Talk:Silesia/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Silesia. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Talk Silesia archives:

Content

German, Polish, Czech and English articles

1) In my opinion Polish version of the article about Silesia is much better and free of German bias, but I am not going to insert it here, as it is quite long and easily available. (This a response to Niko's statemant that he likes the German version most).

I didn't insert the whole article, just the introduction and historical section. By the way, where can I find the Polish version? It's actually quite difficult to find it. S´la?sk didn't work, and Schlesien was redirected to Schleswig-Holstein (I tryed to correct it) Nico 19:41, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

2) It is natural the German, Polish and Czech articles about Silesia will be different. The German article will emphasize the German-Silesian relations, the Polish article will emphasize the Polish-Silesian relations, and the Czech article will emphasize the Czech-Silesian relations. It is natural because these informations are most inportant to the respective nations reading in their native tongues.

3) To produce a NPOV English version it is not possible just to translate any one of the above. We have to take the best of the three articles and try to resolve the German-Polish-Czech controversies. The goal should be an article as much informative as possible to the English speaking readers.

Grzes of Poznan (caius2ga) 18:23, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

German article

I think the German article is much better than the English, mainly because it's free from Polish revisionism and nationalism.

Schlesien (poln.:Śląsk, tschech.:Slezsko) war ehemals mährisch, gehörte zum piastischen Polen, zu Böhmen, zum Heiligen Römischen Reich und zu habsburgischen Österreich, zu Preußen, Deutschland und ist heute ein zu Polen (teilweise auch Deutschland und Tschechien) gehörendes Gebiet an beiden Seiten des Ober- und Mittellaufs der Oder.
Schlesien wurde vor zweitausend Jahren von germanischen Wandalen, Silingern, Lugiern etc. bewohnt. Es wurde als Magna Germania zwischen Oder und Weichsel beschrieben. Teile Schlesiens wurden von Kaiser Arnulf von Kärnten dem mährischen Herrscher als Lehen gegeben.

Im Jahre 963 wurde das Land zwischen Oder und Netze von Kaiser Otto I. als Reichslehen an Mieszko I., den später so genannten Piastenreich (Geschichte Polens) gegeben. Es wurde unter Herzog Kasimir I. wieder selbständig. Der Stamm der Silinger (s.o.) gab dem Land den Namen Silesia, Schlesia. Weitere deutsche Besiedelung erfolgte im späten Mittelalter. Es entstanden wichtige Städte wie z.B. Breslau. Der südöstliche Teil um die Städte Oppeln und Kattowitz heißt Oberschlesien, er hatte im Unterschied zu Niederschlesien bereits vor 1945 eine deutsch/polnisch sprechende Mischbevölkerung.

Im 16. Jahrhundert wurden Staatsverträge zwischen Schlesien und Brandenburg-Preußen abgeschlossen, wobei Schlesien beim Aussterben der schlesischen Piasten an Brandenburg-Preußen fallen sollte. Die Habsburger HRR Kaiser brachten Schlesien aber in Habsburger Besitz, als 1569 der letzte schlesische Piast starb. Nach dem preußisch-österreichischen Krieg zwischen Friedrich II. und Kaiserin Maria Theresia wurde der größte Teil Schlesiens 1742/44 preußisch, ein kleinerer Teil um Troppau (heute Opava in Tschechien) blieb österreichisch.

Nach dem Wiener Kongress 1815 wurde Schlesien eine der zunächst 10 Provinzen des Staates Preußen, wobei Teile der bisher sächsischen Oberlausitz der neuen Provinz eingegliedert wurden. Provinzhauptstadt wurde Breslau. Mit der beginnenden Industrialisierung wurde Oberschlesien mit seinen Steinkohlebergwerken zu einer wirtschaftlich wichtigen Region.

Nach Ende des 1. Weltkriegs kamen Teile Oberschlesiens an Polen, obwohl vorher der Ausgang einer Volksbefragung für den Verbleib bei Deutschland war. Die verbliebene Provinz wurde 1919 in zwei Provinzen aufgeteilt, Oberschlesien mit der Hauptstadt Oppeln und Niederschlesien mit der Hauptstadt Breslau. Österreichisch-Schlesien kam nach dem ersten Weltkrieg zur Tschechoslowakei und gehört heute zu Tschechien. 1938 wurden beide Provinzen wieder vereinigt und 1941 erneut geteilt.

Nach dem zweiten Weltkrieg wurde ganz Schlesien von der Sowjetunion erobert und erhielt polnische Administration, bis auf ein kleines Gebiet um die Stadt Görlitz.

In den Jahren 1945/46 fand eine gewaltsame Vertreibung der deutschen Bevölkerung statt. Lediglich in Oberschlesien verblieb eine kleine Minderheit. Statt dessen wurden Menschen angesiedelt, die von Stalin aus ehemals ostpolnischen Gebieten gewaltsam umgesiedelt wurden.

-- Nico 16:43, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Silesian cultural and ethnic mix

Because of its rich history Silesia has produced a unique cultural mix based on the local Silesian tradition with heavy Polish, Czech and German influences. For most of its history Silesia was an object of conflict between Bohemia, Poland, Roman Empire, Austria, Prussia and Germany. Today the region is inhabited by the Poles, Silesians, Germans, Czechs and Moravians.

History of Silesia is very often written from Polish, German or Czech (Bohemian) point of view and very rarely from Silesian point of view.

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

Silesia in Polish-German relations in Middle Ages

Redaktion: Rainer Riemenchneider, Die Rolle Schlesiens and Pommern in der Geschichte der deutschen-polnischen Beziehungen in Mittelater, , Georg-Eckert-Institut fuer Internationale Schulbuchforschung, Braunchweig 1980
Redakcyja Marian Biskup, Śląsk i Pomorze w historii stosunków polsko-niemieckich w średniowieczu, XII Konferencja Wspólnej Komisji Podręcznikowej PRL-RFN Historyków 5-10 VI 1979 Olsztyn, Ossolineum, Wroclaw 1983, second edition: Instytut Zachodni, Poznań 1987.

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

Redakcja: Antoni Czubiński, Zbigniew Kulak, Śląsk i Pomorze w stosunkach polsko-niemieckich od XVI do XVII w. XIV Konferencja Wspólnej Komisji Podręcznikowej PRL-RFN Historyków, 9-14 VI 1981 r. Zamość, Instytut Zachodni, Poznań 1987

--Grzes of Poznan

Well, what is "Silesian point of view"? Surely not that of the Silesians organized here: http://www.bund-der-vertriebenen.de and here: Landsmannschaft Schlesien: www.schlesien-lm.de, www.schlesien-bonn.de/ etc. etc. By the way, you cannot expect non-Poles to read Polish. Nico 16:43, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

There are many inhabitants of Silesia who say: "We are not Poles, we are not Germans, we are the Silesians". In think that the most important organizations today is Ruch Autonomii Slaska (RAS, Silesian Autonomy Movement) http://www.slonsk.de/Slonsk/Catn/CzymJestRAS.htm http://www.slonsk.de/

Yes I can expect non-Poles to read Polish. I have many friends from Denmark, Belgium, Ireland, Ukraine, Norway, Iraq who are fluent Polish speakers. --Grzes of Poznan 21:57, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Polish friends from Denmark, maybe? Understand: German is an international language just like French, English and maybe Spanish. Most Poles with some education speak German, but very few Germans speak Polish, just like very few Englishmen speak Danish. Nico 13:54, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Few Germans speak Polish?? That's prsisely the problem. Polish historians usually learn German to study the sources and to read books written by their German friends to understand the history fully, and to learn about the various points of view. On the other hand German historians very seldom learn Polish and are very happy with what they read in German. I hope it will change in future. ;-)

I agree that English, French and Spanish are international languages, German used to be, but it is not now. Im my opinion you overestimate the importance of German in Poland. English is widely learned and spoken in Poland these days, German is known only to some specialists. If I was asked for a ranking of popularity of foreign languages in Poland: English, French, Russian, German, Spanish, Italian. Grzes of Poznan 23:29, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

(POLAND:) In schools, English and German are the more popular of the foreign languages being taught; Russian is still the more widely available choice although no longer compulsory.

( http://www.lmp.ucla.edu/profiles/profp02.htm )

Nico 19:30, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Go To Poland and try to conversate in German. And then switch to English and compare results. [[user::szopen|szopen]]

History of Silesia

Some details, however these all shoul be marked IIRC since i've read books about history of Sielsia long ago 1) Piasts did not died out in 1370. Most Piasts lived well into, IIRC XVI century.

2) Piast rulers under Czech gvt in XV century were called ,,Polish princes"

3) Whether Silesia was part of Great Moravian state is still controversy among the historians, although most are supporting that view

4) Polish kings (Polish from origin, not title) ruled Silesia also in XV and XVI century (Jagiellons).

