Talk:Prussia

Cleanup

I have attempted to clean up the language of the article to make it more readable. I have not attempted to reorganize the layout of the page, rewrite or condense anything, or correct factual errors or bias.

Jeff 00:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have simultaneously made edits (also formatting and content), and hopefully both versions are now merged without too much collateral damage. --Matthead 03:47, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Here is an entertaining website [2] 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)

Holy Roman Empire of German Nation (1000 till 1806) = First Reich

German Empire (1871 till 1918) = Second Reich

"Third German Empire" so called by Hitler even he hasn't been a Kaiser (1933 till 1945) = Third Reich

--Noj

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:

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]. Here is Edmund Stoiber and his wife at the Deutschlandtreffen der Ostpreußen in Leipzig. [4] [5]. And the Interior Minister of Brandenburg [6]

Can User:Adam Carr consider presenting arguments for the extensive delinking and other changes of the initial section[7]?
--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], 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. 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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)

Gaue

Is it worthwhile listing which Gaue replaced the "Prussian Free State" (Freistaat Preußen)? The Roach 12:08, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

My understanding was that the "Free State of Prussia" continued to officially exist throughout the Nazi period, and was only officially abolished in 1947. The Gaue were not government administrative districts, but administrative districts of the Nazi Party, which is quite different. john k 18:19, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Either way, I mean is it worthwhile mentioning which ones covered that area? The Roach 06:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No. Adam 10:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Etymology of "Prussia"

Tydaj, I don't think your sentence

"The name Prussia derives from the little known fact that Prussia existed prior to Russia."

is a good replacement of

"The name Prussia derives from the Prussians, a Baltic people related to the Lithuanians."

perhaps you could try to clarify here what it is you are trying to say?

The Roach 06:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think that was meant to be a joke, tho not a very funny one. Adam 10:06, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not a joke. It is one of so called "folk etymology", which was once quite popular. In other words, while this etymology is false, is not created in XX century, and the name Borussia (Porussia) was explained in the same way as it is in Pomorze (near the sea) Pojezierze (near the lakes) or Pogorze (Near the mountains), Polesie (near the forests) etc etc etc - so, of course the temptation to explain Prusy as Po-Rusy, that is "near Russia" is quite natural for any Slavic speaker. Not sure whether this folk etymology needs to be mentioned in the article, but again, it was quite popular, and I may, given time, even search for authors mentioning it (if ANYONE would be interested, because if not, it would not be worth my time). Szopen 10:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Disgruntled Eastern Populations

I wonder about the use of the phrase "troublesom Polish minority" whether it should more accurately be "disgruntled polish minority". It might be pertinent in the same vein to mention that Ermeland in East Prussia held the disgruntled catholic population who empathised with the Polish minority even polanizing themselves, and that this along with the East-prussian league of the Just (reorganised as the Communist league in 1847) seperatists, led to the rebellion in East-prussia in 1848. Afterall if it were not for the drive to crush these disgruntled revolutionaries (whether Pole, Catholic or Communist), the Liberals would not have gotten their way leading to Prussia's vastest period.The Roach 12:46, 31 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Prussian Military training/history

Very intense article I must say. I was hoping to learn more about the Prussian military forces and how their military power came about. My great grandfather was a Prussian army captain who came to the US around 1870-1880. He spoke Polish at home and was Roman Cathloic. His last name ended in "ski". I have no idea what part of Prussia he came from, but my grandmother told me his unit he was in command of all spoke Polish. My grandmother told me that the Prussian military was very brutal and harsh and that my great grandfather left the army because of this. I would like to learn more about the Prussian military and how they operated etc. I came to wikipedia to learn about this subject and I was amazed after reading the discussion page. Wasn't wikipedia created to help people learn and not to pick fights?

Intro date

Part of the introduction currently reads:

An independent state, from the 17th century until 1871;

Shouldn't 17th century be changed to 1701 (foundation of the Kingdom of Prussia)? Olessi 20:12, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Prussian state (then Ducal Prussia) became independent from Poland in the Treaty of Welawa in 1660 in 17th century. Space Cadet 02:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It was released from Polish sovereignty, but it exchanged that sovereignty for that of Brandenburg. To me, an independent state means that it had complete internal and external sovereignty. I don't believe that Ducal Prussia had such freedom. I propose the following:

A fief known as Ducal Prussia ruled by the Hohenzollern dynasty, first under the sovereignty of Poland and then of Brandenburg;
The entire Hohenzollern realm, whether within or outside Germany proper;
An independent state, from 1701 until 1871;

Olessi 05:03, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in! Space Cadet 15:04, 14 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rise of Prussia

Analyze the military, political and social factors that account for the Rise of Prussia between 1640-1786

   Specific examples would help- thank you

A prussian Soldier has little to do with the landscape of Prussia...it would be pointless to merge the two articles--New Guy The 17th 05:32, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removed two links

I removed these two links:

[9] Forum in Prussian
Nērtiks. Website in Prussian

I think the former is just pure linkspam and the latter...I actually don't know what the latter is, but it doesn't look like anything useful. I believe both links are there only for promotion.

