ethnist crap I intend keeping out of this article. Adam 11:03, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't think I have agreed with Cautious thus far, but at least I can agree that there does, at least from the view of those called by the world as East Prussians, prevail the view that they are the only true Prussians and distinct from German Brandenburgers. Thus at least some comment about arguments of those claiming to be Prussian and distinction from German ethnicity might be of some relevant value.Zestauferov 13:50, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"The most German-speaking Prussians considered themselves to be part of the German nation, often underlining the purely Prussian virtues: perfect organisation, sacrifice, rule of law." Since Germany were united only in 1871, before Prussians and Austrians were part of German community in cultural sense, but not in political sense. Even in German Empire, as far as my historians were concerned, Prussia had distinct identity. Most historians underline, that Prussians did a lot to avoid dissolving in German sea, rather Prussify Germany then Germanize Prussia. As the example, the web page devoted to imperial Berlin, derives Berliners from 4 cultures: German, Slavic, French hugentos and Jewish. Cautious 14:24, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have a source that says that 10,000 Germans now live in Kaliningrad Oblast, most of them migrants from other parts of Russia, not necessarily descended from the prewar East Prussian population. It doesn't say whether they consider themselves German, Russian or Prussian. Adam 07:38, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I know the one you are talking about but thats not it. This is going to take some time. Maybe MRG has something in English.

I have some images for Prussian flags in different periods, would it be nice to put an image of the relevant flag next to the relevant artice section as the current Kingdom of Prussia sectin has?Zestauferov 07:26, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes it would. Adam 07:28, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How can I get them uploaded?Zestauferov 07:33, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Go to the upload page [1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Upload)

Here is an entertaining website [2] (http://www.nccg.org/ezion_geber/preussen2.html) Adam 07:55, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

How & where did you find that? :o)

I searched for Prussians + Kaliningrad. Adam 08:10, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have a question about why you don't want to include the Royal Prussia link? It seems very relevant to the Early period of Prussia. Is it because there is a divided sovereignty? If so why does trhis matter since the land and people were one?

I don't think I said I didn't want to include Royal Prussia. I probably deleted the link from the old article because it didn't seem to fit anywhere. Feel free to add it to the links in the relevant place. Adam 08:10, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Readers are not interested in obscure Polish - German disputes about who is or is not entitled to be called a Prussian. Not in this article anyway. Adam 13:55, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

In my opinion, the readers are not interested in stereotypes like "Everything Prussian is and was German". I agree that this simplifies history a lot, but I it's not the kind of information the readers of an encyclopedic source are looking for. And I don't think it's as simple as "obscure German - Polish ethnist crap". There was no such thing as even a trace of German patriotism in Royal or Ducal Prussia until 19th or 18th centuries respectively. These countries had nothing to do with Germany, Holy Roman Empire or anything German except language.
The three driving forces in Royal Prussia of 15 to 19 centuries were:

• Local Patriotism - insisting on emphasizing the difference (in politics, economy, social structure, privileges) from all other Polish provinces.
• Polish Patriotism - insisting on more complete legal unification with the rest of the Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth. (Ironically represented mostly by people German descent - the Prusso - Sarmatian myth).
• Prussian patriotism - with a goal of uniting both Prussian provinces, within the Kingdom of Poland, through complete removal of Brandenburg Hohenzollerns from the area.
  

The first source that comes to my mind is Karin Friedrich's book "The Other Prussia".
The question of ethnicity in Prussia across the ages is a very interesting issue and would probably easily take a few volumes only to give a sketchy idea on the subject. So labeling it as "ethnist crap" might be slightly disrespectful to the country's rich, diverse culture and history.
I still don't understand why this page stopped being just a disambiguation page with links to detailed articles addressing the various meanings of the word "Prussia". Instead it became a chaotic mixture of sometimes unrelated stereotypical banals from other detailed pages. For readers with simpler minds, perhaps?
Adam, great map! How about changing "Prussia..." to "Kingdom of Prussia ..." for the sake of more inquisitive readers? Only a suggestion.
Space Cadet 14:51, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree that there is a fog. Citizens of the state often called themselves prussian regardless of whether or not their origins were from the Province of Prussia. Natives of the Province certainly objected to anyone but themselves claiming the term prussia. The last prussian proper uprising against Brandenburg hegemony was in the 1840s and (in reference to Space Cadet's comment on Polish Patriotism) many Prussians (I use the term to refer to those with origins in the province so they were not exactly Germans but certainly germanic/germanized) Polanized themselves as a statement against what was seen as German occupation Polishness being a symbol of resistance in the area at the time. Which group of encyclopaedias will wiki join? The Gloss-over type or the clarifying type? Zestauferov 03:40, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Also as Space Cadet indicated, there is a mistake in assuming the only Prussia to be the giant state that term is most often used to refer to but the map is superb. Unfortunately it is not easy to separate the two Prussias which is why confusion often arises and very few encyclopaedias available attempt to clarify the issue. The Province vs The State. I always use the term Greater Prussia which seems to convey the right nuances (it is Prussia but also something more than). How about calling it Greater Prussia in the German Empire?

