Talk:Germanisation/Archive 1

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

Archive 1

Misc

The German folksinger Gottlieb Wendehals (alias Werner Böhm) regularly makes fun very much at the costs of Poles, when writing and singing the song "Polonäse Blankenese", which by means of akward sexual allusions achieved tremendous success among the Germanic audience.

The above statement is complete non-sense. The song is called "Polonäse" because it is a "Polonaise"-type song (Polonäse is light-hearted (incorrect) German transliteration). Neither the title nor the lyrics refer to Poland whatsoever. By the way, what is a "Germanic" audience? 141.13.8.14 10:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, not that quite regulary anymore. The song is pretty old. And apart from that word, which is the first time i hear it has anything to do with Poland, the song is pretty nonsense with nothing anti-polish in it. And Blankenese is a district in Hamburg as I remember. Could you explain the akward sexual allusions in that song? Quite mysterious allegation. It was just a song for parties. And I very much doubt most Germans knew what Polonäse means. Most, like I just assumed it was somewhat invented because it suits the lyrics. --Lucius1976 15:58, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Why should the following be offtopic here? And what is wrong about the facts?

"A more complex process took place in Bohemia after the 1620 defeat of Bohemian Protestants. The Protestant Bohemian king elected by the Bohemian estates in 1619 and defeated in 1620 by Catholic forces was Frederick V of the Palatinate. So there seems to have been no reluctance among the Bohemian nobility to accept a German speaking ruler, as they themselves had offered him the Bohemian crown. Among the Bohemian Lords being punished and expropriated after the defeat of 1620 were German und Czech speaking landowners as well. Thus this conflict was overwhelmingly more a conflict within a feudal system than a clash of different nations. Although the Czech language lost its significance (as a written languange) in the aftermath of the events, it is questionable whether this was primarily intended by the Habsburg rulers, who were led by the idea of religious (i.e. Catholic) not by nationalist dominance."

Why were the references to Czech/Bohemian history eradicated? Ist this article about Poles only?

In my eyes, there is a lot of unhistoric nonsense in the article, as it tries to view medieval events with modern nationalist categories. The middle ages and early modern times didn't know the concept of a "nation". So there was no idea of expanding a nation by "Germanising, "Romanising" or whatever another nation. There were ideas of expandig feudal influence or Christian religion, as even the concept of "state" in modern terms was unknown. It can't be doubted, that crusading and Christian missions contributed to the spread of the German lnguage as well as a continous stream of German settlers in the Middle ages. But this was not Germanisation by intention. Of course it is quit different with the 19th century under Prussian rule or much worse under the Nazis. So these things should not be mingled.

An in my eyes it is also intentional distortion to reduce the very complex events in Bohemia after 1620, in which Germans und Czech speking Bohemians were involved as victims alike to just one sentence, that suggest a very simplified 19th centuty view, to which no modern Czech historian would subscribe!

I read "Minorities in the nation state" of my old history book, and, of course, the impression conveyed is differently than that Molobo tries to give, for it is neutral. Rather than insisting on proof of "torture", for example, and keeping the version hysterically, I'd better just translate and summarize the historical description. NightBeAsT 12:30, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Rather than insisting on proof of "torture", for example Which can be easly found on site of the school where the events took place, that had engaged in country wide event to remember the fight to preserve Polish identity by those children.Here is a detailed account of event made by one of the organisers of the ceremonies : http://www.sdw.icpnet.pl/historia.html I will translate some fragments: German teachers resorted to physical violence and repressions.Children were held up in school for several hours.Two times at 2 and 13 May flogging was used. But the number of protestors grew. Main opponents and leaders of the children were Stanislaw Jerszynski and Smidowiczowna, who refused to be influenced by inspector Winter.They were severely beaten.

At first the German teachers tried persuasion.Rector Fedke said to the children that they are German and should be proud of it.Then one girl stood up and said "We are subjects of the German Reich, but we are Poles".Another student Bronisław Klimas asked how does the national flag look like said "Our flag is red and white, prussina white and black"Responding to the questions of teachers why they will not speak german on religion classes students said "We are Poles and we won't speak in German during religion"

"Words of prussian director of the schoold in Malych Bartodziejach under Bydgoszcz who wrote in school chronicle with arrogance "We Germans are afraid of nobody, and this means Poles also"

A usual visitor was inspector Winter,and he tried to broke the resistence of the children. Often he would ask "Who are you". The answer remained the same "We are Poles". He tried to tell them that they should not care if they speak polish or german.Children responded -"Why aren't German children learning polish then ? "One girl said "Chancellor Bulow said that every bird should sing how his beak grow, and we have polish beaks, so we want to sing in Polish". German teachers were outraged when instead of singing Preusse the children singed "Pole". Corporal punishment followed this.On another occasion teacher heard them speaking in Polish during a break. He told them "You can speak french, english or even chinese, but not polish language.

The mass execution of punishment came at Wrzesnia school at 20th of May 1901 at 10 when Winter came-the school inspector informed by rector Fedtke. 26 pupils were arrested and ordered to learn german songs, those that did were relased. The rest-14 resisted. Then Winter ordere more flogging -from four to eight strikes.

Prussian methods in the wrzesnia school were described by one patricipants of of the first strike Bronislawa Smidowicz Matuszewska-Flogging was used in parts.If a pupil didn't answer after several questions, he received three strikes.After that they made some promises as to his future.If that didn't work more punishment was threatened.Finally more questions were asked and if that didn't help, he received three more strikes, and such ones that skin on hands broke apart.

Laud screams and cries coming from inside gathered people before the school, that counted aprox. thousand people.People started protesting, and were even more outraged when beaten children appeared on the street crying.Teachers advised Winter to go out by the back door, but he felt(here's a quote) I was chosen to bravely defend this outpost and fight for the defence of honor of the threatend German rule

The crowd entered the school by force and 12-14 people went inside, where they demanded a stop to the beating of children. Despite this Winter told to continue flogging. As the crowd grew more violent he decided to stop.