5) One could argue that Poland was part of HRE in XIII century after Krzyszkow, ealier - well, there is enough arguments both for showing that Poland was in HRE, or that it wasn't. Hundred pages of paper were filled with discussion of terms like ,,friend of emperor or ,,paid tribute up to warta. However one could also argue that allegiance given by, IIRC Mieszko Stary (?) was just single event.

6) In XIII century one of centres of rebuilding Poland was Silesia (Henryk Brodaty etc)

7) in XIV and XV century some of Piasts from Silesia were close Polish allies, were ready to join Poland, as were some cities which begged Poland for protection (telling the truth, mostly because hussite wars not nationality, but hey, i can biased too :))) ).

8) Up to XVIII century most of Silesia population was Slavic (not Polish or Czech, but Slavic), which quickly changed with introduction of modern educational system. I would have to search for more data on this, but i think i have some book about that in my home.

I would like to add that the name of mountain /(soft S)L(nasal E)(hard Z)A/, which is mentioned above, comes probably from the name of dense fog which is characteristic for Silesia, also nowadays. The mountain was a place of solar cult in prehistoric times, special ceremonies took place there during the shortest day in the year. A number of interesting prehistoric sculptures (mainly animals) is preserved and can be seen in its slopes. Now Sleza is very popular destinations for tourists from Wroclaw, especially during weekends. Kazik. For how long before WWII was Silesia in Germany? Was it, earlier, part of the kingdom of Poland and, ever, part of the Holy ROman Empire? --rmhermen

The Prussian conquest of Silesia from Austria was the crux of the War of the Austrian Succession in the 1740s. Prussia eventually turned into Germany, of course. -- Paul Drye

A very good website ;http://www.sags.org/history.htm gives a pretty good overview of Silesian history. To that history add :

1. In 895 the Bohemia / Moravia (including Silesia at that time) princes came to Regensburg of Frankish and Holy Roman Empire and pledged allegiance to German emperor Arnulf of Carinthia .

2. 622-662 first Slavs in Europe are the Moravians under Frankish ruler Samo.

3. Mieszko I was first duke of a Poland seperat from Czech (formerly Czech and Lech)Mieszko I and son Boleslaw I Chrobry (as well as later Polish rulers pledged allegiance to emperor in turn for receiving land on loan (landlien) to rule over.

4.The Polish Piast rulers died out in 1370. (Imperial law, when a ruling house dies out , the land reverts back to the empire.

5. In circa 1537 Brandenburg Hohenzollernrulers made an agreement with the Silesian German Piasts, that Brandenburg would inherit Silesia rule. Emperor did not permit it, because the emperor (Maximilian I) had made an agreement in 1515 with Polish and Hungary ruler .Maximilian adopted Luis of Hungary.

6. Crossen , Or Krossen district (Schwiebus referred to in above website as 1815) including Zuellichau came under Brandenburg rule in 1472.

i checked out the site -- some of it is pretty useful, but other parts are questionable -- especially the stuff before about 1500. good overview, though. I found it interesting to note that Silesia seems to have been Polish in the Middle Ages...JHK

Silesia derived its name from the Silinger, a Germanic tribe like the Vandals and the (Celtic) Germanic Lugier or Lygier who all lived south of the Baltic Sea in the Elbe?, Oder, and Vistula river area. It should be noted that there is considerable debate among archaeologists and historians as to whether there is such a thing as a Celtic-Germanic people. Exhibits such as the one in Rosenheim (Bayern) certainly demonstrate that the Celts had an influence on the area; however, the movement of the Celts westward through Europe was such that there is little if any overlap between them and the Germanic tribes.

Are you sure about etymology of name Silesia ? It seems too similar to its Polish name Śl&aogonek;sk which is of clearly different etymology (from Mount Śl&eogonek'&zdotabove;a)

There are many other geographical Polish names that were latinized with ending -ia, and there was either a short vocative e/i vowel (vocal yer) between first two consonants or second consonant was a vocal l, which sounds like el/il, so s(short i)l(something that sounds like on)sk(short e)/s(short i)l(something that sounds like nasal e)(hard vocative z)- -> silesia seems very likely.

Sorry, but your etymology sounds like some German propaganda. --Taw

Hi Taw -- could you please write out the Polish again in a pronounceable way, so that the rest of us can follow the argument? I reserve judgement on the whole thing, although it does make sense that we have a Latin name after early inhabitants, whatever their ethnicity...JHK

There's little doubt today that the name of Silesia (Polish S'la,sk -- <s'> is a palatalised /s/ and <a,> is for nasal /o/) does derive from the Silings, a Vandalic tribe of the Lugian confederation. Lugian territory overlapped most of modern central and southern Poland. Polish scholars have come to terms with these facts (take my word for it, I'm one of them). They should not be treated as German propaganda -- apart from other things, the Silings were not "German" or ancestral to modern Germans but merely linguistically Germanic (so are English-speakers, for example). The formal derivation is entirely unproblematic: the Germanic adjectival formation *siling-iska- 'Silingia(n)' was adopted by the Slavs as *silinz^isk- (<z^> = "zh"), which yields Polish S'la,sk via 100% regular sound changes. The mountain name S'le,z.a ("Slenzha") reflects the same root with a different suffix (*-ja-). Piotr Gasiorowski

Piotrze, what happened to word "Slegwa" which meant "wet" and was used as explanation of name Slask? I accept your explanation, but i wonder what happened to earlier one, which was official not that long ago (and hen was old explanation abandoned? I was reading books from 90s which still had old explanation of name Slask) szopen

It has simply been abandoned by most experts in favour of one that is formally more convincing and has a plausible historical justification (we know that the Silings originated in the Silesian/Lusatian region). Truth to tell, the old etymology owed its popularity (in Poland rather than anywhere else) mostly to officially encouraged Germanophobia. For the same reason it was vehemently denied that any part of Poland may have been the "homeland" of any Germanic group, as if Germanic and German meant the same thing, or as if the fact that somebody lived somewhere 2000 years ago meant anything today (why, the ancestors of the English lived in Denmark and northern Germany at that time, and the Silings even moved to Spain in their later wanderings!). Autochthony since time out of mind is what you like to believe in if you fear your neighbours. Of course those phobias were partly provoked (I won't say justified) by earlier excesses on the German side -- note the triumphant renaming of Gdynia as Gotenhafen by the Nazis, who tended to appropriate all Germanic traditions (though the German language is more closely related to English or even Icelandic than to Gothic). Piotr Gasiorowski

One of pre-1000 year Slav tribes of Silesia is called /(soft S)L(nasal E)(hard Z)A(soft N)E/, where /-A(soft N)E/ is usual Polish suffix to describe tribes (other Polish-territory tribes were called Polanie, Wis'lanie, Mazowszanie etc.). They were called from mountain that is nowadays called /(soft S)L(nasal E)(hard Z)A/. Later whole Silesia were called /(soft S)L(nasal O)SK/ (but this name has many other changes, like 'Polish umlaut' E->O, lost final yer, and quite complex consonants change (hard Z)<->SK). Anyway because it's accepted without doubt that Polish name of Silesia comes from this tribe, and because name of this tribe changed less, I'll use this name for explanations.

Generally there is no such consonant pair in old Polish as /(soft S)L/. But in Polish 'short soft e/i' and 'short hard e/i' (these two letters exist in Russian spelling as soft yer and hard yer, but they aren't pronounced) become silent in most positions. So it was probably /S(short soft e/i)L(nasal E)(hard Z)-/. Usual way of latinization at that times were taking local name (which was only spoken, national languages weren't written at that time), write in to be pronounciable in Latin, and append grammatically-correct suffix. This suffix was often '-ia', as in (Mazowsze -> Mazovia, Kalisz -> Kalisia, Warszawa -> Varsovia). Also because Latin had no letter for nasal E and hard Z, they were written as E and S. So natural latinization was 'S?LESIA'. The last problem is what has happened to short soft e/i. It could be any of E I or nothing. At that time short vowels were pronounced, so nothig wouldn't be very probabe. I don't know why it became I and not E. That might have been feature of local dialect or something like that. Anyway 'SILESIA/SELESIA' is clearly Latin encoding of Polish name of this tribe and region.

I've never heard anything about this Silinger tribe. I think that I would if their existence and name were generally accepted, because I live here. --Taw

Thanks, Taw! Here is my guess as to how user:H.J. came up with the Silinger as the source, based on what I know of name-studies and historiography (which is a good deal more than most people!) -- Silesia is undoubtedly named after the Slezne (correct spelling as needed). German scholars undoubtedly Germanized the Latin name, which is very common. So really, we're talking about the same group. I think (if it isn't already there) that the article should probably refer to the Silesians (what we call the people in English) as Slavs. Does that work for you? Any disagreements?