---

Small thing: Yes! Warmia was a voivodship of Royal Prussia and yes (!) it is an English language place name. (Britannica).
Space Cadet 14:59, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

• The article as I have written it is an overview for readers who do not have and do not want to have a detailed knowledge of European history. That is what readers expect to find in an encyclopaedia, something many Wikipedians seem to forget. Detailed considerations such as the ethnic identity of the population of the mediaeval Duchy of Prussia belong in one of the "feeder" articles.
• If Warmia was a voivodship of Royal Prussia then it was not a province of Prussia, it was a voivodship of Poland, and does not belong in the list of Prussian provinces in the context of that paragraph. Adam 22:59, 9 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Warmia was a bishopry. Annexed by Prussia in 1772, had in northern part German Catholic community. You should mention, Catholic Prussians as well. Protestant prevailed, but Catholic were also tolerated. Cautious 13:05, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

If Zestauferov and Space Cadet can come up with a concise paragraph on the question of Prussian nationality (ie the distinction between the Prussian people and the later Prussian state), then it should be included as part of the introductory section. But this article is an overview and this issue should not be pursued at length or in detail. The paragraph could lead off to detailed a "feeder" article called Prussian nationality or something like that. Adam 04:14, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

It is simple. Explain to me, what does it mean Welsh, Scottish or Australian nationality, and then anybody at ease will explain Prussian nationality issue. What I found recently, that Bavaria had separated army in Imperial Germany, Prussia also. Prussian fought WW1 in Prussian army, rather then German one. Cautious 13:05, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I'm not interested in abstract debates about nationality. I am interested in a draft paragraph that deals with the issue Zestauferov and Space Cadet have raised. If one is not forthcoming the article can stay the way it is. Adam 13:10, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Space Cadet if you could do the honours then I will add anything if necessary.Zestauferov 15:14, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I will do a new map showing the historical expansion of Prussia that might help clarify some of these questions. Adam 07:45, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

---

Zestauferov, thanks for the credit of trust, but before I start doing the honors, I would like to remind everybody that I still believe that this should be a disambiguation page only. Prussia is a word of so many meanings, that any other approach is not just "too generalizing", but simply deceiving, confusing and misleading.

I couldn'r agree more. I would write something myself but have been the brunt of quite a lot of back biting on user talk pages (on this topic from John Kenney) and it seems virtually anything I try to write these days is deleted by a group apparently surrounding sysop Llwrch following a disagreement on NPOV and Rohl. I should warn you that you my endorsement is viewed by many only as good as "a crackpot"'s ((sigh)). Even so it is apparent to me you do know a lot about the complexities of the subject unlike the impatient critics who claimed to but are now silent. Just try to keep it concise. Hope you don't mind me hiding your enail below, best just pit it into your user preferences.Zestauferov 01:03, 11 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Adam, despite of what I just said, I love Your idea of a series of "progression" maps. As a suggestion, though, I propose multiple names for cities, rivers, bays, provinces etc. If you don't mind my offer, I can be of help in that area. Also, I know a great deal about the subject and I hope I can be an asset to your project. BTW, how did You like my maps of Royal and Ducal Prussia?
In closing, guys, here is my e-mail: (see history)
Feel free to write me about the associated issues, so we can save some WIKI server space.
Adam, I don't know if you are a sysop or not, but regardless, I think you could improve your tone and attitude, when addressing other WIKIpedians, or when editing/reverting their work. I know you'll understand. Thank you!
Cadet Richard

---

• The Prussia maps are indeed things of beauty.
• A map showing the growth of Prussia would have to cover a much wider area, roughly from Memel to Hanover, so it would he harder to put multiple names on it, but I will see what I can do.
• My "tone and attitude" come from experience of editing articles to do with eastern Europe, particularly anything to do with Poland. Wikipedia has (as you probably know) a strong Polish nationalist lobby who insist on adding long edits full of irrelevant detail, usually in bad English. I have found that taking a firm tone is the best way to deal with this. Adam 22:58, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

First of all: excellent article now. No comparison to the one before.