This time prosecutor Lange spoke "the characteristic of this issues is that difference between Germans and Poles.The state had to intervene and defend german interest, defeat polishness.To achieve this means it had to use german language as teaching tool"

--Molobo 23:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC) Also:

Czeslaw Luczak "Od Bismarcka do Hitlera: Polsko-Niemieckie stosunki gospodarcze"Poznan 1988 ISBN 83-210-0767-8 There were ultra-nationalist, tolerated or even backed by government organisations, such as Allgemainer Deutscher Verband, later renamed to Alldeutsched Verband, which in 1914 had 18.000 members. In Posen there was founded in 1894 Verein zur Forderung des Deutschtums in den Ostmarken, later renamed into Deutscher Ostmarkverein, which in 1909 had 50.500, and in 1912 54.100 members, recruiting in vast majority from government clerks, teachers, officers etc - this organisation was called by Poles HaKaTa from names of the founders, Hansemann, Kennemann and Tiedemann. In 1911 it called eastern provinces of Germany "the battlefield" and was later called by H.U Wehler the precursor of the Nazi party (Wehler, Krisenherde des Kaiserreichs 1817-1918, Ottingen 1979, p-193-194) because of its pathological hatred of all things Polish (p 20-21) Governmetn founded in 1886 Konigliche Ausiedlungskommission which was funding the German settlement in eastern provinces, buying the land from Polish owners etc, there were also two other organisations, in 1904 in Posen Deutsche mittlestandkasse and 1906 in Danzig/Gdansk Bauernbank fur Westpreussen. This institutions were helped by different local organisation such as Landgesselschaften and local settlement commission Kleinsiedlungsgenossenschaften. In addition there was founded Deutscher Fursorgverein, Ruckwanderstelle and many, manyother organisation with one goal: buy as many land from Poles as possible and settle as many Germans as possible.

They were encouraging Germans from foreign lands, from Galicia, Vohlyn, Hungary, Romania etc etc. The Commision for Settlement in 1886-1918 settled in Posen and West Prussia 21.886 German families, counting in total 153.800 people, from which 21.683 took over their farms before the end of 1914. 25% of them came from abroad. Many families were also helped by other organisations, which helped them buy land etc etc. At first they were settled in countryside, hpoing that Germanisation of villages will cause the Germanisation of cities, later also German craftsmen were settled in cities, mainly by HKT which settled in Posen province about 30 doctors, craftsmen etc yearly. In addition to help fight "the Polish danger in eastern provinces" the workers in factories were also settled. In period 1903-1905 325 families came to Posen and West Prussia(1379) from abroad, including 209 fro Hungary, 89 from Galicia and 27 from Russia, and to 1912 in Posen area there were 961 workers settlements. (p20-25)

People working in eastern Prussian provinces received an addition to their salary, so called "Ostmarkenzulage". Some representants of local administration proposed counting the years of service by doubling, just like in the case of the war, for the clerks working in eastern provinces.

Interesting case: in 1850 many German catholic settlers from times of XVIII, while in 1914 they considered themselves Poles - there was from 50.000 to 75.000 such settlers. This was primary reason why vast majority of new settlers were protestants (21.014 families from settlers recruited by Commission of Settlement, that is 96,9%. Similarly 90% of German clerks and teachers were protestants (p26).

In total, the estimated number of Germans settled in 1871-1914 in Posen and West Prussia was higher than 250.000.

On other hand, the Polish teachers and clerks were assigned functions in western part of Germany. Such action was taken for few thousands of Poles, amongst whom was teacher 64 years old and clerks with 40 years of job. In addition German gvt paied for special agitation in press for encouraging emigration of Poles for abroad. The exceptional ways were removal of Poles by force, first "Poles who were suspected of anti-German activity" (3 February 1872 in Posen), and later of removal of all Poles without Prussian citizenship, with exception of few who received special allowance for stay. THe mass removals started with expelling 500 Jews from Berlin. Suprisingly, some "presidents" of provinces (of Silesia and West Prussia) say that this action has no sense, since many of those Poles have already found new families and they are living there for sometimes decades. On the other hand, "presidents" of Posen and Opole (region in middle Silesia) proposed the enlarged the scope of the action. In 1884 the law was passed for removal of all Poles, who had citizenship of other states, with exception of those, who were "by mistake" drafted to Prussian army or arrived before 1843 (in practice however those exceptions were not honoured). In total 43.943 Poles were destined for removal, but finally, because deficit of workforce the number was limited to about 32.000. Among the removed there were 9 to 10.000 Jews, who admitted (with few exceptions) the belonging to Polish nation.

That actions was protested by Polish envoys to German and PRussian parliaments, which were backed by many German (Espectially Alsatians) and Danish envoys. Many politicians, like Karol Liebknecht, Ludwig Windthorst, Rudolf Virchov etc described this actions as either inhuman or illegal. Finally PRussiann government stopped the action. Amongst the removed there was 2-years old orphan adopted by Polish family in Pleszow; 98-years old woman who arrived to her grandson to Gniezno. The families were partitioned by deporting those members who had no citizenship. The Poles "suspected for anti-German policy" were for example Pole from Wroclaw (Breslau) who celebrated victory of Sobieski at Vienna or few Polish students from university. OTOH Bismarck received also the letters with approval from Germans (Even from Bohemia!), and was backed by majority of German press.

Poles were almost always serving outside eastern provinces; it was believed, in words of Bismarck, that in such way they will "know the blessing of German civilisation" (p42). German ggovernment thought, that Polish recruits will be addicted to that civilisation and will stay in western parts of Germany and in consequence they will Germanise. But only 0,01% Polish men have not returned to theur families after the service.

German clergy was colportating amongst the kids the religious books in German, hpoing that they will Germanise whole families via their kids. Their actions were supported by German government, which few times gave special funds for many of them.

Some of the German actions were ridiculous: The German clerks demanded that Polish parents will gave their newborn kids German names, and they were sometimes even changing them without consciense of parents; so Jan was written as Johann etc. German goverment also was warning the staying Polish teachers that "cultivating Polish language" in PRIVATE homes could result in deportation. Ostmarkenverein was postulating, but fortunately without success, the planned Germanisation of Polish orphans and kids from broken families. (p45)

The German view on Poles were quite simple: Poles were on lower level of civilisation. E.g. A.Dix, German writer, in 1898 said that "Slavs are typical representants of proletariat, citizens of fifth class", and "Germans in east should be everywhere the masters". T.Schon, president of West PRussia, wrote, that main task of his administration is to "turn ex-slaves Slavs into people and Germans". Even Wilhelm II said on occasion that "Slavs are born to serve other nations". (p 45)