Just back from more searching...not as simple as it looks -- Catholic Encyclopedia says the Silingii were a really early Germanic people, and that, after they migrated, the name stuck to the area, becoming Polanized -- so the area has really nothing to do with an inherent Germanness -- the Silesians post-Völkerwanderung were in face Slavs, but the name derives from a place-name for a Germanic people. WIll check more. JHK

The Silings are real enough (see my comment above) Piotr Gasiorowski

________

I would like to add that the name of mountain /(soft S)L(nasal E)(hard Z)A/, which is mentioned above, comes probably from the name of dense fog which is characteristic for Silesia, also nowadays. The mountain was a place of solar cult in prehistoric times, special ceremonies took place there during the longest day in the year. A number of interesting prehistoric sculptures (mainly animals) is preserved and can be seen in its slopes. Now Sleza is very popular destinations for tourists from Wroclaw, especially during weekends. Kazik.

To Taw. It does not surprise me ,that you have never heard of the Silinger , even though you live in Slask (Silesia) now. Where did your parents, grandparents, greatgrandparents live ? It was not in the interest of the communists who took over in 1945. It was not in the interest of all the allies who took over Poland and Germany to let the people involved know the true histories. The Roman empire received its power by having the people and countries fight each other , then taking them all over . Think about that. On the Silesia page I have added some more history, which (it and or I) will be discredited real soon, I am sure. user:H.J.

I do not understand. What is the connection of Silingers with the way in which Roman empire received its power and with the place in which parents, grandparents, grandgrandparents of Taw lived ? Kazik.

I'm fully aware that both Germans and Polish spreaded lot of propaganda about history of Silesia. That's why everything about it has to be checked twice. There is plausible detailed etymological history of the name Silesia from name of mountain /(soft S)L(nasal E)(hard Z)A/, and I don't know about such etymology from these 'Silingae'.

And, the second issue, history of Silesia presented in this article is strange. Around year 1000, where written history of this region starts, whole Silesia and most of east Germany were completely Slav. Western (German, Dutch, Jewish and other) settlement happened only later, and this part of history is well documented, as all cities have their history written, there are different types of city laws etc. Probably all of early city names in Silesia have Slav origins, so if there were any Germans there at that time, they were very few of them.

Sentence 'This endet the free Silinger Silesia era' is very silly, as Silesia became independent not much time later.

And last thing, this history doesn't notice Silesian Walls - fortifications build on western border of Silesia (current Polish western border is further west than Silesian border) before 1000, so it's way incomplete --Taw

Stuff Removed from page by JHK

comments in italics

Ptolemy in his book Geography recorded in Germany as follows: "Below the Semnones the Silingae have their abodes, and below the Burguntae are the Lugi Omani: below these are the Lugi Diduni extending as far as the Asciburgius mountains,and below the Silingae are the Calucones on both banks of the river Albis; below whom are the Chaerusci and the Camavi extending as far as Melibocus mountain,from whom toward the east along the Albis river are the Banochaemae; above whom are the Batini, and above these, but below the Asciburgius mountains are the Corconti and the Lugi Buri extending as far as the source or the Vistula river; first below these are the Sidones, then the Gotini, then the Visburgi above the Orcynium forest... The source and mouth of the Albis Oder River and of the Vistula River are in Germania." Source: Claudius Ptolemy The Geography, Translated and edited by Edward Luther Stevenson, Dover Publications, Inc N.Y. ISBN O-486-26896-9.

Again, I would like to remind everybody that ptolemy isn't what we'd call an accurate source -- he based his map upon what people told him --often second- or third hand

Procopius of Caesarea , historian of Byzantium reported that those Vandili remaining in the Oder area ,sent messages to the 'Vandili' in Northern Africa.

i'm not sure what Vandals sending messages to Vandals has to do with Silingii???

Vandali , Asdinger , Silinger and Alans were in confederation with the Franks.

I've heard of loose alliances between the Vandals, Alans, and Franks -- very early on, and susceptible to the whims of the idividual leaders -- where did you see the Asdingeer and Silingii as part of this group, and when?

First the Huns, then Avars and Slavs , then Hungarians stormed into Germania.

I don't think they stormed in any more than anyone else at the time -- Germans stormed into ROme, Vikings stormed into the continent...kinda meaningliess, really -- more inflammatory than anything else

By the 7st century small amounts of Slavs started to take over some areas, vacated by those Vandali who had left for Africa. There they lived amongs the remaining Germanic people. Silinger then concentrated around the mount Zobten.

possibly also those areas left by the Silingii -- who, if allied with the Franks, must have moved west with them...

The Regensburg (table of peoples) Voelkertafel lists four Silesian Gaue (latin pagi).

significance?

990 Polish duke Mieszko Icame and attacked the Oderland , the region around the Oder river. He was aided by German troops of margrave of Meissen and by men of the bishopric of Meissen. Mieszko I first conquered the Boehmenburg (Bohemia burg) on the Oder island . This endet the free Silinger Silesia era, because from then on ( the first Christianization-take-over) Silesia was embroiled in political battles.

if everybody agrees (and they pretty much do) that the Silingii were long gone by the 10th century, what does this mean. Also -- what "free" era are you talking about? Some kind of idealized Ur-Germanic state? That is sadly just a remnant of 19th c. political and historical theory -- right along with the ideas of the noble savage... doesn't have anything to do with modern evidence (by which I mean evidence discovered recently having to do with previous times)... JHK

The significance of the four Gaue or pagi in Silesia is, that Charlemagne sectioned all Lands under Frankish rule into Gaue . A Gau was an old Germanic land entity and you can still tell many of these land entities by the remaining names of the "Gau" , earlier spelling Gawe, Gouwe ,Gow ,or "Gaeu" (Allgaeu, Thurgau or Tvrgow from 1660 map , Purger Gow, Zurich Gow, Argow and many Aue places, Aue mening meadowland. Gau and Au Gaw and aw or ow (w or vv=u in old German) always indicates that this was a Germanic Gow- ernment entity at least since Charlemagne or from before. user:H.J.

Well, H.J., if you are deriving the English word 'government' from 'gow-ernment', then it casts further doubt on the rest of your etymologies. Government is derived from the Latin gubernator, "a helmsman". Just because two things sound similar in languages that are related does not mean that the connection is meaningful. Taw's consideration of the phonetic components is more likely. --MichaelTinkler

I know what a gau is. Sometimes people take the Latin pagus and say that a gau is the Germanic form of pagus -- but that in the western kingdoms, pagus became comitatus, or county. For the Carolingians, gau and pagus are used interchangeably in the documents from the time. Comitatus was almost exclusively (but still not always) used as an military-administrative area run by a comes Latin for count (but not the same as whaat we now think of as count, because titles weren't inheritable, and count was a military and occasionally administrative office. In fact, Charlemagne had a count who generally resided at his court whose legal status was servus, meaning that he was not a free person!

I know that popular knowledge says that Charlemagne divided everything up nicely into counties and gaue -- but can you tell me which primary source says he did? I've worked with a lot of sources from the 8th through 10th century, and have never seen one that demonstrates this -- in fact in several hundred land transactions that I used for the main part of my thesis (transactions dating from 740ish to 911), pagus was used only about 10 times to describe an area, and comitatus only about 5 -- mostly after 900).

Michael Tinkler is right about gubernator, by the way. JHK

To JHK and MichaelTinkler. My Webster's Collegiate Dictionary tells me : govern : M.E. governen, O. Fr. gouvernen L. gubernare ... to exercise authority... M. E.= Middle English = ca 1150 -1475 O. Fr = Old French = 9st to 16st century

user:H.J.

To HJ: The Oxford English Dictionary tells me: [a. OF. governer (F. gouverner) = Pr., Pg. governar, Sp. gobernar, It. governare:L. gubernre to steer (a vessel), hence to direct, rule, govern, ad. Gr. kubernan to steer.] And notice that Old French took the word from Latin. It has no link to the German word for 'administrative district' UNLESS that word is descended from the same Latin word. Which it might be. Then they would be cousins. I don't have access to a German etymological dictionary in my office, or I'd check that, too. --MichaelTinkler

I don't have a full etymological German dictionary in my office either, but the kleines Wahrig says that Gau is "(urspr.) wald- und wasserreiches Gebiet" which implies that the origins of the word are Germanic, and have NOTHING to do with Latin. JHK]

I was thinking it might be an Indo-European cognate. Any chance of that? --MichaelTinkler

Possibly very far back, but I don't think so...could be wrong, I suppose :-)JHK

HJ ended a paragraph about language policy with Catholic priests saying:

, God only understands Polish.

The average priest is more likely to have said "God only understands Latin." I can easily believe that the German language was suppressed in Poland (just as I can easily believe that the Germans suppressed many other languages and even many dialects of German themselves), but to say something that silly! Not that I don't believe that some silly priest said it (disclaimer: the writer is himself a Roman Catholic), but it was hardly communist party line (they don't believe in God) or Catholic doctrine. --MichaelTinkler

To MichaelTinkler You are right about all this . And they did say it. And the Catholic priests were or are very powerful in Poland , which after all was a part of the cause of the Fall of the Iron Curtain. And the Gouwe Gawe , Gaue etc was already written down in the Gothic empire, but I can't find the exact source right now. And Old French in the 9st century was obviously Frankish under Charlemagne , who partioned the administration units of Gaue in all Frankish land, no matter what language. Since Switzerland (earlier part of the empire )also still has the Gaue names, it might be interesting to know when they were first recorded ?