@zestauferov: Why did i not wonder, that you once more come up with: "There are prussians, who *nowthebigsurprise!* do not consider them germans.." Always the same stuff ...Some thing i would like to ask you: Do you consider prussians automatically Poles or at least slavic ? This might explain why you're that fanatical about calling "prussians" (whatever their definition might be) whatever, but under no circumstances "Germans" (while it still does not explain why you try to feed your [very] subjective personal beliefs into a supposedly neutral encyclopedia who should be a source of competent information for others) .

also your quote: "Those [prussians?] who have settled in Germany prefer to use Russian to distinguish themselves from the Germans they hold responsible for the destruction of their homeland."

I dont know what to say about this piece of, sorry, JUNK. I apologise for using such words, but this is a typical example of [your] junk. Please cite an reliable english reference for a considerable number of "prussians" who live in germany and refuse to speak german [which they have command of, you imply - or maybe they simply can only speak russian ?] but instead deliberately prefer to speak russian (sic!) because they consider Germany to be responsible for the desctruction of their Motherland Prussia (sic!!). What a story.... i cant believe it. And this is QUITE an understatement, please believe me. I am at loss for words... Actually, i cant believe you've got a scholarship. I do not consider such unfounded statements out of the blue and obviously (sic!) very doubtful, "scientific research". I've known a polish girl doing her PhD in Biology quite well. Thanks god, for it shows me, that there are also real polish scientists. I rather consider YOU the exception of the rule. To put it bluntly:

You Sir, are no scientist.

I did not bother to read everything that you wrote because of the insulting and pompous tone which I am quite sick of. In answer to your question, Prussians are Germanic (though original Prussians were Baltic not slavic as you suggest) like Austrians but it would also be a mistake to call Austrians German.Zestauferov 00:19, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

@adam: agree. The polish lobby is quite strong in wiki, and sometimes doesnt even let facts come into the way of wishful thinking. Usually, e.g. for the annexation of east prussia terms are employed like these: "..prussia returned to poland..." [Well, yeah, after some hundred years!] or "according to [put in some ancient treaty between feudal lords] prussia returned.." or: "prussia was given to poland at the Potsdam/yalta conference..." [some "little" problem: there is no valid legal act transferring the property of Person X / Country Z without the agreement of Person X / Country Z. Well, there is: but it is simply called "Annexation" in that case]

However, to to justice to both sides i've to add that there are also some german individuals, who try to put their personal agendas into this encyclopedia. Though, not really successful thanks to the Wiki community.

Chris

---

@Zestauferov: I plead guilty to a rather agressive tone in the statement above. If i would have slept a night and then posting, it would certainly have been more relaxed. I was just too much enraged, that you made your usual statement of prussians being under no circumstances germans. I do not know why you insist on this that strongly - i tried to guess your reason in my posting above. Actually, i dont care if prussians are germans or not. I just care about your repeated insisting they're under no circumstances Germans. Anyway, even after one night of sleep the core point would have been the same, as i would have also made your statement about "prussians in germany who refuse to speak german because...." the center of my argumentation, for it shows your attitude of just imagining facts without proof. I am sorry i got that impression, but please earnestly also consider your own statements and actions as possible reason for that.

Chris

Well the Prussians I know in Kaliningrad (I myself though Jewish being of such extraction) don't like the application of the term German and for that reason I am editing such indications from the article and will continue to do so untiol I am banned if necessary. Some Austrians might not object to being called Germans others would probably rather die. The same goes for East-Prussians. It would be imperialistic to impose a national identity upon them which they themselves reject. Just the same as Scots would fight to the bitter end being called English regardless of whether they can speak Gaelic or not and may in all other aspects to all intents and purposes seem English. Like such Scots, Preussischers (EastPrussians) also at least retain a dialectic accent (and many Yiddish words) even if their language is basically German. I have no English written references for this but it is easily verifiable by making a trip to Kaliningrad. I have some addresses if anyone wants to meet some true Prussians. I am sure they would be pleased to share their ordeals with any interested westerner.Zestauferov 13:54, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Morwen they are not from Germany so how can they be German? If anyone has a neutral alternative sentence which is respectful and not imperialistic I will yield on this. But Chris has made me realize the former terminology is not really acceptable.Zestauferov 14:14, 12 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