The policy of German government brought the desired results. In the years 1870-1910 the Prussian official statistics noted 70% of raise of Germans in West Prussia and 58% in Posen, 12,2% in East Prussia and 56,3% in Opole. For comaprison, in Posen number of Poles raised by 27,8%, in Opole in 32,4%, and was lowered in Eastern Prussia by 12% and in Western Prussia by 5,8%. All the censuses are generally in low esteem by Polish historians, because they forced Poles to declare themselves as bilingual or using only German, for example all Polish soldiers were counted as Germans. In Namyslow count in SIlesia in 1910 it was reported that only those Poles who admitted that they know no German were listed as Poles, and the rest as Germans. he separate case is so called "battle for land". It was started by Flotwell, who however was able to bought only 30 large Polish estates. The legal basis for later actions was 1886 June law of "strengthening the Germanness in provinces West Prussia and Posen", in short "Ansiedlungsgesetz", the Settlement law. Those act, plus later novelisations (including 1912 "the law of strengthening Germanness in some parts of the country" etc) included for example that Poles in countryside can build new buildings only after receving speciall allowance from German administration, which effectively caused that Poles could not build new buildings (famous Drzymala wagon case), made legal basis for confiscating Polish land and allotted large sums for buying out olish land, e.g 100.000 mk in 1886. The funds of Settlement Comission achieved 955 millions mk, plus another funds from economical activity, in total about 1423 millions mk. However, because Poles - as results of well-known "longest war of modern Europe" were boycotting the action en masse, the commission finally was mainly buying the land from.. Germans (the total of 71.2% in 1910 and 1913 71.3%). Frustrated Germans: the organisations, profesors such as Otto Hotzsch, local admi nistration etc postulated that the law should be passed which would allow to buy the land without the agreement from Polish owner. Such law was passed in 1908, march 20. Protests from around the world (the actions initiated by Polish writer Henryk Sienkiewicz, who convinced many intellectuals to sign letters of protests, the protests by some Germans etc) caused that first actions based on such law were in 1912, when 4 Polish estates were bought despite the protests of the owners. The First World War stopped such actions. (p52-5Cool

The new settlers received credits for new buildings and starting new life, etc etc. Sometimes the Commission was using low-moral Poles, who were buying the land from other Poles who otherwise were refusing to sell it to Germans; The official end of the Comission was 1 June 1924.

In addition there were other, non-government (though with government's blessing and backing) institutions which were giving credits on favourable terms, buing land and encouraging German settlement, and so called "land organisations" (Landgesellchaft) which were creating new large farms, with sepcific official goal of separating Poles and dissoluting Polish "element". (p28-66)

As mentioned earlier, Poles needed special allowance for making new building in countryside. In 1905-1913 in region of Bydgoszcz 78% of all petitions were refused (1904, 10 VIII, ansiedlungsnovelle). In some regions Poles had to provide the documents testifying, that they won't sell the building to other Pole, or that their investment is not violating the "settlement law modification" (mentioned ansiedlungsnovelle).

The name "battle for land" came becasue Poles started to defend, the organisations for helping were created by Poles, and both Germans and Poles tried to buy as much land as possible. The successes of Polish private organisation resulted in protulates by German newspapers for passing the law (Berliner Borsen-Zeitung 22 May 1907) which would made illegall the assistance to buying the land by private institutions. Suprisingly, the most sold land came from rich Poles, while the ones who were most active in propaganda and less eager to sell the land were sometimes the poorest ones...

As the result, in Posen majority of rural area (almost 60%) was in the hands of Germans (p74)

The German and public banks were refusing providing the credit for Poles, either directly or by making conditions which were highly discouraging, especially when compared to conditions offered to Germans. Sometimes they were gicing the credit, only suddenly demand everything back. Simultanously goverment was backing favourable credits for "strenghtening the German economy" in eastern provinces. The government was subsidising the self-help organisation, but since 1908 only on conditions, that such organisation will remove all Polish members. (p81)

There were also non-returnable subsidies paid by government (Niederlassungsbeihilfe), organisations such as HKT etc - all of which should result in limiting Polish economy and domination of Germans in economy of eastern provinces.

German soldiers were OFFICIALLY forbidden from goinf to Polish friseurs, German public institutions from delegating works and repairments to Polish companies etc. German organisations were printing works such as "Guide for German shops in Posen".

OTOH, Polish organisation had their meetings monitored and sometimes disbanded because of using of Polish lanugage; they could were refused from hiring the rooms etc etc. The economical boycott was from both sides. Both for the Poles and Germans it was patriotic duty to buy only from their nationalities. It was started by Poles, true, and later the German slogans were usually simply translations of earlier Polish ones, but the Poles, contrary to Germans, had not the backing of government. (p90) --Molobo 23:07, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

www.echoed.com.au/chronicle/1902/jan-feb/world.htm GERMANISATION OF POLES

LONDON, Jan. 2. The international meeting of socialists now being held at Brussels has condemned the hypocrisy of the Prussians for the barbarous methods they are pursuing for Germanisation of Poles, while the Prussians censured the British methods in the war in South Africa. (SMH, January 4, 1902) --Molobo 18:52, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/archweb/archweb_eng/Publications/dwarch/index_dwa.html#r1_1

Jarmila Kaczmarek, Andrzej Prinke

(Poznań Archaeological Museum) 1. Wielkopolska in the first half of the nineteenth century (to 1857). Foundations of the creation of two archaeologies in Poznań 1.1. Political conditioning. Wielkopolska under the rule of the King of Prussia. Germanisation of the state (government and officials) Fragments :

Settlers from Bamberg, arriving in the eighteenth century in the area of Poznań). The Prussians built their own feeling of national values and conviction of the civilising mission of the Prussian state. Seeing on the newly taken terrain Polish gentry in oriental style sashes, another language, which at times they referred to as "the rotten local language", another culture and system of values, they looked on the new country practically as nineteenth century Europeans at "wild people from the bush" (Łukasiewicz 1995, p. 44), or as the English at Hindus and Chinese. It was obvious to them that the new country should be civilised and Germanised. Initially Germanisation meant integration regarding law and politics with the remaining parts of Prussia, or Germanisation of the state structure. The Prussian administration, law and legal system were introduced. In truth from the beginning Germans were favoured, but the government allowed, that Poles as jointly subjected "brothers of the Slavonic language" might retain their language and habits. This did not hinder the many Germans coming to the province, in their utter conviction of their own superiority, and so it was obvious to them that soon the Poles would civilise themselves, which for them was synonymous with adopting the German language and culture.