I do know, that the Catholic church for a long time handled THE administration of the empire , because the newly converted 'heathens' did not read nore write. Therefore you have to look at all bishops and archbishops for early German history. At some interregnum times the archbishop of Cologne was THE higest authority in the empire.

About Latin ,in confession ,I believe, people are allowed to speak their mothertongue ? user:H.J.

First - if Polish priests said something AS representatives of the Catholic Church, there has to be documentation. Please provide. As I said above, I find it entirely believable that INDIVIDUAL priests said things like this. Individuals say stupid things like this all the time. It is NOT a doctrine or dogma of the Catholic Church that God only understands one language. If you want to give the name of a particular priest or a particular conference of bishops, feel free. Confession and *sermons*, even in the days of Latin masses, were always in the vernacular. What *may* have happened is that Polish nationalists in the clergy (note, I am not denying that people like that existed) may have insisted that inside the boundaries of the Nation of Poland the *sermon* would be preached in Polish. That would have been entirely within their rights, under Canon Law. It would have been stupid, but possible. But that's not what you said. So I will continue to delete such statements as you have made so far.

On the grounds of lay-literacy in the middle ages, you have just stepped into yet another history-trap. I am giving a paper in January at a session of the American Philological Session annual convention in which all the papers are devoted to lay literacy in the early middle ages. There was a LOT of it, user:H.J.. Much more than 19th or early 20th century historians knew. Most of the administrators of Charlemagne's empire whose names are known were laymen. So don't go playing the old 'only clerics were literate' card, because it's not true. I'll be happy to give you bibliographical references. Start with Rosamond McKitterick, The Carolingians and the Written Word (I think that's the correct title).It is. Cambridge University Press:1989. ISBN 052130539X or 0521315654 (paper. See especially c. 6, "The Literacy of the Laity" -- JHK. Some of the best evidence, by the way, comes from East Frankish areas - so there was lay literacy there, too. The rest of your argument is IRRELEVANT. The position of the Catholic Church in the middle ages has precious little to do with 1950s Poland. --MichaelTinkler

user:H.J. -- I wish you would pay more attention to what is being said before you just start throwing in your not-NPOV arguments. I spent some time researching the different viewpoints of the Origins of Silesia argument. I presented none of them as the "correct" version, but instead wrote it to demonstrate that there were three general schools of thought, which there are. The third point of view was the most neutral of the three. What you added to my explanation of that opinion essentially turned it back into the "Silesia is German" argument. Since the point of the section was to explain that there are different arguments, your additions were detrimental to the article as a whole. Also, in English, the Silinger are Silingii and the Vandali are Vandals. That's why I used those forms.

I know that this is open content, everybody can edit, stuff, but at least try to make edits that fit into or better what is written. If you must add stuff about the Polaken (?) that I saw in none of the German-Silesia origins stuff I read, then put it under argument number 1, Silesia is German.

Oh -- I note that you are still avoiding putting any thought into what I wrote above on Charlemagne and Gaues. You might want to re-read that before you continue making the same claims over and over again JHK

HJ -- I removed the paragraph between the geographical identification of Silesia and "Origins" because it makes no sense there. There are sections below for Silesian history. That paragraph should be split up under those various headings. JHK

I don't think that "Heimatvertiebene" term should be used in English Wikipedia maybe German. This article should be placed under English name and "Heimatvertiebene" deleted.
"Polanized" term is also incorrect. And it should go away.
Kpjas

Removed following from main page because it's chatty and not NPOV. Kpjas, it doesn't make the article better to change to a different non-NPOV. I'm restoring the more neutral version and hoping that we can all work together to incorporate both sides of the story JHK

In 1945 all of Silesia was taken by Soviet Union troops. Stalin (the Four Powers) assigned it Poland.

During the years 1946-1989 thousands of people claiming German ancestors moved to the Federal Republic of Germany, which then became their new home. [[:West Germany|West Germany]] welcomed warmly the German people from Poland, because of the negative demographic growth.
There were at least three reasons why people of mixed German-Polish ancestry or ethnic Germans left Silesia.
During the WWII they fled out of fear, they were often families of German soldiers, administration, policemen, secret police (Gestapo) or criminal police etc. They had quite substantiated fears that they might be persecuted by the advancing Red Army.
Soon after the WWII when Silesia was handed over back to Poland there were pressures or direct orders for Germans to repatriate to their homeland. Probably those who stayed behind claimed and pledged Polish citizenship.
Between around 1960-1989 thousands of people applied for transfer to West Germany. They tried hard to find a German grandparents or other close relatives and learn a precious little of German language to become elegible. They were not by no means Heimatvertriebene (whatever it means in English) they were rather affluency seekers and in a considerable proportion of cases they wanted to reunion with their families in Germany.
Obviously some of so called German minority chose to stay after all - they were simply too old or had a house and some real estate they were attached to.

People of mixed origin (German-Polish families or ancestors) and some German Silesians stayed in their homeland. They were exposed to some forms of discrimination by the Polish communist authorities and by some Polish priests in the years after the World War II, who told the Germans they should learn Polish.

Changing names, forbiding speak or learn German - it was true injustice but let's remember Germanisation of Polish people under the German rule that had been going on for centuries.

After the fall of the communist regime in Poland the Silesia Germans, now a minority in Poland,were guaranteed freedoms of democratic societies, they even have their representation in the Polish Parliament as well as freely elected local governments. They have German press, radio and TV programms and they can freely learn and speak German as well as cultivate German cultural activities.

Would you pinpoint my lack of NPOV and show me where is NPOV in user:H.J. inflammatory disfigurement of history ?
I used to know Silesians and studied at the Medical School in Katowice and Zabrze that has "Silesian" in the name so I have some insider look at the things. Moreover I witnessed many people and colleagues leaving for West Germany permanently and they were not by no means Heimatvertriebene.--Kpjas

No problem -- here's one example...

Changing names, forbiding speak or learn German - it was true injustice but let's remember Germanisation of Polish people under the German rule that had been going on for centuries.

Kpjas, my objections are less to your POV than to the chatty and argumentative style that you used. I don't doubt that both you and user:H.J. have valid points, but this is becoming a "who's the bigger victim" article. I think that Silesia deserves careful attention to ALL details, and it would be good to use your and user:H.J.'s arguments to illustrate the resentment that still exists over it. I think that we need an article that discusses that some ethnic Germans had to flee Silesia (perhaps as Heimatvertriebene) and others left of their own accord -- I just don't see that your and user:H.J.'s trying to trump each other on which side "really" owns Silesia makes sense. JHK

I removed this--

A Schlesien map was published in 1561 as "Silesiae Typus". Copper etching by Map maker Martin Heilwig in recent coloring. Dedicated to Nicolaus Rhedinger.

Heilwig (Neisse 1516 - 1574 Breslau) was a student of Luther and Melanchthon. He etched and published this map in 1561 in Neisse as a single sheet map. The cartouche is bearing this date, although the map at hand was published by Abraham Ortelius in the first edition of his "Theatrum Orbis Terrarum" only in 1570 and 1571. In later editions this map was replaced by a slightly modified map by the same author (posthumously). An ornate border was added and some of the geographical and spelling mistakes eliminated. Since this map was published only in the two first editions it is very rare.

--because it isn't about Schliesen (or is Schlesien? -- I'm guessing we're talking about the German name for Silesia). This is an article about Martin Heilwig. It isn't what people will be looking for if they look under Schlesien -- which they probably won't because we don't say that in English... :-( JHK

Thought this bit should be moved from text to Talk

Parenthetically, it should be noted that there is considerable debate among archaeologists and historians as to whether there is such a thing as a Celtic-Germanic people. Exhibits such as the one in Rosenheim (Bayern) certainly demonstrate that the Celts had an influence on the area; however, the movement of the Celts westward through Europe was such that there is little if any overlap between them and the Germanic tribes.

Moreover, the question of Germanic tribes and their relationship to place names is entirely chicken/egg. Traditional German historiography, most notably the works of Ranke, tend to argue a thing's inherent "Germanness" on the grounds that clearly work in a 19th century nationalist context, but hardly work for today's historians. To argue that the people living in Silesia before various Slavic peoples moved into the area were the same ethnic group as those living in Silesia in 1945 is insupportable. Of course they are not the same people. Not too many people live to be 1000, except the Israelites, of course.