Any objections..? --Thorri 14:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "Original" Prussians

Were people who originally inhabited the area of Prussia of Germanic tribes?

I realise that there is a dispute, but why would they have been so "loving" of Germanic affairs, such as wanting North Germanic territory, etc. Unless of course there was a such a large Germanic population in Prussia that they were considered a Germanic nation, which is what I have read.

Again, i'm asking:

(1.) Original "Prussian" tribes were German? (2.) Original "Prussian" tribes were Caucasion, but of their own "race," if not German?

"These countries had nothing to do with Germany, Holy Roman Empire or anything German except language." - How did they obtain a Germanic language then? Then again, if my two questions are answered, it will answer that question as well. London 23:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what you're asking...the original peoples of the area later known as East Prussia were a Pagan Baltic (speaking Baltic languages, which are a sub-family of Indo-European generally believed to be somewhat related to the Slavic languages, but not Slavic) tribe called the Prussians. During the 13th and 14th centuries, the Teutonic Knights, a German crusading order, conquered the area. The original inhabitants were converted or massacred, and large numbers of German settlers entered the area. By the early 18th century, the Prussian language was basically extinct, and the whole area had been largely Germanized (although I think there were some Poles in the south). East Prussia was not, however, a part of the Holy Roman Empire. The Teutonic Knights were independent rulers until the Reformation, when the Grand Master converted to Protestantism and Prussia became a secular duchy under the rule of his family (the Hohenzollerns) but under Polish suzerainty. The Duchy was inherited by the senior branch of the Hohenzollerns in 1618, who were also Electors of Brandenburg, and in 1660 the Great Elector managed to secure the Duchy of Prussia's independence from Poland. Prussia was made a Kingdom in 1701, thus meaning that the man who was, inside the Holy Roman Empire, Elector of Brandenburg, was also King of Prussia outside the Empire, in the same way that the Hanoverians of the same period were Electors of Hanover in the Empire and Kings of Great Britain and Ireland outside it. In 1772, the first partition of Poland gave the area known as "West Prussia" to Prussia, and in 1806 the Holy Roman Empire was dissolved. When the Germanic Confederation was founded to replace it in 1815, most of the Kingdom of Prussia was included, but East Prussia, West Prussia, and Posen Province were excluded. They did become part of the North German Confederation in 1867 and of the German Empire in 1871. john k 01:58, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Diambiguation

Is there any reason that the info at the top of the article isn't on a seperate Disambiguation page? It seems to me that the top of this article is effectively a disambiguation page -- but it's been like this for a long time, so I figure there's a reason. Would someone mind informing me? Canaen 02:30, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is worthwhile to explain the relationship among the different meanings of the term in the main article, since it's a complicated situation, and explains why a state centered on Berlin was named for a region much further to the east that wasn't even traditionally part of Germany. john k 08:01, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another Aspect?

Hello,

I would like to see added another aspect in the prussian history than the aforementioned "perfect organization, obedience, rule of law, militarism" etc. Could we include this sentence for example:

"..Though the history and legacy of Prussia are not without controversy, they are much broader than commonly assumed. A closer look shows that equating Prussia with authoritarianism and militarism is an over-simplification. Among other achievements, the early Prussian state set standards of public administration and education still in place today. Perhaps less well known are the ideals of religious and ethnic tolerance and intellectual exchange furthered by early Prussian rulers such as Frederick William, the Great Elector (1620-1688), Frederick William I (1713-1740), and the ever-popular Frederick the Great (1740-1786).

At the same time that the Prussian kings were building up military power, they also opened Prussia's borders to immigrants fleeing from religious persecution in other parts of Europe. Prussia became a safe haven in much the same way that the United States welcomed immigrants seeking freedom in the 19th century. An admirer of the French philosopher Voltaire, Frederick the Great was an enlightened ruler. He introduced a general civil code abolishing torture and establishing the principle that the crown would not interfere with matters of justice. He also furthered an advanced "high school" education, forerunner of today's gymnasium system, which prepares the brightest students for university studies. In response to a devastating defeat at the hands of Napoleon in 1806, reformers such as Baron Karl vom Stein and Prince Karl August von Hardenberg went about modernizing the Prussian state - liberating the peasants from serfdom, emancipating Jews and making them full citizens, and instituting self-administration in municipalities...."