The defeat of the November Uprising, which broke out in 1830 in the Russian Partition, was exploited by the Prussian authorities to abandon the policy of peaceful co-existence. As soon as 1832 General Grolmann devised a secret plan, envisaging integration (or Germanisation) of the province, including forced buying up of estates, colonisation by German peasants, integration of Jews from Germany, transferring the Polish gentry and civil servants to other German provinces, strict subjection of the church to the state and abolition of the Polish language in schools. The catholic clergy and the gentry were acknowledged as the most dangerous enemies of Germanisation; it was assumed that the peasants could be won over to the policy of the Prussian government. This plan was effected over the next decade with varying determination, hence periods of repression interwoven with periods of liberalisation.

From the third decade of the nineteenth century, one may observe the first symptoms of the Wielkopolska community organising itself, during which, generally the Germans had less problems with the establishment of organisations of a German character, whilst the Poles in general had to fight hard to establish their own. For the government regarded them, certainly correctly, as a symptom of Polish defence against Germanisation.

From 1858 the Germans took up the idea of the unification of Germany under the Prussian aegis. For Wielkopolska Province it meant an intensification of the policy of Germanisation and increasing the privileges for Germans. The final purpose was the Germanisation of society by the elimination of the Polish language and culture. The Germanisation of elementary schools was begun, though it proceeded with difficulty because of the lack of sufficient numbers of teachers knowing the German language. In 1867 the Grand Duchy of Poznań was incorporated into the North German Union.

The victory over France in 1871 caused an increase of nationalism in Germany. From then the Germanising of Greater Poland meant the dislodging and paralysing of the "Polish element" (mainly gentry and clergy as the most aware opponents). Combating opposition against unification, Chancellor Bismark declared the policy known as the Culture Battle. In 1872 schools of a religious persuasion were closed, and the state took up the supervision of education. The estate of the Church was transferred to the supervision of laypersons, monastic orders were dissolved, and the paragraphs of the Prussian constitution assuring the freedom of the Catholic Church were removed. In Wielkopolska the Culture Battle took on a nationalistic and sectarian character. Mainly specially chosen teachers and officials were engaged in Germanisation, there was even a fund for prizes for Germanisation results.

When at the end of the 'seventies the Culture Battle action became milder, this did not apply to Wielkopolska. The failure of Germanisation caused the German philosopher E. Hartmann in 1885 to proclaim the slogan - eradication of Slavs on the German territory. The President of the Bydgoszcz Regency, Tiedemann, in 1886 prepared a new Eastern policy programme: Denkschrift betr. einige Massregeln zur Germanisierung der Provinz Posen. During which, he drew attention to the fact that ordinary German inhabitants of the province were unwilling to engage till now in the propagation of Germanness, for they felt uncertain and alien in Greater Poland. The conviction of centuries of settlement in Wielkopolska was to give the German inhabitants self-assurance and convince them of the correctness of elimination of Slavs from the province terrain.

In 1886 the Clearance Commission was established to buy up Polish estates. The funds of the Commission were continually increased over the following years, but the final effect was poor. In truth it had succeeded in increasing the overall number of Germans in the province; however the number of Poles as a result of higher natural increase had increased still more, especially on the towns. The price of colonisation was also high; the creation of one German farm cost the government and taxpayers (equally the Polish) 60,000 marks (for comparison a labourer for physical work in Poznań was paid 0.3 marks per hour). In the following years the Polish language was completely abolished in ordinary schools (with the teaching of religion), which provoked strikes by Polish children, quelled by beatings.

After a short period of thaw in the years 1890-1894, the government returned to the policies of forced Germanisation. In 1894 on the initiative of German landowners - Hansemann, Kennemann and Tiedemann, the Organisation for the Propagation of Germanness in the Eastern Borders (Verein zur Förderung des Deutschtums in den Ostmarken) was established, called for short Hakata, after the first letters of the surnames of the founders. The organisation demanded the abolition of the use of any Polish at all from schools, the prohibition of the use of Polish at meetings and the closure of Polish newspapers. It joined the struggle for forcing through the proclamation of new laws on evicting Poles and bringing in Germans. In 1904 the settlement law was changed from the aspect of the battle with the greatest threat to German culture - Polish peasants. In 1908 the law of forcible buy out of Polish estates for the needs of German colonisation was announced (it came into force from 1912 to 1914, only 4 estates were expropriated). In order to completely stop the Polish parcelling out of land, from 1914 the government introduced first right of purchase (for the government) and of granting consent for subdivision by local authorities.

The policy of discrimination against all classes of Polish society and the Catholic Church caused the acceleration of the process of developing the sense of national awareness among the Polish peasantry, consolidation of all classes of Poles and a growth of anti German bias among them. In the struggle to endure Poles had to learn good organisation and managed to effectively resist Germanisation. The slogan brought forth in the time of the greatest intensification of economic pressure "Your own to your own by your own" not only had an economic note, but also a cultural one. On the other hand, the permanent increase by the government of the privileges of German inhabitants often fuelled a sense of menace for the Poles and the bringing in of anti Polish orientated officials caused a growth of anti Polish feeling among the Germans. In this situation, in spite of periodic attempts at cooperation, also in science, including archaeology, Poznań began to have two faces - Polish and German.

--Molobo 19:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

Rather than insisting on proof of "torture", for example Which can be easly found on site of the school where the events took place, that had engaged in country wide event to remember the fight to preserve Polish identity by those children.Here is a detailed account of event made by one of the organisers of the ceremonies : http://www.sdw.icpnet.pl/historia.html--Molobo 19:15, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

I deleted the translations because when I said "Rather than insisting on proof of 'torture'", you should have looked the term "rather than" up in a dictionary, and it does not mean "also", but "instead of". I cannot stand this senseless source-flood that tries to force through a statement to make the text biased. When you again and again try to paint the gloomiest, one-sided, most biased picture without stepping over the line of factual inaccuracy, it's best to just open the history book and get a sober impression by Pr.s and Dr.s of history. If this picture is different, it is usually best to shrugg off Mo's POVpushing and paint the picture the way the history book did. In case Molobo might accuse me of deleting his source despite a possible copyright violation, you can read the source here. NightBeAsT 19:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

I can hardly imagine how anyone can consider Germanisation policy being "neutral". It's hard to believe that German textbooks would provide such a biased picture. --Lysy ^(talk) 19:41, 31 October 2005 (UTC)