OK "Ethnic Germans" is more acceptable. People of Austrian descent from the Ukraine are also called "ethnic germans" at least the term is consistent with the literature. However common sense and a little rational thought is all that is required to identify those citizens of Freistadt Preussen who were deported to Siberia and Central Asia were Prussians and not from Germany how can we call them Germans? That would be anachronistic wouldn't it? Remember Soviet sources call them amd people of Austrian descent "ethnic Germans" because of the discrimination against them which existed in the SU and the right to scapegoat all german speakers (sometimes not caring if they were Jews even) in their lands as Nazis. But as I mentioned above the best evidence is the testimony of those so-called "ethnic germans" in question themselves and I have addresses if anyone is interested in the truth. Many more Prussians however did indeed opt to call themselves German in order to escape the Poverty of the Soviet Union and become "repatriated" as german citizens, though as I have also mentioned before most of these live in "russian german" communities and do not integrate themselves well with the German society which surrounds them. Zestauferov 06:37, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

An "ethnic German" is a German-speaking person living outside Germany. It is commonly used to describe communities such as the Saxons of Romania and the (former) Volga Germans. Austrians speak German but they are now a separate nationality living in Austria, so they are not called ethnic Germans. Whether the German-speakers living in Kaliningrad call themselves Germans or Prussians or Russians or Klingons, if they speak German and are ultimately descended from Germans, they can be called "ethnic Germans." I hope this settles the argument and that no-one needs to get themselves banned. Adam 07:11, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Q. If Austria was to loose its sovereignty become divided between Germany and Italy and its population deported mostly to a hypothetical dicatorship in the east while the luckier ones managed to find refuge in Germany, would it be more correct to refer to the deported Austrians as Ethnic germans or Austrians and likewise those Austrians who would have made it to Germany would they be Germans or the Austrian minority in Germany? It is by ignoring ore disrespecting the wishes of minorities that almost all of the major modern conflicts and terrorist activities have errupted from.Zestauferov 07:42, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

It is impossible to answer hypothetical questions of that kind. All that can be done here is to use the term which seems to be most widely used and acceptable. I think that an German-speaking minority living in another country can safely be called "ethnic Germans" in an English-language encyclopaedia without causing serious offence to anybody. If and when a Prussian nationality re-emerges in Kaliningrad or anywhere else we can cross that semantic bridge when we get there. Adam 07:51, 13 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Zestauferov, what about an positive final sentence mentioning that despite the official end of the prussian state, the a) continued existence of FEW prussian institutions "Stiftung preussicher Kulturbesitz" b) resp. traditions and values in [german?] society and finally c) also of some "original" Prussians in the "Ostpreussen" Sense [who still speak.. well.. Prussian? if not this might be difficult to qualify them for mentioning] ?

Chris

---

No-one has spoken Prussian since the 18th century. If you mean a Prussian variant or dialect of German, that needs to be made clear. Adam 08:09, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I think maybe Chris is refering to the Preusssche germanic dialect? As for Prussian (Prusiskai) speakers I know someone who maintains he has sources proving it was in symbolic use as late as 1848 while there is a community of people in the Memel Klaipaedia region who have re-vived the language and enjoys the vague support of the European Council.Zestauferov 10:05, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

---

Well, try to make a sentence and we'll see. Though, i would rather prefer such stuff to be primarily in the "ostpreussen" article as this refers specifically to the area, so if possible not too long. Core point is, that "Prussia" is still seen usually as a term for the bigger german state carrying that name and not the original prussia. The original Prussia might be best discussed under "East Prussia" as long we are aware about the origins of "Preussen" and "Ostpreussen".

Chris

---

We have an article called Origins of Prussia where the pre-German Prussians / Borusi etc could be discussed better than is the case now. This level of detail doesn't belong in this article. Adam 23:40, 17 Feb 2004 (UTC)

I don't know if any modern prussian-speaking community will really fit into an article on the origins of prussia. Anyway I just came here to ask Space Cadet to take not of these last few postings since s/he is the one who will be writing the paragraph on prussian nationality when s/he has some time. Aren't you?Zestauferov 13:01, 18 Feb 2004 (UTC)

"Preußen or Preussen"

I am sure you have some kind of reason for this, but to me it seems like very unneccessary clogging of the first line of the article, giving a weird and un-inviting impression.