Source

http://www.germany.info/relaunch/culture/history/prussia.html

What do you think?

Kenaz9 15:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As long as information comes from reputable sources, be bold and feel free to update pages yourself. Remember that direct inclusion of the text you listed here would violate the German Embassy's copyright page, so keep in mind Wikipedia's copyright policies. Happy editing! Olessi 02:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Olessi! I will ask the embassy for the right to publish it here. Kenaz9 04:31, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would not advise you to seek permission to copy their text verbatim. Instead, it is better to incorporate relevant information into the preexisting text using your own words. You can cite your references using footnotes. Olessi 04:52, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just send a request to use this text (to be on the safe side). But of course I will rewrite and shorten it a bit and add the references. Where do you think it would fit best? The header of this article is already a bit long...Kenaz9 05:11, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Historically incorrect. Frederick pursued Germanisation, and was hardly tolerant of Poles. --Molobo 21:42, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's quite correct! The schoolsystem developed in Prussia is active in Germany till today. Jews were given citizen rights, religious and ethnic groups pursued in their countries found a new home in Prussia etc. These are indisputable facts! Kenaz9 22:28, 11 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Poles and Polish monasteries were persecuted under Frederick, I recall also some types of persecution against Jews(I would have to look for it). Frederick also despised Polish people and openly talked about this. Prussian society shared that views. Poles didn't find a "new home" in Prussia as Prussia annexed their own home. --Molobo 11:34, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then please write an article about this Molobo. Mine isn't centered around the Poles...Kenaz9 13:21, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you forgot that Prussia annexed Polish lands and as result it had a large Polish population(up to 40%) ? Prussia's history is as Polish as it is German.

--Molobo 20:12, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, everyone knows that Prussians copied KEN efforts, and that Frederic was keen on turning Poles into good Germans Szopen 08:01, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will try and add translated parts from the excellent article in the german Wikipedia. Kenaz9 13:25, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I will add information on persecution of Poles and negative stereotypes towards them in Prussia of that time. --Molobo 20:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC) On Frederick [10] --Molobo 15:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

I expanded the article. It now contains a mix from the former and translations from the article in the german Wikipedia. Happy editing! :) Kenaz9 15:15, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current POV article

The POV of this article is completely unnacceptable as is deletion of information on persecution of national minorities in Prussia. --Molobo 16:38, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That certainly does not belong in this overview article. Perhaps this article should even be shortened and information redistributed to subarticles. Kusma (討論) 16:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

The current article is not well organized and overlaps with other articles. The language is awkward. Further, the article shows an apologetic POV. '-Zickzack 10:18, 18 May 2006 (UTC)'[reply]

Hi, this article is meaned to be an "overview" of the history of Prussia! So of course it overlaps with other, more in depth, articles about personalities or events. And why is the organization wrong? It starts with an overview over the early history till today... And about spelling or grammar...feel free to correct. Kenaz9 15:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why discrimination of other nations within Prussia is being deleted. --Molobo 09:09, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too much "pro"??? How so? Kenaz9 10:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prussia was seen by many as agressive, militaristic state that opressed invidualism and it certainly engaged in racist motivated discrimination of national groups like Poles and likewsie Prussian society was supportive of such views as well as antisemitism. I find no such information in this article. --Molobo 13:49, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about facts about Prussia - not the feelings of others towards Prussia. How much whining about conquests, suppression of religions and Latinization of other people during the centuries of the Roman Empire is listed there? Or a more recent state, like, the Second Polish Republic, which had minorities that add up to 33%, but very few sentences about them? --Matthead 04:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you feel other articles lack information feel free to expand them. Sadly Poles were forced to become subjects of Prussian state which discriminated them and who's society held racist views towards their fellow co-citizens. Prussia's history is also Poles history.--Molobo 17:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First, finally learn to format your edits properly - or, as you seem to be unable to learn, just stop to repeat the same messy statements over and over again. Second, the quality of articles like Second Polish Republic fittingly represent the priorities of certain Polish editors, thank you. And third, claiming that Prussia's history is also Poles history is remarkable, coming from one who tries to delare certain towns, areas and people as purely Polish, trying to eliminate or downplay centuries of German history. --Matthead 20:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It´s easy to understand Molobos insecurity and anti-German sentiments, seeing as many Poles now find themselves in exactly the same position as their earlier Prussian "adverseries". As a rule it´s only dictatorships or one-party States that try and change History. Those who accept the past for what it was, tend to be more secure IsarSteve 20:41, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second, the quality of articles like Second Polish Republic fittingly represent the priorities of certain Polish editors, thank you. While certain German editors spend their time on deleting information regarding German atrocities during World War 2 :[11] --Molobo 21:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV?