Hi David -- just so you know, the first part of that is fairly intact (I wrote it) the latter is probably something edited by the Silesia crowd after I wrote it -- it was originally a good decription for why we need to look beyond 19th c. historiography. The whole thing was put in there to forestall further irredentist arguments on the parts of both camps. User:JHK

Thanks, JHK; the first half just seemed a bit odd (doubtless after the way the article had been hacked about) and the second pure argument. Personally I think the Celts do rate a mention if they were there earlier, but I suppose that's disputed by someone or other, or everyone.

More transferred from text:

By the 1880's the stream was so large, that trains could not stop in the eastern part of the land for the large number of Poles streaming in. Cities like Berlin , Breslau and many cities in the Ruhrgebiet took in large numbers of Poles in their newly developing industrial areas.

People of mixed origin (German-Polish families or ancestors) and some German Silesians stayed in their homeland, despite the severe expulsion measurements. They were exposed to discrimination by the Polish communist authorities and by Polish priests in the years after the World War II. Severe measures had already started by 1921, when parts of Silesia were given to Poland, despite referendum majority vote for Germany.

After the fall of the communist regime in Poland the Silesia Germans, now a minority in Poland,were guaranteed freedoms of democratic societies, they even have their representation in the Polish Parliament. During the years 1946-1989 thousands of people claiming German ancestors applied for transfer to the Federal Republic of Germany, which then became their new home. In part it was reunion of expelled families, Heimatvertriebene but in many cases it was also for economic reasons. West Germany welcomed warmly the German people from east of the Oder-Neisse rivers, because of the negative demographic growth. Some German Silesians stayed in their homeland, mainly in Opolskie voivoidship. They are now allowed to change their names back to the original German birth names, which were by force "Polanized" after 1945, when all personal identification such as birth certificates were taken from all expelled and from the Autochthones, the German citizens remaining in their homeland, now under Poland.

Can someone tell me why huge pieces of this are struck through? Vicki Rosenzweig

It was the "<s'>". "<s>" is the tag for strikethrough. --Brion 11:27 Aug 30, 2002 (PDT)

The below is moved from the end of the subject page due to blatant NPOV: "This last statement is especially ironic in light of actual(?) events, when terror rulership by Soviet and Polish commandoes had just begun. For a glimpse at the 1200 camps and prisons, where the German Silesians were incarcerated, tortured and murdered,and many of the remainders expelled by the Soviets and Poles, one can read a summarizing book by journalist author John Sack 'An Eye for an Eye' and UN author Alfred de Zaya's book 'A Terrible Revenge, The Ethnic cleansing of the East European Germans, 1944-1950'. Of course both of these authors represent the old "Cold war" POV, taking things out of context, trying to minimize the Polish tragedy during WW II, and making it comparable with the small scale "incidents" (compared to 6-year Nazi occupation of Poland) during the "German Expulsion". More about that in Richard Lukas book - "Forgotten Holocaust", also "Heart of Europe" by Norman Davies." Vicki Rosenzweig

Who determined that it was a "fact" that the Silingii Vandals weren't Germans? Considering they spoke a West Germanic language similar to Gothic and were identified by everyone as a Germanic people throughout their history, I wonder who is engaging in revisionism now. I won't change it, but I'd like to see some evidence that they were anything other than Germanic. John

John -- I don't know who changed it, but I'm reverting this to the nice paragraph I wrote. JHK

I think we can dismiss John Sacks as a source (see An Eye For An Eye: The Untold Story of Jewish Revenge Against Germans in 1945). --Ed Poor

Ed -- thanks for the attempted rewrite. I cut it and replaced it with a more detailed version I wrote (after considerable research) months ago, that somehow got removed and partially and incorrectly rewritten. Hope it's not a problem JHK

Two notes: it's generally accepted that it was Mieszko I in 990, not Boleslaw in 999 who conquered Silesia. Second, i wish to add note that last independent Silesian duchy ceased to exists in 1368 (death of Boleslaw II the small). [[user::szopen]]

Another thing: number of cities chartered on German law is misguiding, because it may lead to believe that this cities were founded by Germans. Which is simply not true. Since German law was more advanced, then many existing cities were just moved to new law (relocated), new villages even with Polish settlers were founded on German law. Silesian ruling class also was quite divided. A lot of Silesian princes was Polish from language and customs, and a lot adopted German. szopen

The introductory statement on Silesia's historical belonging

Currently (after my last edit) the two first paragraphs states:

Silesia (German: Schlesien, Polish: Śląsk, Czech: Slezsko) is a province of Poland, located in the south of the country between the Odra and Vistula rivers.

Silesia became a province of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation in the 12th century, with a predominantly ethnic Polish population, thereafter mostly belonging to the Empire as parts of other parts of the empire, as Bohemia, Austria, Prussia and its successors. Since the end of World War II Silesia lies almost entirely within the borders of Poland, with the exception of the Těšín Silesia, which is part of the Czech Republic, and Goerlitz Silesia, which is part of Germany.

This is not good. It ought to be abreviated, and better unified into one short paragraph, leaving all peculiarities to the section on history.

Please note that I do not at all disagree on the content, only on the distribution of confusing factoids (i.e. confusing for a lesser knowing reader)between the introductory paragraph and the history section.
--Ruhrjung 06:05, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Hello Ruhrjung,

Your input is appreciated, but you knowledge needs an update.

The sentence Silesia became a province of the Holy Roman Empire of German Nation in the 12th century is clearly FALSE. Silesia was a province fought for by the dukes of Poland and Bohemia. There were times that Bohemia and Poland were paying tribute to the Emperors (from 10th century) and as some historians say Poland and Bohemia 'were part' of the Roman Empire.

So you can argue that Silesia was also a part of the Roman Empire (and it doesn't matter if and when Poland or Bohemia served as intermnediaries.) When Wratislaw was crowned King of Bohemia and Poland in 1085 the feudal tree was as follows: Empire-Bohemia-Poland-Silesia

BUT: 1) it is not true that Silesia was a province of the Roman Empire 2) it is not true that Silesia was a province of the Holy Roman Empire 3) it is not true that Silesia was a province of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation 4) it is not true that Silesia became part of the Roman Empire in the 12th century (even if we assume that it belonged to the Empire in this period) - noting special happened in the 12th century to Silesia.

Please consult any modern history textbook before you insert such misleading information into this article.

--caius2ga

I agree perfectly with you until your fourth point above, and I would not believe that we in reality have much of an disagreement there either. The important question is how to formulate a wording which in few words and (if possible in one sentence) harbours the most relevant details without distorting the truth too much.

What about:

Silesia was situated at the eastern border of, and increasingly associated to, the Holy Roman Empire for most of the 2nd millenium. Since 1945...

--Ruhrjung 07:44, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

And it was later a Prussian and German province, not just associated. Nico 14:19, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ruhrjung wrote: This is the English language wikipedia; the river is in English predominantly known as Vistula, no need to supply the German name of the river, in particular not in the article introduction)

I've never heard about the name Vistula. Where I live, surely not in Germany, Weichsel is always called by the German name. The point was just to be informative.

And please do not remove without discussing. Schlesien was also a Prussian and German province for a long time, and it should be briefly mentioned in the introduction Nico 14:23, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm glad to see you've found this talk page!

I see also, slightly surpriced, that you don't hold the First Reich to have been German. ;-))

But, back to business:
How much do you want to crowd together in the introductory paragraph?
Dosen't this better fit under the heading History? If you make the chunk too big, no-one will ever read it - let alone the rest of the article.
See further:

You are very keen to see it explicitely expressed in the first paragraph that Schlesien has been a German province. At the moment, after many revisions, you've modified your position to accept:

Silesia was situated at the eastern border of, and increasingly associated to, the Holy Roman Empire (of German Nation), before it became a German Province.

This gives the impression of tautologism, and it calls for the listing of all other entities which Schlesien has belonged to, which was exactly what I tried to edit away, ...which you must have understood if you have studied the changes at all!

With your insistence on the very words: Schlesien was a German province one could equally well go back to the wording:

Silesia (Polish: Śląsk, Czech: Slezsko, German: Schlesien) is a province of Poland, located in the south of the country between the Odra and Vistula rivers.

Silesia has ~~been a province of~~ belonged to/been a part of Poland, Bohemia, Austria, Prussia, the German Empire, the Weimar Republic and the Third Reich. Since the end of World War II Silesia lies almost entirely within the borders of Poland, with the exception of the Těsín area, which is part of the Czech Republic, and the Görlitz area, which is part of Germany.

By the way:

Is your mother tongue English?
Is your current surrounding anglophone?
Is maybe you professional language English?

If not, I think you should trust Google more than what you hear there where you live.
--Ruhrjung 14:58, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Silingii Vandals

Question: Who determined that it was a "fact" that the Silingii Vandals weren't Germans?