It's nothing else than two different spellings in a foreign language – foreign both to the reader and to the locals. If both versions are to be mentioned, then why not in a section with other less relevant variants of the name (Latin, Lithuanian...)?
--Ruhrjung 13:15, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is an English-language encyclopaedia, and "ß" is not a letter of the English alphabet. Many people will read it as "Preuben" and it needs to be transliterated, just as we transliterate Chinese or Arabic. Adam 13:51, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

ö is not a letter in the english alphabet either. Should we transliterate it as oe? john 19:19, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"o" is an English letter, and ö is just o with a foreign accent on it. "ß" is unrecognisable to many, probably the majority, of English-speakers. And in fact we frequently do write Goering instead of Göring, because it represents the German sound better to English-speakers. Adam 22:42, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Not using the accents is becoming increasingly less fashionable. "ß" is not any more its own letter than ö (or ç), I'd add, just a German way of writing two "s's." At any rate, I don't feel too strongly about it, but if we're giving the German spelling of an English name, I don't see why we shouldn't spell it the way German people would. john 00:17, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

It's not so much that fashions are changing as that the dictatorship of the orthographically correct is becoming harder to challenge in the name of comprehensibility. This is arrogant and elitist - it amounts to saying that people ought to know what "ß" means, so we will just use it regardless to show how clever we are. The fact is that they don't know, and it is an encyclopaedia's job to present knowledge in an accessible way. Adam 00:30, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Well... I've got my answer!
Thank you, very much, sirs!
Maybe time to proceed to next question? ;-))
--Ruhrjung 00:32, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

To allay your concerns, Mr. Carr, how about Preußen? ;) john 06:55, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Why don't you just leave well enough alone? Adam 07:39, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Don't you see the fellow winking? He's saying "I am kidding you to relieve tension." Sigh. Preussen is fine with me, just so long as we keep with the accent marks. john 08:03, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

I am going to put disputed message to the article. It completely forgets about Slavic and Baltic elements in history of Prussia. Please add a separated chapter about multinational character of Prussia. Cautious 08:35, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

No, you have disputed the article, it is up to you to propose additional material. If you don't do so I will delete your message. Adam 09:38, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I am going to do. Cautious 10:32, 16 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Is this claim, that it was thought about merging Mecklenburg-Vorpommern with Brandenburg and Berlin and calling it Preussen (sic!) really substantiated ? i doubt very much, i can not imagine this at all. Could somebody provide a source, link, whatever ? It wouldnt also have made much sense, as Mecklenburg never belonged to Prussia, and Prussia itself was much bigger that these states.

Chris

---

To Chris:

I have heard about it many times from different sources. Rübezahl 18:11, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This is maybe off topic here, but yes, the proposition is promoted by some politicians, etc, etc. One of the background factors to keep in mind is the terribly bad conditions of State of Berlin's economy — and the rest of Germany's relative disinterest for paying for extra costs making the federal capital something to be proud of (like museums and theaters) and the extra costs coming from the capital being a magnet on poor people.--Ruhrjung 21:28, 19 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"There are other signs of normalisation, too, that bespeak a renewed confidence to address the past. The Social Democrat politician Alwin Ziel has suggested, for instance, giving the name "Prussia" to the new state that would emerge from the proposed merger of Berlin and Brandenburg. He is supported by the essayist Hans Magnus Enzensberger, among others, but has also been widely condemned, though he seeks to resurrect Prussia in name only." Guardian, March 27, 2002. Adam 08:09, 20 Mar 2004 (UTC)

the German Empire, the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich from 1871 to 1945.

I would like to try to explain briefly why I think the long list of German sovereign states is to prefer over for the simple "Germany".

Quote (Cutious' wording):

• the name of an independent state, from the 17th century until 1871
• the name of the largest territorial unit within the German Empire, the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich from 1871 to 1945.

Adam Carr's wording:

• the name of an independent state, from the 17th century until 1871
• the name of the largest territorial unit within Germany from 1871 to 1945.

It all revolves around the controversy about how to understand the term "Germany", and as that controversy can't be influenced from this article, I think it's better to find a workaround.

There are people who would say that "the German Empire" is, or too easily can be misunderstood as, the same as the Holy Roman Empire, since that in many people's opinion was the "German Empire" of its time.

There are too many people who have a strong conviction with regard to what Germany ought to mean. Unfortunately, they do not agree. Quite a few feel that "Germany" (when used without qualifiers) can and should only denote the post-WWII federation. Others say that "Germany", when used without qualifiers, rightfully denotes the German nation rather than the different countries that nation has formed during the history. Then there are lots of opinions inbetween.

This is also why I will change "the German Empire" to "Imperial Germany". The former term can be understood as ambiguous, the latter term can not.