The article stated: The Control Council resolution misjudged the constitutional traditions of the country just like the fact that it had been in the Weimar Republic till to the "Preußenschlag" a bulwark of the democracy in Germany.

Prussia had no constitutional tradition, as the constitution has been imposed by the king in the end of the 1840s. The understanding was that the king could give the constitution and that the king could take it. After 1919, the forces usually labelled Prussian were monarchistic, reactionary, and anti-democratic. They certainly did not defend the constitution against the de factio abolition by the Nazis. '-Zickzack 10:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)'[reply]

The allies actually cemented the decision of the Nazis to abolish the Prussian state. Since it was committed to democracy and was destroyed by the fascists through a coup it seems to have been a wrong one by the allies. So please revert to the old version, thank you! Kenaz9 15:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To write that the Control Council abolished Prussia and to quote the reasons they gave is correct and not POV.

To write that it was a mistake since Prussia was somehow committed to democracy is POV. You do not even say who thinks so.

Do you see the difference?

Wikipedia is not for creating theories or expressing what you feel. If you wish to retain the sentence, find a relevant and reliable source agreeing with you and quote it. -- Zickzack 17:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"After 1919, the forces usually labelled Prussian were monarchistic, reactionary, and anti-democratic." That's what I meaned. Prussia wasn't more monarchistic or anti-democratic as any other state, even less so how the history shows. But okay...I will concede this point. So what now with your template...why don't you use another, more explicit one? It's hard to change something as foggy as "doesn't meet the quality standard"....(and maybe, just maybe you could tone down your attitude a bit? I'm not your enemy!) Kenaz9 19:36, 18 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't people arguing at cross-purposes here? On the one hand "Prussian" can mean "the Germany of the Hohenzollern monarchy," which was clearly anti-democratic. On the other hand, the state government of Prussia under the Weimar Republic, which was a coalition of the SPD and the Zentrum, was one of the last bastions of democracy in Germany, until Papen overthrew it in a coup in the summer of 1932. It is, I think, arguable that the existence of a super-state of Prussia in the Weimar Republic was not one of the principal causes of the failure of democracy - or was not a cause of the failure of democracy particularly at all. Certainly Bavaria was throughout Weimar a much more right-wing state, at least until Papen's coup. But this wasn't why the Allies abolished Prussia. They abolished it because the idea of Prussia was seen to be about militarism and the Kaiser and junkers and so forth. john k 18:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup

I have attempted to clean up the language of the article to make it more readable. I have not attempted to reorganize the layout of the page, rewrite or condense anything, or correct factual errors or bias.

Thank you Tweenex, that was helpful! Kenaz9 07:57, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this edit included anything unbiased, relevant and correct at the same time, please re-add it (this concerns everyone but Molobo, SC et al). For example the double naming for Danzig should be restored. I'm not about to accept another Polonophobia-article joke. Sciurinæ 19:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of course. Poles were never persecuted in German state and in fact it were Germans persecuted by unruly Polish children. At least try to be serious. I am well aware of how Polonophobia article has been attacked and damaged by your angry protests about information regarding persecution of Polish people by various German governments. --Molobo 19:26, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I had to reformat Molobo's entry, once again. This is the talk page on Prussia, at least here some Ordnung should be kept. --Matthead 20:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

at least here some Ordnung should be kept. What does Ordnung mean ? Please use english. --Molobo 20:44, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... asks someone who never uses his native language on English Wikipedia. It's hardly surprising that you don't know what orderliness means, no matter in what language. --Matthead 21:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly surprising that you don't know what orderliness means A typical personal attack. --Molobo 21:25, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think he means your messy formatting. But don't let that your paranoia stop you! Kenaz9 21:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would be more trusting if Matthead hadn't engaged in deletion of ALL information regarding German war crimes in WW2[12]. A similiar act of whitewashing German history is happening here. --Molobo 21:34, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As all information on persecution of ethnic minorities in Prussia is being deleted, despite the fact that it is well sourced, a POV tag is neccessary.