~Sigh~ nor can I. "I read "Minorities in the nation state" of my old history book, and, of course, the impression conveyed is differently than that Molobo tries to give, for it is neutral." =) NightBeAsT 19:30, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Than the impression is wrong, sorry. You can't argue historical facts. Molobo's proposal are not perfect, nor written in a good style, but you can't ignore the sources he cites. For goodness' sake I can't believe that textbooks in German schools do not talk about Germanisation in context of violent Kulturkampf organised and led by the German state and civilians. Boyau 00:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I'm lost. I don't even have idea what are you trying to dispute here :-( Do I understand correctly that you believe that German policy agains Poles was neutral ? --Lysy ^(talk) 21:12, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, uh, sorry for the late reply. No, what I had meant was that the history books are neutral and academic while this article has become a reproachful hysteria. For example, it is interesting why the text speaks of the Germanisation in Prussia when in reality there were no particular difficulties of assimilation of Poles in the Prussian state until the foundation of the Empire. (shouldn't that be mentioned in the text??) Only parts of the aristocracy sought a restoration of the Polish state. On the whole the people considered themselves as Prussians. When the German Empire was founded it suddenly the population included about 5.5% Poles. Amid the national awakening, the Germans wanted the people in the German Empire to be German too, in other words the others should adopt their language and culture. (Interestingly, the text is limited to the Poles. Danes? People of Alsace-Lorraine? And what were the motives?) Also, the text doesn't want to explain the vicious circle of measures by the state and counter-measures. The more the state wanted to Germanise the Poles, the stronger became the Polish agitation and the more the state wanted to Germanise them and new measures came. Actually forced Germanisation resulted in a longing for national identity. As for the torture, I believe there were only very few such events, weren't they? "In occupied Poland its estimated that a number ranging from 50.000 to 200.000 children were kidnaped from their families in order to be germanised[3].It's estimated that at least 10.000 of them were murdered in the process, and only 10-15 % returning to their families after the war" is actually a pretty pathetic attempt to mingle Germanisation with the Holocaust. So at least 10 000 Polish children died by adopting the German language and culture??? Also you get very little to know about Germanisation before the 19th century. NightBeAsT 19:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC) So at least 10 000 Polish children died by adopting the German language and culture??? No because kidnapped children were transported in cattle wagons without food or water for days, and those unfit for Germanisation murdered.Something that as usual is missing from your "history books".--Molobo 22:01, 15 November 2005 (UTC) For example, it is interesting why the text speaks of the Germanisation in Prussia when in reality there were no particular difficulties of assimilation of Poles in the Prussian state until the foundation of the Empire It seems your history books lack information about Polish troops liberating Poznan from Prussian rule in 1806, or the putting higher taxes on Poles by Frederick of Prussia, his orders to ban Polish language, and confiscation of property of polish monesteries, or the fact that that Poles in Prussian partition took part in organised resistance against the occupation since 1839, death sentences for Polish activists in 1846 like Karol Libelt, or the Polish uprising in Grand Poland in 1848, or the National Comitee, or the disarming of prussian soldiers by Polish peasants durign said uprising, the four Polish units made from peasents called Kosynierzy that were battles with them at Książ in 29 VI of 1848(victory by by Prussian army, major Florian Dąbrowski dies), the Polish victory over Prussian units at Miroslawiec on 30 VI, and many, many other things NB that happened before German Empire was created. --Molobo 22:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Why do you

Removed information on Nazi programs of Germanisation including kidnapping of children ? --Molobo 14:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC) http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/Hitlers_Plans.htm#GERMANIZATION%20OF%20POLISH%20CHILDREN Already during the early days of the occupation deportations were undertaken of Polish families from the annexed territories, particularly those who had settled there after the First World War, to the Government General. Only those people were left whom the Germans imagined would be suitable for Germanization. In their case the process of Germanization was facilitated by registering them on the German National Lists (Volksliste) with particular attention being paid to the children. Children recognized as racially valuable were subjected to Germanization usually by way of the Volksliste. If one of the parents refused to be entered on the Volksliste, the children and the other parent were registered to enable the Germanization to be carried out. However, there were many cases when children were compulsorily removed from their parents. Even before the Volksliste was formally introduced, Himmler, in a decree of September 12, 1940, on examination and selection of people in the annexed territories, had given orders to remove children from parents who rejected "re-Germanization." Later (Feb. 16, 1942) these orders were extended to include parents who were considered "especially compromised politically." Even in cases where the parents had been put down in the fourth group of the Volksliste, this latter order of Himmler's called for the removal of their children if it turned out that the parents were exerting an "unfavourable influence" on their children's Germanization. They were then placed with German families and institutions. This order was later made to apply to persons in the third group as well. Thus, in some cases, even registration on the Volksliste did not protect parents from the abduction of their children. TOP Just a fragment. --Molobo 14:21, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I have heard of that program as well. Olessi 19:01, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh please, Molobo! You know the revert was rather focused on your other changes (or rather revert). And before you're accusing me, accuse yourself. You're doing the same eg[1]. NightBeAsT 19:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? I never erased information about Nazi atrocities like you did. --Molobo 21:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is it that you have against anon's additions. Considering Germanisation as cultural assimilation, his changes are not too far-fetched and I therefore reworked his version. As for the hypocrisy in the comment above against my complete revert of your version, you've just been guilty of that as well. At least I do not think that the additions added by another anon (I marked them with bold letters below) are that correct.[2]

"In the process of Germanization, the number of Polish-speaking people declined steadily:

1818 - over 90% of population
1852 - 65%
1861 - 58%
1890 - 46%
1900 - 33.5% (Prussian census)
1990 - 19%

2012 - 0% (to do)"

Sciurinæ 07:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

My objections to the recent additions are that they are kept in a form of a dispute, that is (a) inappropriate for the article ("so this ... thus that ... etc.), (b) not clear what is disputed (e.g. why there should be any reluctance to offer the crown to a German speaking ruler ? why is it importand what was the intention of the Habsburgs ? etc.) The article should contain conclusions, based on cited sources and not discussion of the facts, which is apprpriate for the talk page. --_Lysy^talk 08:36, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Disgusted

I'm disgusted with this anonymous Polish-German pushing that's happening in the article since yesterday. It's definitely not healthy both for the article and for the editors themselves. Any ideas of how this could be handled ? --_Lysy^talk 16:58, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Honestly, the page is lost. There have been more than a dozen edits implementing the sentence "Polish players face discrimination and insults from Germanic sportstmen as shown by the example of Dietmar Kühbauer who refused to hold an interview with Adam Ledwon, saying he "stinks of Poland"." Sciurinæ 20:27, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Sentence Removed

This fact contributes much to Germanize the Poles, as they have to learn German to attend the services.