--Ruhrjung 19:57, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

My recent reversion of the opening paragraph was not in fact directed at the sentence Ruhrjung refers to, and I have no objection to his wording. It was aimed at the previous sentence about the extermination of the Prussians etc, which was too tendentious. Adam 23:05, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

That might be true, but your change of

'"the land of the Prussian people (in what is now parts of Lithuania, Russia's Kaliningrad exclave and north-eastern Poland)"

to

"the name of a geographical region, first in the borderlands between Lithuania and Poland and later stretching across the southern Baltic coast"

was not really any improvement, and the germanification of the Prussians are according to my best beliefs established scientifical opinion. That is not to say that I think it has to be mentioned at that location in the article, nor that the wording is optimal. Besides, I've not yet learned to appreciate the inflated wikipedia-usage of the word region!--Ruhrjung 02:32, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

can User:Nico produce any evidence for the existence of "the Prussian nation in exile in present-day Germany"? Adam 06:14, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, I can:

• Landsmannschaft Ostpreußen (http://www.ostpreussen-info.de)
• Preußische Allgemeine Zeitung (http://www.preussische-allgemeine.de)
• Junge Landsmannschaft Ostpreußen (http://www.ostpreussen.org)
• Preußischer Mediendienst (http://www.preussischer-mediendienst.de/)

These are the (East) Prussians. In the wider sense, the (Brandenburg-)Prussians may also be considered an exiled nation. It was recently proposed to rename Berlin-Brandenburg Prussia if the states were merged (which the Brandenburg voters rejected, however). Many people consider themselves Prussians.

-- Nico 01:11, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A Prussian, Wilhelm von Gottberg: [3] (http://www.ostpreussen.de/blau/veranstaltungen/vergangene_veranstaltungen/kant_festakt_2004/vgottberg.jpg). Here is Edmund Stoiber and his wife at the Deutschlandtreffen der Ostpreußen in Leipzig. [4] (http://www.ostpreussen.de/blau/veranstaltungen/vergangene_veranstaltungen/dt2002_fotos/014.jpg) [5] (http://www.ostpreussen.de/blau/veranstaltungen/vergangene_veranstaltungen/dt2002_fotos/018.jpg). And the Interior Minister of Brandenburg [6] (http://www.ostpreussen.de/blau/veranstaltungen/vergangene_veranstaltungen/dt2002_fotos/011.jpg)

Can User:Adam Carr consider presenting arguments for the extensive delinking and other changes of the initial section[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Prussia&diff=2920230&oldid=2920087)?
--Ruhrjung 00:52, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

Just because people identify themselves as coming from East Prussia or as being descended from people who lived there is not evidence that there is or was a "Prussian nation." I am a Victorian by residence but my nationality in Australian, and there is no "Victorian nation." German-speaking Prussia was part of the German nation - the inscription on the pediment of the Reichstag building in Berlin (capital of Prussia) says Dem Deutschen Volk. And Ruhrjung knows quite well that talk of a pre-Germanic "Prussian nation" is ahistorical nonsense and that use of words like "extermination" in an opening paragraph is unencyclopaedic. Adam 03:02, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

This doesn't expleain the de-linking[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Prussia&diff=2920230&oldid=2920087), which I find somewhat surprising.

Regarding pre-german nations, it seems as we again have seen the effects of differences in the understanding of the nation-concept - and please don't assume this should have anything to do with me being more nationalist than other contributors. I bet on it having to do with us having different mothertongues and having had teachers in school (I've no academic studies to be proud of) colored by each their different cultures.

Regarding my understanding of what's encyclopedic and not, I'm sorry to make you disappointed, but no, my language skills are not THAT good. I believed the cultural and linguistic "extermination" to be established academic consensus (aswell as popular knowledge in anti-German circles), and I don't really understand if the nonsence is a matter of terms or of facts.

--Ruhrjung 03:44, 2004 Mar 26 (UTC)

• I don't know anything about delinking.
  • It frustrates me that you don't see what frustrated me in the first place: [[Lithuania]], [[Russia]]'s [[Kaliningrad]] [[exclave]] and north-eastern [[Poland]]) ===> the borderlands between Lithuania and Poland.--Ruhrjung 04:13, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• In English a "nation" means a modern national unit, mostly corresponding to a state (the French nation, the German nation), but some not having a state (the Kurdish nation). A pre-modern linguistic group should be called a people or (more traditionally) a tribe. The Prussians or Borusi were a pre-modern people, one of many Baltic-Lithuanian peoples living in that area.
  • So that's why you changed the [[land]] of the [[Prussian people]] ===> the name of a geographical region?--Ruhrjung 04:13, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• "Extermination" is definitely a POV term in English. In any case the Prussians were not exterminated - Prussian was still being spoken in the area in the 18th century. They were gradually assimilated into the surrounding and more advanced German and Polish populations.
  • Thank you!--Ruhrjung 04:13, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)
• Also, this is an overview article. There are already other articles on the pre-Germanic Prussians where this history can be discussed in detail.