--Molobo 19:45, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again

I ask why information regarding the persecution of millions of citizens within Prussia was deleted and why the information that Prussian citizens were discriminated and treated as second class citizens based solely on their ethnic background was determined unaccaptable by certain editors. I ask for calm and factual discussion regarding the issue, without personall issues and attacks. As to my view I see no reason why such information should be excluded. The information on apartheid is part of article regarding South Africa, likewise information about ethnic persecutions in Prussia should also be in the article. --Molobo 21:55, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is information about ethnic cleansing planned (not done) by the German Empire [13] relevant for an article about Prussia? Kusma (討論) 21:33, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since the territory would be attached to Prussia. As I answered your question can you answer why information about persecution of milions of citizens based on their ethnic background isn't relevant then ? --Molobo 21:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not an expert on Prussia. For the relevance, we should check what most major history books say about this matter: if it plays a major part in most books about Prussia, it is probably relevant enough to be included here. Otherwise, it is not. About the "planned ethnic cleansing": Your argument would also work to make this sentence relevant for Poland (since that's where the territory would come from), Wilhelm II of Germany (since he was the commander), World War I (since that was the historical context). However, these plans are obviously out of place in all of these articles. Kusma (討論) 21:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A neccessary information in the artilce

http://www.palgrave.com/masterseries/lowe/questions/Q19.htm Source A From The Roots of National Socialism, 1783-1933, a book by British historian R. Butler, first published in 1942 National Socialism is the inevitable reappearance of Prussian militarism and terror, as seen during the 18th century. The Nazis combined two strands of nationalist thinking: a revival of former imperialism together with a social, economic and spiritual national revolution. They were able to manipulate the emotions of the German people at a time of anxiety and deep resentment towards the Weimar system. Anti-Semitic tendencies can also be traced back to earlier days. Source: adapted from a summary in David Smith, 'Origins of National Socialism', in Modern History Review (September 1995) --Molobo 23:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are citing somebody who cites somebody else's adapted summary of a book? That makes it a 5th order source? Please try to get some more context and the real quote from the book; a citation like this is useless. Kusma (討論) 21:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are the 4th and 3th order sources ? I find that summary pretty usefull and informative as to what Prussia represented. I see you decline to comment that all information regarding ethnic discrimination in Prussia is deleted.

--Molobo 21:20, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The book is a 2nd order source (those that we usually cite, since using primary sources is original research). David Smith is a 3rd order source. The adapter is a 4th order source. Okay, I exaggerated, unless the webpage is the 5th. And I did not read anything on this page but the last comment when I posted my answer, so please assume good faith. Thank you, Kusma (討論) 21:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok now that you read do you care to comment about the article's POV ? All information is deleted regarding the discrimination and hostitity to other nationalities in Prussia(Poles and Jews). --Molobo 21:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-Semitism was common in all European countries in the 19th century, including Poland. It is therefore not necessary to mention it in articles about each of the countries, except perhaps as a link to History of the Jews in XY in the See Also section. Kusma (討論) 21:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Since Prussia unlike other countries formed the German state that later engaged in Holocaust information about the specific nature and ideas of Prussian antisemitism is more needed to show historic context. It was just a one sentence anyway so I don't think that it had much place in this article(which presents a misleading vision of Prussia). Furthermore if we add what Prussians thought about themselfs(which is dubious) we should add other views of society that influenced history. I also don't see you on commenting the fact of erasing information in regards to Poles which constituted at one time almost 40 % of Prussian population and were treated as second class citizens with harsh discrimination against them. --Molobo 22:04, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prussia resisted the Nazis for longer than most other German states, though, and "Unlike other States of the German Reich, majority rule by democratic parties in Prussia was never endangered." Prussia was not the main Nazi state. About me "not commenting": See one section above. Kusma (討論) 23:09, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Prussia resisted the Nazis for longer than most other German states Wasn't the vote for Nazi's highest in Prussian regions ? --Molobo 23:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I refer mostly to Preußenschlag and similar here, and admit I don't have exact data to back up my claim (it probably depends on what year we look at). The centers of the early Nazi movement, however, were undeniably in the South, and not in Prussia. Kusma (討論) 23:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well we are not talking about the starting point of Nazi movement but the ideological roots and support. I do recall hearing that regions in Prussia had the highest number of Nazi supporters. I forgot about it, thanks for reminding me that (I of course will look for scholary source). I also do recall that historians seem to include Prussian traits as one of origins of Nazi thought. --Molobo 23:26, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the "Legacy and criticism" section could contain some of this information? "Prussian virtues" are indeed sometimes described as just those you need to run an efficient concentration camp (I can't give you a citation right now, sorry). Often it is not clear whether something should be blamed on Prussia or on all of Germany, as more than 50% of Germany was Prussia before the dissolution of Prussia. The ideological roots of Nazism are complex, though, and probably best handled in their own article. Kusma (討論) 23:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Most of these "Prussian virtues" have their roots in the Protestantism of that time and are still seen as very positive by many Germans today....do they want to run concentration camps? Are they Nazis?