Answer: The Common Historians Commission for Schoolbooks in Germany and Poland working in the 1970s and 1980s has agreed to this statement:

"East Germanic/Teutonic tribes (Goths, Vandals, etc) who lived in Central-Eastern Europe inc. Poland WERE NOT ancestors of present-day Germans" (citation from my memory, but I will chack it out)

--caius2ga

Intro paragraph: location of Silesia

There are 2 main versions of the location of Silesia in the introductory paragraph: 1) Silesia is a province of Poland, located in the south of the country between the Oder and Vistula rivers. 2) Silesia is a province in south-western Poland and north Czechia/Czech Republic, located along the upper and middle Odra/Oder river.

First I cannot see by any means why Silesia should be described as lying between Odra and Vistula. If you look at the map it is clear that Silesia lies on both banks of the Odra river, and the information about Vistula is very misleading.

Second there's still a considerable part of Silesia that belongs to the Czech Republic, and this also should be clearly stated in the intoduction.

Third, I don't think that we should tell the reader about the Goerlitz area in Germany - these regions are historical parts of Lusatia and were joined to Silesia in 1815-27, fro a relatively short time, when the Lusatia was disbanded and distrubuted among Brandenburg, Saxony and Silesia.

Grzes of Poznan (caius2ga) 21:23, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

hmm ... Görlitz Area 130 years part of the Prussia´s province Silesia ( incl. Nazi Regime) " a relatively short time" ??? An anachronistic & ahistorical conclusion. The old historic region Lusatia was earlier divided than at the beginning of 19th century ( til today the Lusatian protestants around Cottbus belong to "Land Brandenburg" & the Lusatian catholics to "Freistaat Sachsen"). The move of the Görlitz Area to the new styled Prussian province Schlesien was a pure administrative & technocratic decision ( similar as in the exeample of Prussian province "Sachsen Anhalt - mixing a central part of the old "Mark Brandenburg" the "Altmark" with old ( as Magdeburg) & new acquisitions ( former Saxon territories). But as result of such and similar decisions after 1 -2 generations people felt like inhabitants of the new styled region. 80.135.213.181 - April 21st 2006

Intro paragraph: what Silesia is now and what it was

Controversial sentence: For most of the 2nd millennium, Silesia was situated at the eastern border of, and increasingly associated to, the Holy Roman Empire (of German Nation), before it became a German Province.

In my opinion the introductory paragraph should say to the reader 1) what Silesia is now, and now what it was in the past. 2) only solid, proved, non-contoversial and essensial content.

ad 1) My proposal is (compiled from various versions): Silesia is a province in south-western Poland and north Czechia, located along the upper and middle Odra/Oder river. Because of its rich history the region has produced a unique cultural mix based on the local Silesian elements with heavy Polish, Czech and German influences. Today the region is inhabited by the Poles, Silesians, Germans, Czechs and Moravians.

Silesia lies directly adjacent to Saxony, Little Poland, Greater Poland, and Brandenburg – and very near to Berlin and Krakow. The territory is now divided into the voivodships of Lower Silesian Voivodship (capital: Wroclaw), Opole Voivodship (capital: Opole), and Silesian Voivodship (capital: Katowice).

Silesia is a resource rich and populous region. Coal and iron can both be found there, and a substantial munfacturing industry has grown up, but in post-communist times the outdated nature of many of the facilites have lead to problems. It is also a good agricultural area producing grains, potatoes, and sugar beets.

The information of the Silesian connections to various states including the Holy Roman Empire should be moved to the history section, where this can be explained fully in detail and showing various contradictory concepts

ad 2) Information about the Silesia's relation to the Holy Roman Empire (of German Nation) and Germany is very misleading, controversial and biased.

Silesia was a province of Bohemia and Poland for most of time (and this is essential), Silesia was never a province of the Roman Empire (this is simply false). After 1742 it was a province of Prussia, and after 1870 a province of Germany (with small area remaining in Bohemia). After WWI Silesia was divided between Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia; after 1945 between Poland and Czechoslovakia, and after 1990 Poland and Czech Republic.

Summary

1) Silesian rich history cannot be summarized just in one paragraph so it should be explained fully in history section.

2) Summarizing Silesian history just to its links to Germany is very biased, misleading and not NPOV.

Grzes of Poznan (caius2ga) 22:58, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I disagree. Historically, Silesia is mainly German (and in my opinion still a (occupied) part of Germany), and it have to be mentioned in the introduction. Nico 13:48, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Of course one might view it this way, but this is your POV. I agree, personally, that it would be bad if the German aspects were edited away from the initial (and neccessarily very brief) introduction, but I dare say that people like you, Nico, must demonstrate a much more constructive approach in order to avoid such a mishap.
--Ruhrjung 14:05, 20 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I've tried to make a compromise also the Poles could accept, and I would never write in this article that Silesia is an occupied part of Germany, though this is my personal opinion. But the Poles, especially User:Wik, also have to cooperate, and accept something of what I and the rest of the non-Poles write. Nico 13:52, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I have protected this article at the request of User:Nico. Evil saltine 14:00, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Would you please revert it to a pre-edit war version then (Oct 15 or earlier). --Wik 14:12, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

The proper time to unprotect the article is when you have arrived at an compromise here at the talk page. You wouldn't like the version of October 9, would you?

So now it's time to start to talk with eachother!

--Ruhrjung 15:57, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It is obvious that there won't be a compromise with Nico, who is pushing a German-nationalist agenda. Maybe it's best to protect the page for a while, but surely not on Nico's version. The rule is to revert to the last "stable" version (maybe the last from August, which stood unchanged for two months). --Wik 16:26, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

Nico's version? The last version by Ruhrjung, which I reverted to? By the way, if someone should be banned, it is the vandal User:Wik. Nico 21:13, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Unless you get him banned, that's what you, and we, have to do. Btw: I contest the demonstrated bias to be German. It seems more as a caricature.--Ruhrjung 16:49, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Feel free to talk to him. But I know when someone is following an agenda. The only possible outcomes here are: 1) he is banned, 2) he gives up, 3) the page stays protected indefinitely. (I know it's not a "German" bias. That's why I said "German-nationalist".) --Wik 16:56, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

I agree. The current version is bad. The sentence could be added in history paragraph, although still would be silly (for long part being part of HRE meant nothing for Sielsia, since first they were fiefs of Bohemia, and later up to 1525 were ruled by kings of Polish origins)

User:Szopen

The origin of a dynasty is of course not totally irrelevant, but consider the origins of the current dynasties of Norway, Denmark or even UK. Where, and by whom, a ruler is born is now less important than to whom he is allegiant. For the land it's more important with whom you trade and from where you take your examples.

--Ruhrjung 16:14, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, then for example in XVI century the border wa almost non-existent between Greater Poland and the northern part of Silesia, and they were part of one big early industrial centre producing clothes. A lot of Silesians were studiying in Cracow, for long time it was part of Polish church province, first Polish printed text was printed in Silesia. Also ealier, first recorded Polish sentence. What about this? szopen

Edit War

Would someone please explain why we had to protect this page? Preferably, each side summarize the views of their opponents in a way that your opponents will agree sums up their view, before stating your own view. Okay, if that's too hard, just summarize your own views and why you keep reverting your 'opponents' changes :-) --Uncle Ed 15:55, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Well, Nico has admitted above that he considers Silesia a Polish-occupied German province, a view that is marginal even in Germany. 10 of 15 external links in his version are German (mainly reactionary irredentist organizations). I'm just trying to NPOV it. --Wik 16:26, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

Stop with your lies. I have never, and would never, write this in the article, as I wrote above. And I have not reverted to my version, but to the last version by Ruhrjung, which I support. Nico 21:09, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

May I suggest that the controversial material is removed when we discuss and until we resolve the matter. As I have pointed out previously Silesia lies along the Odra/Oder river and not between Odra and Vistula. Holy Roman Empire (of German Nation) didn't exist in most of the 2nd millenium. So the first remark is simply false, the secong is false and nationalistic. Both are very misleading to the readers. --caius2ga 17:26, Oct 21, 2003 (UTC)

Caius wrote: "Holy Roman Empire (of German Nation) didn't exist in most of the 2nd millenium." Wow! And you are talking about removing "controversial" material? Nico 21:09, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What's controversial about this? HRE of German nation didn't exist in XII, XIII etc century until XVI. Earlier it was Roman empire, Holy Roman empire, and the name "HRE of German nation" was introduced in XVI century. szopen

So what? Why are you Polacken making yourself so silly? Changing the name a bit does not make it another state. The current name of Poland was also first introduced in the 20th century! Then, I could argue that Poland didn't exist before that. Nico

Your style of discussion is unacceptable. You should apologise for your gaffe or stop discussing at all. -- Cordyph 08:05, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

So, Polacken now? So it is clear now that you are not caring about historical truth. You are simply unable to grasp fact that Poles may have right sometimes.