Adam 03:58, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I think I'm going to give up on central European history for a while. I'm getting very tired of endless arguments about the correct name of Grzczszczpszy in the 12th century and whether Engelbert the Fat was Margrave of Glockenspiel or vice versa. Adam 06:47, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Good for us all. If (when?) you'll return, i hope you will stop ridiculous accusing everyone with different opinion about Polish nationalism. Szopen

Don't count on it. Adam

Don't count on your return or don't count on stopping of accusation without basis? You still haven;t answered one _where_ i was agaisnt using Danzig or _where_ i presented soooo nationalistic views. Szopen

I didn't name you in connection with Gdansk / Danzig. Adam 09:11, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

"I deleted it because coming back to this article reminded me about it. It doesn't really fit in the narrative and I have never been persuaded that the quote is authentic. I only gave up last time because I was sick of arguing with Polish nationalists" (You were mainly discussing that with me and Danny, Danny of course is not a Polish nationalist, so it's quite good indication that PN in question is me)

"One example of this is the obsession over place-names evident at so many Wikipedia articles. Polish nationalist editors insist that Gdansk has always been called Gdansk and can never be called anything else, even though it was called Danzig, both officially and by most of its inhabitants, for several hundred years. This kind of foolishness doesn't just reflect patriotism, it refelects both national chauvinism and national insecurity. "

"If Szopen or Cautious were arguing with a Ukrainian nationalist, they would be accused of "anti-Ukrainian bigotry" if they suggested that L'viv had ever been anything other than part of the sacred soil of Ukraine."

(Again, you mentioning my name in context of arguing about Danzig/Gdansk and about PNs)

"Well perhaps you could explain that point (in Polish) to Szopen, Cautious, Space Cadet and Mestwin of Gdansk, all of whom, seem to think an encyclopaedia is a fine place to write manifestoes about the grievances of Poland. " (Again, i am here mentioned as one of seemingly >>unreformable<< people)

My question is, what exaclty from what i've wrote, except for hottest discussion with some of my opponents, suggest that I think that wikipedia is some kind of marketing place for misfortunes and martyrology of Polish nation? What suggest that I am Polish Nationalist? To make arguments similar as you, maybe article i wrote about

Jedwabne suggested it to you? (You can see them in my user contributions history, since history of "massacre of Jedwabne" starts with version after already quite a few edits - my first version is at massacre in Yedwabne from Dec 7 2001, long time before i started to discuss with you, so there should not be question about whether i wrote that specially to impress anyone.) Szopen

But anyway, Adam, even if i personally started to dislike you, i value your input into discussion. I hope that you will return after you will get rest. I hope - because the truth is not found by celebrating the only true revelations with group of friends; but rather through painfull discussion with people whose opinion is radically different. Szopen

The paragraphs Szopen has cited show clearly that I did not name him in the context of my remark about the Gdansk-Danzig issue, but in the following paragraph, which was making a different point about competitive nationalisms.

Anyway, for what it is worth, I have found Szopen much more reasonable that User:Cautious, who ought to be banned for deliberate and systematic propagandising. Adam 11:34, 26 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Space Cadet - I would agree that the formulation at the beginning of the article is somewhat problematic, given the complexities of the question (particularly the question of what, exactly Prussia means), but we ought to maintain a sense of proportion. Also, in this case, Ducal/East Prussia did not remain a part/dependency of Poland until the 18th century, and it did not have any notable Polish patriotism. john 19:18, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

John, stating that since undetermined time "Prussia as a political entity belonged to German-speaking Central Europe" IS NOT "maintaining a sense of proportion". It's not true. Notable examples of polish patriotism in East Prussia would be Copernicus, Hartknoch and Kalkstein, to say the least. Warmia is a huge chunk of the later East Prussia and it DID remain Polish till 1772. And finally, the simplest way to answer "the question of what, exactly Prussia means", would be to make this a disambiguation page again, and leave the details and complexities to the specific articles. Space Cadet 21:24, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Actually, the Prussian province of East Prussia, at least as it existed up to 1918, was already under the Hohenzollerns, and was completely independent from Poland from 1660. Second point: a disambiguation page is a bad idea. The page as it is now explains all the different meanings of Prussia. The problem is that in that one sentence it is unclear what is meant. I would note that I changed it from "politically" to "culturally", which I think is more accurate. I think it would be better to take out the sentence entirely, though, than to add far too detailed information about (Royal) Prussian Polish patriotism. john 22:20, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I've removed the sentence and tries to make clear when Prussians developed a sense of Germanness. I hope this avoids the dispute - I think arguments over Prussian national sentiment before the late 18th century have relatively little to work with. john 22:29, 13 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Looks fine to me! Why is disambiguation a bad idea again?