And when Prussia = Nazism, then why had Hitler to work his way virtually UP the map? Coming from Austria, over Bavaria etc.? Why was it necessary to destroy the democracy through a coup?

Just remember: One-third voted for the NSDAP but two-thirds did not! What about them? Frankly, to put Prussia at the roots of all evil is hardly fair. Kenaz9 00:17, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uncommented quotes posted by Molobo

Without commentary, posting full quotes from these articles is probably a copyright violation. These quotes are also not a discussion of our article, and so do not belong on the talk page. Molobo, you have been asked many times to stop posting long excerpts from sources to talk pages. Kusma (討論) 14:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I added commentary after the quotes. It seems information about ethnic persecution in Prussia isn't accepted on this page. Why ? --Molobo 14:55, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the talk page of the article Prussia. Information about Prussia is only relevant here when it belongs to a suggestion how to improve the article. Your posts do not discuss how to improve our article. Kusma (討論) 15:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information about Prussia is only relevant here when it belongs to a suggestion how to improve the article. Your posts do not discuss how to improve our article I disagree and certainly believe that the article will be improved by adding information about persecution of minorites and connections of culture to Nazism rather then by attempting to present a one sided view of Prussia by hiding such information. --Molobo 19:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting information

http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/curriculum/papers/schirach.pdf Wilhelm Kube, leader of National socialism in the Prussian Landtag, attempted to connect the great Prussian heritage of Frederick II with Hitler and his youth by stating that all the good things in Prussianism were to be found in Nazism and its younger generation. "Once the proud lags and standards of Frederick's army provided the entire German people with security and the guarantee of a special future; today the standards and flags of the National Socialists do the same Please add the information about Nazi adoration of Prussian values and that Nazi's believed that all good things about Prussia were founded in Nazism. --Molobo 14:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Many view Prussia as source of Nazism

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1118019 But for others, Prussia represents, above all, the militarism and unquestioning respect for authority that gave rise to Nazism. This information is very interesting and shows that the current article is biased to only one side of view and doesn't present facts about connections between Prussia and ideology of Nazism. --Molobo 15:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How can that be a fact if two-thirds of the population did NOT vote for the Nazis and the democratic

government of Prussia had to be destroyed first before Hitler could rise to power???

Most of your sources like this:

"...Polish virtues = freedom, heroism, sacrifice as well as a culture of the heart and religiosity"

"...German virtues = lack of freedom, personal repression and bureaucratic reglementation, blind obedience, cultural arrogance and amoral rationalism"

are nothing more than subjective opinions and prejudice...nothing worthy to be included in that :article! Kenaz9 15:50, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

are nothing more than subjective opinions and prejudice...nothing worthy to be included in that :articl The article already presents subjective opinions and prejudices : Even today, a certain kind of ethic is called "Prussian virtues", for instance: Perfect organization, sacrifice, rule of law, obedience to authority and militarism, but also reliability, thriftiness, modesty and diligence. Many Prussians believed that these virtues were part of the reasons for the rise of their country. And I may add that this without a source. If they are certain views of this episodic state in European history they should be added in proper section. Right now the article seems to be one sided and one of articles I presented shows that such view as presented here of the Prussian values is represented by the new German far right. --Molobo 15:52, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense! The article you quoted read "and the so-called ‘Prussian’ values", not "and the so-called Prussian 'values' ". Sciurinæ 15:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So how do you propose to include that German far right idolises Prussia as well as Nazi's did ? --Molobo 16:03, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was just shocked to see such a misquotation à la " 'entartete' Kunst " and " entartete 'Kunst' ". If it really deserves a mention, I would like someone else do it. The tone mustn't be biased, and must try to avoid guilt by association or sensationalism. Sciurinæ 16:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What do those German words mean ?

Why don't you answer my repeated questions:

Most of these "Prussian virtues" have their roots in the Protestantism of that time and are

still seen as very positive by many Germans today....do they want to run concentration camps?

Are they Nazis?

And when Prussia = Nazism, then why had Hitler to work his way virtually UP the map? Coming

from Austria, over Bavaria etc.? Why was it necessary to destroy the democracy through a coup?

Just remember: One-third voted for the NSDAP but two-thirds did not! What about them? Kenaz9 16:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are not related to the subject we are discussing. If you care to present sources that the values of Prussia are still admired by some in Germany I will gladly contribute this to article on German nationalism.

What is wrong with values like : Perfect organization, rule of law, also reliability, thriftiness, modesty or diligence!

Are they something to be ashamed about? Does one have to be a fascist nationalist to adhere to them? Why are they "evil" and in what way were they necessary for the Nazis?