Not true. Mass was given in Latin until the 1960s. I've deleted the above sentence accordingly.

http://www.unavoce.org/news/2005/St.%20Agnes.html http://www.unavoce.org/news/2006/Buffalo.htm

Nonsense!

Preaching alsway was in the local language!

-to the above comment' - mass was in latin until the 1960s for the catholic church.

Cleanup rationale

I just wanted to state for the record that the cleanup tag was added because this was apparently translated & posted from the german wikipedia. Most of it was passable aside from a couple missed "und"s, but it likely needs to be rewritten inasmuch as the grammar. Don't remove the cleanup tag unless you've read through the entire thing, not just a glance (as has been the case some other articles). Also, if at all possible, we should have links to comparable web pages in English for the sources cited here. Darkildor 22:14, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Recent changes by 131.173.252.9

I've been following this editor for the better part of today, and he seems to be of the opinion that there's a great deal of POV pro-polish or anti-german material in some articles concerning this controversial subject. While I cannot under any circumstances agree with his blankings and drastic, undiscussed/unjustified changes to the articles, I do agree that, as someone with no background in the subject, the language used is exceedingly unflattering toward Germany. If anyone can provide sources or evidence to justify what would otherwise be POV language, I'd like to see it added to ensure a NPOV in this subject area. --Kuzaar 06:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

The language used is exeedingly unflattering toward Germany? This does not refer to present day Gemany, you know!! But the policies of the German rulers and actions of the German people of the XIX cent., and they deserve 'unflattering language'. If you're not familiar with the topic, read some sources, and then say what is your opinion. Memory about these events is very well preserved in Poland (not srprised it is not so in Germany), as this is part of the opposition to outrageous antipolish violent policies that were imposed on Polish people during the 123-years of non-existence of Polish state. All these events have been countlessly recalled by popular history books, literature, published diaries, in film etc. The article, although not free from mistakes, presents historical facts obvious to EVERY Polish person. Disregarding this, you disregard the memory of all the victims of those crimes! Boyau 00:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Move back to Germanisation

This article started out as Germanisation. It was recently moved to Germanization by User:Darkildor without giving any reason/no discussion, thereby violating the MoS. The move should be undone. An administrator will have to do the move, because the target page has an edit history. It's very similar to the recent Organization-move, this time the other way around. SpNeo 13:43, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Support --Philip Baird Shearer 23:00, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Silesia under Frederick the Great

Can someone please cite sources that state that Frederick the Great "germanised" Silesia. As Silesia was already a part of the HRE at this time, that is to say, it was already recognized as German land, with a majority German population. nowhere but on wikipedia have I ever read anything about Frederick the Great "germanising" populations of his land. This looks like the article is meant to demonize a respected German historical figure while advocating the forced eviction of Germans from their native homelands by the Soviets/Polish after WWII.

--Jadger 19:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Germanising does not refer to landownership, but to violent policies of Kulturkampf. Demanding that Polish people stop using Polish language and will become German - and the fashion in which this was done. I see this topic causes lot of controversy, I'll look up some sources, and post it here. Boyau 00:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Delete everything + leave a stub

I suggest that most of the content in this article be deleted. Or all of it. The article should define the term "germanisation" as it is widely understood and stand apart from trying to describe the historical eventst etc. as these will always be subject to a neutrality dispute. Support or oppose? ackoz 14:28, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

I wanted to suggest the exact same thing. Reasons: The article seems to be mainly about the history of Poland and Germany, and in this history it concentrates on how polish or how german the eastern regions of germany were until the end of WW2 and how they supposedly came to be so. *This* is a very complicated matter and an article about it can NEVER be NPOV as long as it is called Germanisation, because the term itself is biased in this context.

So there should be an arcticle called Germanisation that can stub-like contain the introductory sentences of the current one and (if one really wants it) another article called something like 'the ethnic composition of north-eastern europe from the middle ages until WW2'. But beware: This article will never be undisputed NPOV because after a lot of wars and a lot of cruelty done by and suffered by any ethnicity over the course of hundreds of years, there are a lot of different views on history... 84.169.235.171 23:13, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

So is the term Holocaust biased? No, because it refers to historical facts. So does germanisation. Boyau 00:32, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Germanisation: an historical approach

The only possible approach is historical. By the way, forced germanisation can be well defined as a bad thing. It is the case of the germanisation of the non-German speaking people in South Tyrol (XVII century) promoted by the Austrian Empire and motivated by religious concerns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.0.27 (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

There's a problem here: Bias Against Germanisation

You act like Germanisation is a bad thing, like the "vile" and "evil" Germans were persecuting the poor, defenseless eastern Europeans. It would appear to me that this article is a result of the severe amount of anti-German propoganda in America and other former ally countries. I have read the text books that you "educate" your children with, sad is the only word i can think to describe it.

-Helmut Reiker

I'm part German and it annoys the bloody hell out of me whenever people act as though Germany is a horrible country or it's bad to be German. Germany was in need and Hitler abused it, they need to get the hell over it now, it's over. -Blakemore

I'm a German-American. I also have issues with this article and with Helmut's suggestion. Forced Germanization was not always done for racial motivations, sometimes political reasons or ease of administration. There should be a distinction. The article is negatively overtoned almost entirely throughout, exceptions being where it states that the process happened as a by-product or side-effect, but even then it's still pretty shaky. It speaks of people being of mixed Polish descent with an "Oh, what a shame," attitude, as if it were a terrible thing that they are no longer only Polish. As an American of mixed heritage, I am rather irked by things like this. I'm English, Scottish, Irish, Scots-Irish, German, Native American, and Chinese-Indonesian, and proud of it all. Not trying to go off on too many tangents or anything, but take it as a poll from the audience, reader feedback, w/e.