Can't you understand that? You can't write that for most of the millenium Silesia was close to HRE of German nation, because it was close to German states, to Germany maybe, to HRE, but HRE of German nation is a SPECIFIC term. It's like writing that Silesia in XII was in republic in Poland and hen argue that state is the same. Moreover, HRE is NOT the same as Germany. Read the HRE article in wikipedia. You are simply missing our point or you pretend you are missing it. The truth is, that German states were keeping Silesia for about 400 years in this millenium, Poland about 350 years and Bohemia for about 250. If you are counting Bohemia as German state, then i wonder what is your definition of German state. Poland probably also is German state, since it from time to time was part of HRE too.

To which countries Silesia belonged ???

After 20 years of historical studies and research, this is my summary of Silesian history in the last millenium:

9th century: the area of future Silesia was inhabited by various Western Slavonic tribes of "Sleenzane, Dadodesani, Opolini, Lupiglaa, Golensizi" and maybe others. The Sleenzane and Opolini were the strongest tribes and leaders of the federation (and gave name to the whole region), which was probably part of Greater Moravian State, but this in not sure.

The name of Silesia was limited to future Lower Silesia, while the future Upper Silesia was called Opole land. The boundary between these two areas was the great cutoff in the forests.

10th century: The Silesian and Opolian federations were in the Bohemian/Czech sphere of influence. In ca. 990 Silesia was occupied by Mieszko I of Poland. In year 1000 this annexation was confirmed by the Emperor and the Pope by establishing bishopric of Wroclaw belonging to the Polish ecclesiastical province of Gniezno. Probably at this time the name Silesia was extended also to the the Opole region.

1038-1050 Silesia belongs to Bohemia. In 1054 the Emperor decides that Silesia belongs to Poland, but the Polish dukes will have to pay tribute to Bohemia. The tribute is payed to ca. the end of the century.

1050-1335/48 Silesia belongs to Poland. In years 1085-1092 Vratislaw II(I) is crowned the king of Bohemia and Poland. In years 1138-1320 Silesia is semi-independent duchy being a political and economic leader in the unification of Poland. The Silian dukes are sure they have the right for Polish crown becauce their are the olded branch of Polish monarchs. Henry IV dies in 1290 almost having achieved the Polish crown. The dukes invite new settlers from Germany. In a letter to the Pope in 1312, the German citizens of Wroclaw have no doubt that theit city lies in the Kingdom of Poland.

1300-1306 Venceslaus II and Venceslaus III are kings of both Bohemia and Poland. The following years witness a controversy who should be the Polish king: Luxemburgs of Bohemia or Ladislaus of Cuiavia (crowned Polish king 1320). The matter is decided in the treaties in 1335/1348. The Bohemian kings resign their claims/rights of Polish throne and retain most of Silesia. The Polish kings retain the Polish crown and resing their claims/rights to Silesia.

1335/48-1742 Silesia belongs to Bohemia, and from 1526 to the Austrian Habsburgs. There are some attempts by Polish kings to re-gain Silesia, but they have no long-time effects. Every pretender to the Polish crown from 1386 to 1771 has to make a promise that he will make everyting to get-back the lost lands (Silesia nd Pomerania) to become a king of Poland.

1742-1945 Most of Silesia belongs to Prussia and later Germany united by Prussia. Small areas in the south-east remain in Bohemia and Poland. After WWI and a popular plebiscite Upper Silesia is divided between Germany, Poland and Czechoslovakia.

from 1945 most of Silesia belongs to Poland as a result of Allied powers decisions after World War II. Small portion of Silesia belongs to Czechoslovakia and later Czech Republic.

As you can see the history of Silesia is primarily a Polish-Czech controversy, and have little to do with the German state (it is even cotroversial what what was the German state).

1) It is true that Silesia had a significat and increasing ethnic German population, but this the same in the other ptrovinces of Poland and Bohemia. Ethnic relations cannot be extended to political relations.

2) Silesia was a province of Bohemia(Czechia) and/or Poland most of the last millenium, and was never a province of Roman Empire. Silesia belonged to the Roman Empire, but always as a province of Poland and/or Bohemia. Belonging to the Empire is not the same as beiing a province of the Empire.

3) Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation didn't exist before the 16th century, so the any such remarks to its existance in early Silesian history are simply false.

4) Roman Empire, and later Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation should be considered as supranational political bodies consisting of independent states and nations and cannot be linked to any one nation or state.

Grzes of Poznan (caius2ga) 17:18, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Silesia in 2nd millenium

In my opinion the present stage of the intro paragraph is unacceptable. It is unnaceptable because of NPOV policy. And it is unacceptable because of simple historical truth represented by the German, Polish and other historians.

Silesia [...] is a province of Poland [...] For most of the 2nd millennium, Silesia was situated at the eastern border of, and increasingly associated to, the Holy Roman Empire (of German Nation). Since the end of World War II, Silesia lies almost entirely within the borders of Poland, with exception for the Těs<caron>ín area, which is part of the Czech Republic, and the Görlitz area, which is part of Germany.

If I knew nothing about Silesia, and had read this paragraph, the first impression would be that Silesia belonged to Germany for most of the 2nd millenium and after 1945 it lies almost entirely within the borders of Poland.

This is simly false and anything but Neutral Point of View.

Grzes of Poznan (caius2ga) 17:45, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No! It's actually correct. Silesia was part of and belonged to different German states for most of the 2nd millenium, and after 1945 it lies almost entirely within the borders of Poland. Nico 22:55, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm trying to explain to you that Roman Empire was not a German state. Kingdom of Germany belonged to the Roman Empire. However it's true the the German Kings usually but not always were the Roman Emperors. caius2ga 3:51 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Silesia and Roman Empire

In my opinion history of the Roman Empire is very interesting, but it should not be discussed in the introductory paragraph os Silesia article.

First of all it was initially Roman Empire (and not German Empire or the RE of the German Nation). Around year 1000 and in the following centuries there were two political ideas behind the concept of the Empire.

1) Renovatio Imperium Romanorum represented by Otto III The political idea was the restoration of the ancient Roman Empire which should cover all Christian world, and consist primarily of several equal elements: Kingdom of Germany, Kingdom of Gallia (France, Burgundy), Kingdom of Roma (Italy), Kingdom of Sclavonia (Poland, Bohemia, maybe Hungary)

2) Renovatio Imperium Francorum represented by Henry II The political idea was the restoration of the ancient Roman Empire which should cover all Christian world under the hegemony of Germany.

History of the 2nd millenium in Central Europe is the history of competition between these two ideas, among the other important matters. The name of Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation was introduce in 16th century nad was the victory of the second idea.

In my opinion history of the relations between Silesia, Bohemia, Poland, Germany and Roman Empire, is very interesting, but it should not be discussed in the introductory paragraph of Silesia article.

Grzes of Poznan (caius2ga) 18:12, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Yes, and the name The Republic of Poland (Rzeczpospolita Polska) was first introduced in 1990. Then, Schlesien has belonged to the Republic of Poland only for 13 years. - This is just silly! Like it or not, but Schlesien was first a part of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (with it's different names), and then belonged to Germany until 1945, it was a German province, just like any of the provinces of Poland today. This is not a "discussion", but an historical fact, and you cannot deny it. Polish revisionism and lies have nothing in a serious encyclopedia to do. Nico 22:50, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The name 'Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodów' The Commonwelth of Two Nations (Poles and Lithuanians) was introduces in the 16th century, and was officialy abandoned after Poland's partitions in 1772, 1793, 1795

The name 'Rzeczpospolita Polska' was introduced in 1919 and was used by the Polish State (1919-1939), by the Polish Government in Exile in Paris and London (1939-1990), by the Temporary Government in 'communist' Poland (1944-55), and it is used today by the new Polish goverments which continue tradition of both government in Warsaw and London.

caius2ga 3:51 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's quite different with the Roman Empire was not a state, but rather a political body of several states, Germany belonged to RE, Bohemia belonged to RE, Poland belonged to RE. Roman Empire was not Germany.

Roman Empire was a international organization, like NATO and European Union, but when more and more countries were seceding from the federation the name was changed to Roman Empire of German Nation. But it still was an international organization of sovereign states like Austria, Prussia, Bavaria, Baden, Wurtemberg.

History of the Roman Empire is closely linked to the history of Germany but it's not the same.

caius2ga 4:10 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The main question

The main question is: What is Silesia referring to? The information the readers are searching for, and what they probably also wish to read already in the introduction is: A historical Central-European region inhabited by Poles and Germans, a formerly German province, a province of Poland today (since 1945).

Since Silesia has been German (referring to all German states during history) for almost a millenium, it should be mentioned in the introduction.