You forgot about the belief that Prussians are superior to Poles who are inferior animalistic people, the Prussian idea of conquering the "barbaric East". The belief that Prussia has highter culture then Slavic people etc. This also values of Prussian society. As to perfect organisation and rule of law t-I would prefere executioners that can be bribed rather then those who always obey the rules. I certainly don't think that this alledged values are true anyway. Prussian modesty ? That's very incorrect. Prussian society often viewed itself as superior to others. --Molobo 16:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Again all subjective opinions/prejudices...nothing what has to be included in an overview about personaes and events about Prussia. And I find it very doubtfull that you have a survey from all millions of former Prussians at hand who would be exactly of the same opinion. You are painting with a very broad brush a very colorful society with a long, diverse history. Why is that?

Again all subjective opinions/prejudicesa? Not really, scholary research on nature of Prussian society and values that were represented there. Much better sourced then your allegations about certain "values" Prussia had. And I find it very doubtfull that you have a survey from all millions of former Prussians at hand who would be exactly of the same opionion Quotes from Prussian authors and politicians are enough.

You are painting with a very broad brush a very colorful society with a long, diverse history I wouldn't call society that was formed out of enslavement and extermination of native people by Teutonic Knights and persecuted citizens based on their ethnic background, going as far as to torture children for being of certain nationality as "colorful". It seems a very grim and authoritarian to say the least.But this is my private view which I don't include in the main text. I restrict myself to scholary sourced text. --Molobo 17:15, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Scholary sourced text"??? Like this???:

"...Polish virtues = freedom, heroism, sacrifice as well as a culture of the heart and religiosity"

"...German virtues = lack of freedom, personal repression and bureaucratic reglementation, blind obedience, cultural arrogance and amoral rationalism"

Excuse me but if that's all you have and if you are going on ignoring facts like that Prussia was democratic and had to be destroyed through the Nazis and that Hitler never got a majority in Prussia than your prejudices are just not enough....Kenaz9 17:27, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me but if that's all you have and if you are going on ignoring facts like that Prussia was democraticYes the laws against other nationalities were passed out by vote. Was that the reason Polish language was forbidden ? http://www.h-net.org/~german/gtext/kaiserreich/speech.html [The immediate background for this long speech was the brutal expulsions from Prussian territory of Poles and Polish Jews carried out in 1885. Many of these people had been resident in Prussia for years but had not become citizens, no easy matter in Germany. Polish deputies in the Reichstag formally questioned the government on these policies. Bismarck responded by denying the competence of the Reichstag in Prussian state matters. Shortly thereafter a majority of the lower house of the Prussian parliament moved a declaration for the protection of German interests in the eastern provinces. With this friendlier stimulus, Bismarck laid out the principles of the government's Polish policies. A typical Bismarck speech, it was delivered extempore (as were all speeches in the Reichstag and German state parliaments), filled with innuendo and threats and short on specific details. The intention here is to stifle criticism of an increasingly rigorous anti-Polish government policy, justifying it as an entirely reasonable response to Polish provocation. All the good will comes from the German side; all the bad faith belongs to the Poles. Source: Eugen Kalkschmidt (ed.), Bismarcks Reden

than your prejudices are just not enough. I presented serious scholary sources confirming that culture of Prussia is sometimes seen as responsible for idealogy of Nazism. I presented scholary sources confirming that Prussia discriminated and abused national minorities. I presented scholary sources showing that Prussian society was influenced by antisemitic thought, and feelings of superiority towards other nations such as Poles. You haven't presented a single scholary source that would deny this. Likewise the current version of article is a biased pro-Prussian propaganda that fails to adress isuess of national discrimination, persecution, links to Nazism, militarism and relations between various groups within Prussian state. --Molobo 17:34, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

One-third voted for the NSDAP but two-thirds did not! What about them? I don't know. How many voted for DNVP ? --Molobo 16:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, of course you don't know! The FACT that the majority of Prussians never voted for Hitler proves therefore that your claim that Prussia and it's people were inherently responsible for the rise of Hitler/Nazism is wrong.