If I might address Helmut directly, I'm reading these textbooks now. I don't see any propaganda being mass produced and distributed in the schoolbooks anymore. Once upon a time, yes, it happened, and it does bother me as well, but that's over now. And what bothers me more is the Allies' treatment of the German people, the Dutch people, the Polish people, and others, the expulsion, the trading around, and the idea that only an ethnically homogeneous state could ever be truly stable. If only they could see the US, Canada, UK, Australia, Singapore, and even Germany now. And keep in mind that a significant portion of the United States population is of German descent. It'd be a special kind of hard to discriminate so much against ourselves. --Reinald Wesner —Preceding unsigned comment added by RCIWesner (talk • contribs) 18:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I am addressing all of you. I am part German, but that doesn't mean I am evil or against everyone who isn't. I am German, I cannot cleanse from my mind what my country did in that war. Germanisation was cruel. What else could you call it? Hitlers people tore people from their homes and families, brought them to Germany, and forced them to become German. If I offended any one out there, I am sorry, but what Hitler and his followers did in WWII was wrong and I refuse to say any part of what was inflicted by Hitler was right. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sinclair Diabeł (talk • contribs) 22:44, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

There is indeed a lot of problems with the article, stemming from an anti-German bias. Chauvinist propaganda is used as if it is fact, while it actually isn't. 105.12.7.75 (talk) 01:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Please provide specific instances of "anti-German bias" and material sourced to "chauvinistic propaganda". Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:10, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Polish nationalistic propaganda

result of the severe amount of anti-German propoganda in America

IMHO it's mostly written by Poles. Polish nationalism - especially in schools at communist time - has a long tradition in demonizing German history, e.g. the feudal wars against the Teutonic Order are interpreted as a "national" independence fight, completely blanking out that the local German population supported the Polish lords! In this propaganda the assimilated Slavic or Baltic minorities were all per definition Polish and this evil process of assimilation was politically enforced, even long before the concept of a nation state or language dispute was even born. The corresponding processes of Francization, Anglicisation and Polonization where huge linguistic minorities vanished in the last 2 centuries are in comparison very moderately discussed in Wikipedia! -- Popolfi (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Francization, Anglicisation and Polonization aren't link with genocide. So we can't be surprised.

I deleted this paragraph because it's by far no NPOV:

"This was the practice of Prussia, Austria, German Empire, Weimar Republic and German Empire. Non-Germans were often banned from use of their language, the state discriminated their traditions and culture, when those measures were not successful in eradicating non-Germans, colonists and settlers were used to upset the population balance. As even those steps proved insufficient, the orientation turned into policy of ethnic cleansing and later into genocide."

There are plenty of examples of cultural discrimination of minorities in Europe since French revolution, and not only in German speaking areas. So please show me the difference in France, Britain or Poland - references please! Especially the last phrase is pure anti-German. If the Nazi-era is a natural result of Germanisation, then Stalins policy of ethnic cleansings is the natural result of Russification? --Popolfi (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Weak argument. Stalin killed becouse he fought against "the ruling class". This assumption derives from communism ideology, not from Russian nationalism or racism.

Popolfi - source? ANY history book! This isn't polish propaganda - what you are writing is typical german propaganda! "Polish nationalism -especially in schools at communist time - has a long tradition in demonizing German history," - Polish nationalism ? at comunist time?(Of course there was some problems but they mainly was in WWII time ex. Katyń - but this was effect of comunist propaganda {not nationalism}). Demonizing? Is this a jest? This is typical problem with germans - even if they did something they will just keep saying that they didn't until themselves believe, or dont' speak at all. "e.g. the feudal wars against the Teutonic Order are interpreted as a "national" independence fight" - from definition teutonic order was theocracy but never mind, how the hell King of Poland deevolve into just feudal lord? How it's not national war ? If at that time order won war - Polish people would become second prussians. "There are plenty of examples of cultural discrimination of minorities in Europe since French revolution, and not only in German speaking areas. So please show me the difference in France, Britain or Poland - references please! Especially the last phrase is pure anti-German" - "Hit the Poles, so that they break down. If we want to exist, we have to exterminate them" - Bismarck

Move back to Germanisation again

This article was created at 12:41 am GMT on the 8th of March 2004 by User:Cautious using the spelling Germanisation.[3]

At 9:25 pm on the 2nd of February 2006 User:Darkildor moved it to Germanization without discussion labelling the edit "minor".

At 8:40 pm on the 6th of March 2006 Darkildor's move was reverted by User:Shii following discussion on the talk page.

At 5:51 am on the 18th February 2007 User:R9tgokunks moved it to Germanization again with the following to say "moved Germanisation to Germanization over redirect: Reverting from 2006 Move, to stabilize with the consistency of Wikipedia".

R9tgokunks, are you aware that the 2006 move you reverted was itself a reversion of an earlier move? Are you aware of Wikipedia policy regarding spelling? Are you aware that your stabilisation with the consistency of Wikipedia lacks the weight of consensus ... moreover that consensus is quite in opposition to this? J i m p 00:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the page back. J i m p 05:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

both are acceptable and proper spelling, I prefer the Z though because it is the more common spelling of the word (atleast in Canada it is the more common way of spelling this kind of word)

--Jadger 08:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely, they are both acceptable & proper. What is not acceptable nor proper is changing from one acceptable & proper spelling to another without justification. J i m p 08:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Jimp, you're moving just because. It's fine as long as the spelling is consistent throughout. I'd be more concerned with the content of the article and other aspects of presentation, like grammar. It's a little spotty. RCIWesner (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

... just because this is the spelling it originally had, in accordance with the policy on the matter, which is doing a good job keeping this type of edit warring at a minimum. If you're more concerned with content, that's great, it needs work. JIMp_talk·cont 19:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Current state and overall quality

The paragraph "Current state" talks in great length about the situation of Poles in Germany, but completely ignores the fact that the Germany of today is a multicultural country with big minorities from Turkey, Italy, Russia, the Balkans etc. The paragraph (1) completely ignores these groups and the article (2) talks almost exclusively about the relationship between Poles and Germans. I miss the situation in Austria- Hungary, in Alsace, Lorraine, Schleswig and the german colonies. Right now this article is one-sided, if not tendentious. 84.181.102.244 08:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The article in its present form has an obvious anti-German slant and makes assertions that do not agree with reality.

Example:Descendants of Polish migrant workers and miners have intermarried with the local population and are thus culturally mixed.

It does not take more than superficial knowledge of contemporary Germany to see that the descendants of those Polish miners of the 19th century have by now assimilated. Usually the only sign of their allegedly culturally mixed state are Polish last names.