And for the record: The bishopric of Warmia provided for about one third of the territory of future East Prussia. It was not "under the Hohenzollerns" but a part of Poland until 1772.Space Cadet 00:53, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ah, give and take resulting in a compromise acceptable to all...if only we could do the same on the naming issue, but I fear we simply have incompatible positions. As to disambiguation, I just think that a topic as important as Prussia should have an actual article explaining the various permutations, rather than a disambiguation page. All the various senses of Prussia are, after all, interrelated. Re: Warmia, was it part of the pre-1918 province of East Prussia, or the post-1918 territory? Because my understanding was the parts of West Prussia adjacent to East Prussia that stayed part of Germany after WWI were incorporated into East Prussia. Or are these in addition to Warmia? john 04:38, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Ah, I see that you are right. Warmia/Ermeland was incorporated into East Prussia. Never mind. john 04:39, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Kaliningrad and Prussian revival

Re this edit which people keep posting: "But although Russia twice offered to sell it [Kaliningrad] back to Germany, the current social democratic administration is not claiming the territory, and there is, according to some, very little chance that German Prussia will ever re-appear. However, the large organisation of Prussian expellees in exile in West-Germany are continuing their efforts to reach this goal."

• Can we have some evidence thar Russia ever offered to sell Kaliningrad to Germany? A Google search shows that the suggestion was made by various people in Russia, but was never taken up officially. The story may have originated with this hoax (http://www.exile.ru/feature/feature4.html). Where is the evidence for such an offer being made?
• "according to some" is just weasel-word nonsense. Where is evidence that anyone aside from a few cranks thinks that "German Prussia will ever re-appear." This would require a war with Poland - who is advocating this?
• "large organisation of Prussian expellees in exile in West-Germany are continuing their efforts to reach this goal" I don't think this is remotely true. The surviving adult Prussian expellees will now be in their late 70s. Are they planning to invade Poland in their walking-frames? Adam 05:45, 10 May 2004 (UTC)

Factual accuracy dispute

Where was the data used in this table taken from?

Population of Prussia and its Provinces in 1890

	Inhabitants	non-German citizens
East Prussia	1,958,663	2,189
West Prussia	1,433,681	1,976
City of Berlin	1,578,794	17,704
Brandenburg	2,541,783	5,213
Pomerania	1,520,889	1,405
Posen	1,751,642	1,438
Silesia	4,224,458	24,811
Saxony	2,580,010	4,642
Schleswig-Holstein	1,217,437	37,821
Hannover	2,278,361	8,089
Westphalia	2,428,661	9,879
Hessen-Nassau	1,664,426	9,801
Rhineland	4,710,391	39,669
Hohenzollern	66,720	161

It seems highly doubtful that in less than 20 years the German population of Poznan Voivodship (which had approximately the same boundaries as the earlier provinz Posen) dropped from almost 2 millions to almost 100.000 (less than 800.000 in whole Poland in 1931).

Of course, during and after WWI many Germans moved to Germany proper, but the scale of this exodus was much smaller than this table indicates. It is probable that this table is based on some German census of late 19th century, in which Poles, Kashubians and others are listed as "Germans", but if this is the case, then such a remark should be noted.

Also, the data differs significantly from the tables at Province of Posen. Halibutt 20:17, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

Yeah, I think the table was inserted by someone dubious. I think it should be removed. john k 21:49, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

It was User:H.J. two years ago. I let it slide, because I made a note that the numbers associated with "Germans" represent people speaking German.Space Cadet 23:58, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

---

Is the neutrality tag on this article still warranted? Who is in dispute, and about what? Adam 09:58, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Since no-one has resoponded to the above question, and since there has been no comment of any kind at this page since May, I am removing the tag. Adam 10:11, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

The table might come from Encyclopedia Britannica, 10th or 11th editions

Jackiespeel 16:46, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)