The FACT that the majority of Prussians never voted for Hitler proves therefore that your claim that Prussia and it's people My claim ? I made no claims of my own. They are certainly many authors who attribute Nazism as having idolised the so called values of this episodic state and its culture. Likewise far right idolises it. It isn't difficult to find scholary opinions about the episodic Prussian culture being connected to certain ideals of Nazism. --Molobo 16:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I misunderstood your headline Many view Prussia as source of Nazism I apologize. Kenaz9 17:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

National relations within the state of Prussia

Here are some examples of ethnic relations within Prussia: http://fit.euv-frankfurt-o.de/Veroeffentlichungen/Discussion%20Papers/PDF-Format/05-02Spohn.PDF From the German perspective, the growing social power and political superiority was based on virtues such as discipline, work and order combined with loyal obedience, cultural education and rational enlightenment. These German self-images corresponded with images of the Polish Other such as lack of discipline, laziness, chaos, cultural barbarity and superstitious irrationalism. From the Polish perspective, the Germans represented lack of freedom, personal repression and bureaucratic reglementation, blind obedience, cultural arrogance and amoral rationalism – German images that contrasted to the Polish virtues of freedom, heroism, sacrifice as well as a culture of the heart and religiosity. Another example of different view towards what Prussia represented from the file: In Polish eyes, German Protestantism appeared heartless, secular and individualistic. --Molobo 15:04, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Does somebody know more about the Prussian antisemitsm

I found an interesting review and I would like to know more about this : http://www.jewishcomment.com/cgibin/news.cgi?id=14&command=shownews&newsid=533 He does not shrink from examining the problems associated with assimilation and conversion, the tribulations that afflicted German Jews who wished to be accepted as Germans without being scorned as Jews. He carefully examines German antisemitism, as manifested in the nationalistic fervour that swept Prussia after its defeat by Napoleon, in the 'Hep! Hep!' riots of 1819, the political antisemitism of the late 1870s, and the crisis years after 1918. What were those riots ? --Molobo 17:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please translate the sentence under this picture

If I am guessing right the sentence says this picture shows how many viewed Prussians: [14] --Molobo 00:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If my guess is correct, and image isn't copyrighted then It would an excellent addition presenting what image Prussia spreaded to the world. --Molobo 00:20, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And you would cry foul, if anybody produced similar evidence that Polish are regarded as stupid, thieves, or both. So, learn something and stop pressing your POV. -- ZZ 13:24, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are confusing prejduice of national groups with state actions. Prussia as a state engaged in discrimination of other people comperable to apartheid system. This discrimination and national issues are mentioned in every credible study of Prussia. Yet not in Wiki article. --Molobo 11:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...after the wars of 1866, 1870 and 1894... You seem to want to generalize this to a view of all of Prussia's history. Kusma (討論) 16:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...after the wars of 1866, 1870 and 1894.

Really ? David Blackbourn, Harvard University "Conquests from Barbarism": Interpreting Land Reclamation in 18th Century Prussia. http://www.oslo2000.uio.no/program/papers/s18/s18-blackbourn.pdf In the German case, this meant Poles, and the motif runs through the 18thcentury history of Prussian reclamation. The line of the Prussian "improvements" ran eastwards. It began immediately to the east of Berlin in the Electoral March, then crossed the Oder to the Warthe and Netze marshes before turning south-east towards Silesia and north-east, to newly acquired parts of Pomerania and above all to West Prusia, the booty from the first Polish partition. On the eastern margins of protean Prussia, reclamation and settlement "secured" the border -for how could you protect or even define a frontier that was under water half the year?Officials carried contempt for the indigenous Poles with them. The draining of the Oderbruch was intended to plant good German colonists where "superstitious" Wendish fishermen had lived, a mental connection that was even stronger when it came to the new eastern territories. Frederick's own views on "the slovenly Polish trash" of West Prussia were expressed in unflattering New World parallels. They were like "Iroquois". Or: "I have seen this Prussia; I believe Canada is better cultivated". This was "a barbarous people sunk in ignorance and stupidity" (note the metaphorical undertones of the French verb "croupir" -sunk in, wallowing in, stagnating). Officials used similar terms; so did intellectuals like Georg Forster, whose scandalized writings from Vilnius about Polish "backwardness" resembled his accounts of "ignorance and barbarism" in the Pacific. There is probably no need to belabour this anti-Slav dimension to the Prussian self-understanding of what it meant to win "conquests from barbarism".

As can be seen ethnic prejudice dates much earlier in history of Prussia, as well as racial beliefs that Prussians are superior to Poles and discrimination made under such belief. This paper from Harvard Profosor is just another of scholary sources presenting wholly different picture from propaganda article that we have here. I am sceptical if it will be ever if opposition to presenting a objective view of Prussia continues, and all information about ethnic discrimination and believes such as presented above will be deleted.

--Molobo 10:56, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV

The article doesn't show other issues of Prussia. The perception of its activities in Europe, the discrimination of national minorities, the antisemitism, the issue of Prussia in German National Socialist ideology. Most books on Prussia touch the subjects like this and give information. The issues of national discrimination for example greately influenced Prussian politics and beliefs in certain periods. There is no mention of this in the article. --Molobo 11:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]