Nico 00:18, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Nico, Caius just explained to you since it was not belonging to German states for almost mnillenium, unless you consider Bohemia a German state (Czechs, i'm sure would kind a disagree). Caius also is tryign to explain to you that HRE was not the same as Germany for centuries, and HRE of German Nation didn't exist in medieval times since term was introduced in XVI century. German (Austria, Prussia, Germany) history is from 1525 to say 1945, which gives you less than 400 years. Polish periods were around 360 (from 990 to 1320-68 plus 60 years after 1945 with some breaks), Bohemian around 250. Therefore it would be correct to say that for _great_ part of Silesian history it belonged to Germany, then second the largest part Poland, then Bohemia. Unless, again, you consider Bohemia GERMAN state, in which would be interesting to hear from our Czech friends what they are thinking about. szopen

To be exact: former Polish province, next Bohemian(Czech) province, next Austrian-Czech province, next Prussian-Austrian-Czech province, next German-Austrian-Czech province, next German-Polish-Czechoslovak province, next Polish-Czechoslovak province, next Nazi-German province, next Polish-Czechoslovak province, next Polish-Czech province

caius2ga 3:48 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

What is "German"

I need to get it said, although I due to my work will be mostly absent from wikipedia for a week or so, that I most certainly do not regard myself as in any way a Nationalist, Revisionist or Suprematist, but reading much of the statements above I see a strong anti-German need to re-define German in such a way that influence of German customs, German laws, German trade, German migration, and/or German conquest is given another lable than (seemingly: any other lable than) German. I can't help to regrett this.

I am in no ways proud of what could be called my ethnical ancestors' medieval Drang nach Osten – but I think we all are gained from calling a spade for a spade. It's notable that the contemporary German influences in northern direction are uncontroversial (with a possible exception for Schleswig).

I do not agree to statements of the kind that HRE wasn't German, or wasn't German before the Reformation, or that Austria wasn't or isn't German, and I can't help the suspicion that some contributors to the discussion above tries to define Germany to be equal to German Prussia and its successor states. That is, in my sincerest opinion, either a grave misunderstanding or rather blunt propaganda.
--Ruhrjung 08:25, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

You are wrong.

Big words for small mouth, I would say.--Ruhrjung 08:47, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your kind words [[User::szopen]]

If HRE was the same as HRE of German nation and the same as Germany, then Poland was part of Germany in XI century in some sense, large chunk of Italy, Bohemia etc.

But for heaven's sake, I do specifically not say that they are in any way "the same", not even in "some sense". Please try to distinguish between the concept of "German" and of "Germany".--Ruhrjung 08:47, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Could you please check the Holy Roman Empire article please? I did. I haven't contributed to its development, but i hope that people with knowledge did. And I am basing on this article

I am for historical accuracy. "close to HRE" or "part of HRE" is true. "close to HRE of German Nation" is not, sicne the term was introduced in 1515 or so.

Also, using that term would imply that being part of HRE meant that Silesia indeed was part of Germany - which is Nico for example implying. [[User::Szopen]]

BTW, i left wikipedia some times ago and forgto... what was the shortcut for inserting your username? three tildas inside of bracket paranthesis?

Which is not true, i guess. We are also not arguing, at least not me, that Germany was non-existing before reformation. We are arguing for historical truth. Fact is that while many German historians would argue otherwise, cities and villages located on "German" law were not NEW cities (e.g. Poznan) or even if they were new, they were not always founded by Germans. Germans were settling in cities before they were relocated on German law. Also German historian tend to stress Polish losses after Mongol invasion (which were in fact strong only in Little Poland) to then stress fact that German were flooding the country and building it anew (which again, is not true). I Have respect for German culture, even if I know it only from Goethe, Schiller ("the glove" or whatever it's called in english is one of my favourite poems, as is Goethe's king of Elves) and Gunther Grass :-). The need for correction is not form anti-Germannes, but from our fundemental belief, that history presented by Germans is not the only truth and Polish version, usually ignored, should have the same impact on article as others. Heck, check my contribution to article on Bloody Sunday in Bydgoszcz before you will attack me for my anti-Germanness and chauvinism or whatever szopen

I agree with much of what you write and stand for. For instance all of the above.--Ruhrjung 08:47, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I haven't gotten an answer to my question, so I'll try to guess: you guys are all arguing about whether Silesia is "German" or "Polish" -- that is, did it ever rightfully "belong" to Germany, Poland, some other country, or (I dunno) to itself?

Is that all this is about? Because if it is, just say that certain countries "claimed" Silesia during certain historical periods. We can all agree that country X "claimed" Silesia in the Nth century. We don't need to decide whether that claim was "true" or "valid" or "correct" or "right". --Uncle Ed 20:25, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No, this is about the usual when nationalistic anti-German Poles is involved. They simply are trying to belittle and deny the history of Silesia (Schlesien) over the last millennium, when Silesia was a part of Heiliges Röhmisches Reich (deutscher Nation) and later a German province. First they expelled millions of Germans, and now they are trying to deny their history. Nico 20:37, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

No, this is about certain revisionist who is so blind that he is unable to grasp that his sentences "Silesia was for most of the millenium German" and similar are simply wrong, unless he counts Bohemia as German state or thinks that HRE is the same as Germany. When pointed that HRE of German Nation did not existed in XII century (term is from XVI century) he simply ignored it and kept ranting. Nobody is trying to belittle or ignore anything, but we are refusing to wrote article basing only on German version. German historians are biased, as are Polish. Basing only on one version will be NPOV and against wikipedia traditions. Polish speakers BTW were still more than 30% of population of Silesia in the beginning of XIX century. [[User::szopen]]

From Vandalism in progress (discussion of User:Wik)

Now User:Wik removed the discussion of himself from this page. Nico

User:Wik vandalized Silesia. He removed the link to the article at another Wikipedia, which I added, and he removed the external link to the German-Silesian organisation, when leaving links to 4 Polish-nationalist organisations. Additionally, he replaced the introdudution with an extreme Polish-revisionist version. I and other users like Ruhrjung have tried to make a compromise also the Polish nationalists could accept, but this user is clearly just a vandal, reverting for having fun. Could someone protect Silesia? Nico 19:56, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

User:Nico keeps trying to fit his German-nationalist views into Silesia, for example by listing the German name of this Polish region before the Polish one, and filling the external links section with links to reactionary German organizations. If it is decided to protect the page, please don't forget to revert to a stable version. --Wik 20:08, Oct 22, 2003 (UTC)

User:Wik is lying. I invite anyone to have a look on my last version and the vandal Wik's version. The Polish name is mentioned first, see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=Silesia&oldid=1607931 . But for that sake, why shouldn't the German be? I guess that the German name is in more common use in English than the Polish! Nico 20:19, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Once again, please keep discussions about edit wars and differences of POV to appropriate talk pages or report them at Wikipedia:Edit wars in progress. This page is for reporting vandalism and nothing else. Kosebamse 20:16, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

This is not about different point of views. User:Wik is clearly just a vandal. Nico 20:19, 22 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Nico, you are vandal. This is the same as about Poznan. You kept ranting that Poznan is Posen because it was given to Poland in 1945 by Stalinist band and had 60% of population. We showed information that in 1910 according to Prussian census Poznan had about 58% of Polish population, and in the beginning of the century more than 60%. Of course, i wouldn't care to remind that Poznan was won for Poland because of succesful uprising after WWI, which received almost noen supoprt from external and which succeed because Greater Poland population, with exception of some cities, was overhelmingly supporting uprising, funding huge (relatively for GP size) army. Calling those brave men, who were fighting for their homeland (which again had 65% of Polish population in whole province) Stalinist band is clearly note of your attitude to Polishness. Of course, Germans may be majority in Poznan in 1945, because Nazis expelled about 100.000 Poles from the city alone and confiscated their property. I'm sorry, not Poles. Polacken. [[User::Szopen|szopen]]

Lies as usual from the Poles. I invite anyone to have a look on the history of the Poznan article, which shows that I've never tried to rename it into Posen. Opposite the Polacken, I've tried to start a discussion of the Rangfolge of the names at the Talk page, where I also conclude that the English transcribed Poznan is the first name to be mentioned, then Posen as an alternative English form and then the Polish with the accent! Nico 11:44, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I told you above, that your wording is unacceptable. You may explain your opinion, but you must not insult other editors. Stop this childish behaviour, this is contrary to Wikipedia spirit. -- Cordyph 12:01, 23 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I'm refering to following sentences:

"It is undoubtly a German city too, in modern times historically (since 1793) belonging to Germany, and with a majority of German population (60 %) until it was occupied by Stalin and his gang, and given to Poland, when the majority of the inhabitants of the city were expelled. Nico 19:05, 19 Oct 2003 (UTC) " "To summarize: Posen was a German city most of the time from 1793-1945, belonging to different German states, and with a majority of German population, which was expelled or murdered by the Stalinists in 1945."

Will you admit that you were wrong? No, of course, we are Polacken. Although some of data came from Prussian sources, still, it was probably those polacken conspiration. You gave that sentences when starting the discussion whether or not Poznan should also have "posen" as alternate name. Not to mention that most first dozen references on google, which you used as proof of Egnlish usage, has reference to dr. posen, posen in michigan, posen in illinois , famous fashion designer zac posen and similar then the number of references will be much lower and remaining cases are usually dealing with history of the city (hence, formerly known as...) and not present times. [[User::Szopen|szopen]]