The peace treaties after the First World War did contain an obligation for Poland to protect her national minorities (Germans, Ukrainians and other), whereas no such clause was introduced by the victors in the Treaty of Versailles with Germany.

For obvious reasons: the treaty put German territories and people under foreign domination. Including that of Poland, where they were themselves subject to harsh Polonisation measures, as were other minorities, e.g. the mentioned Ukrainians. Textor (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Tendentious language and statements

I would rather call it tendentious. It simply not true that the Polish language was persecuted under Frederick the Great. Frederick just cared for the loyalty of his subjects and did not care about their religion or language. He said: if Turkish Muslims want to settle here there are free to do so as long as they are loyal subjects. It appears symptomatic that only dubious Polish sources are provided for these allegations. The real "Germanisation" period started with the German Empire after 1871. After all, it was not very successful as can be seen from the numbers and rising percentages of Polish population at that time. In the first half of the 19th century Prussian culture minister Karl vom Stein zum Altenstein advocated the education in the respective mother language. In areas with a Polish majority even German-speaking children had to attend the Polish school. Education level was highest among the Poles in Prussia compared to their Russian and Austrian compatriots.

So, this article urgently has to be cleaned from POV language and tendentious statements apparently introduced by Polish nationalists.--87.123.106.71 (talk)

Ruhr dialect

There was written that the dialect of the Ruhr area contains lots of words of Polish origin. That isn't true. I live in this area and I don't know any. I suggest to delete this sentence until there are any proofs of this assertion.

well "lots" seems to be very exagerated, here some few examples from German Wikipedia:

"Im Ruhrgebiet (Ruhrdeutsch) wird das polnische Wort Mottek für einen Hammer benutzt, im poln. heißt es młotek. In der Jugendsprache wird für Geld manchmal auch Schlotten gesagt, im Polnischen heißt die Währung Złoty (Gold)." [4]

"Ausdrücke wie Mottek für Hammer oder Mattka (beides aus dem Polnischen) für eine korpulente, ungepflegte ältere Frau, die in der Gesamtheit des Wortschatzes ebenfalls als kennzeichnend für das Ruhrdeutsch genannt werden können, sind vielen Sprechern des Hochdeutschen im Ruhrgebiet sogar nicht einmal mehr geläufig. Insgesamt ist der Bestand polnischer oder masurischer Worte im Ruhrdeutschen begrenzt." [5] --Popolfi (talk) 11:32, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Begrenzt means restricted and new results have shown that there are only two words - mottek and mattka - in the dialect of the Ruhr area. So I think it is not worth mentioning. If yet than every article about the English language has to mention that its vocabulary contains lots of words of the xy language. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.142.100.128 (talk) 06:59, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Comparison with France

The French treat their linguistic and cultural minorities poorly but aren't treated nearly as harshly as the Germans, who have strongly pulled back on the Germanisation policy. This should be noted somewhere. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.40.117.108 (talk) 03:00, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Belgian East Cantons

I was looking for information about the Germanisation of the Belgian East Cantons. Could somebody with more knowledge about this topic please add some information about it?Johnny2323 (talk) 07:19, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Eupen-Malmedy belonged to the Prussia/German Empire before being annexed by Belgium after WWI. IMHO the population belonged since Roman times to the German-Dutch dialect continuum. In the western parts of Europe you have rather French language pushing eastwards, so it's more a Francisation than Germanisation. --popolfi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.97.73.203 (talk) 10:05, 10 July 2010 (UTC)

Specific example - Germanization during the Second World War

What is the specific example supposed to show? All dates are clearly even before the First World War, so it's not an appropriate example for the Second World War. Can anybody shed some light on this one? --Tauwasser (talk) 10:24, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

I think somebody just misplaced it.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 02:27, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Put a relevance notice up. If nobody thinks it's relevant or finds some sources with actual figures for a time span at least touching the First World War, I will remove the whole section later. --Tauwasser (talk) 17:01, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

And it's gone. --Tauwasser (talk) 23:14, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

FYI, I'm not even the person who added it to begin with.--Morgan Hauser (talk) 00:12, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Copy Editing

I have corrected the following passages, in addition to some minor edits:

"The Protestant king of Bohemia elected against the Habsburgs by the Bohemian estates in 1619, the German prince Frederick V, Elector Palatine was defeated in 1620 by Catholic forces loyal to the Habsburg Emperor, Ferdinand II. "

Proposed correction: "The German prince and Elector Palatine Frederick V, elected as king of Bohemia by the Bohemian estates in 1619, was defeated by Catholic forces loyal to the Habsburg Emperor, Ferdinand II."

"Among the Bohemian lords who were punished and had their lands expropriated after Frederick's defeat in 1620 were German- and Czech-speaking landowners. Thus, this conflict was, by far, an internal conflict resulting from the feudal system than a clash of different nations. Although the Czech language lost its significance as a written language in the aftermath of the events, it is questionable whether this was primarily intended by the Habsburg rulers, whose intentions were in religious and feudal categories."

Proposed Correction:"...Thus, this conflict was feudal in nature, not national. Although the Czech language lost its significance as a written language in the aftermath of the events, it is questionable whether this was intended by the Habsburg rulers, whose aims were of a feudal and religious character.

Of Prussian Lithuanians

Similar Germanisation also happened for Prussian Lithuanians living in East Prussia, numbers of whom, since the 15th century, made up a majority of population in vast areas of East Prussia (since early 16th century often referred to as Lithuania Minor), had shrunk considerably during the 18h-20th centuries because of Plague and following immigration from Germany, notably from Salzburg in 18th century. Policy of Germanisation was tightened during the 19th century. In the early 20th century, Lithuanian majority remained north of the Neman River and areas south and south-west of the river.

Similar development happened with Kursenieki, but this ethnic group never had a large population.

Proposed Changes:===Prussian Lithuanians===

Prussian Lithuanians living in East Prussia experienced similar policies of Germanisation. Although ethnic Lithuanians had constituted a majority in areas of East Prussia during the 15th and 16th centuries (from the early 16th century it was often referred to as Lithuania Minor), the Lithuanian population began to shrink in the 18th century. Plague and subsequent immigration from Germany, notably from Salzburg, were the primary factors in this development. Germanisation policies were tightened during the 19th century, but even into the early 20th century the territories north and south/south-west of the Neman River contained a Lithuanian majority. Kursenieki experienced similar developments, but this ethnic group never had a large population.

...the point is to change it (talk) 04:54, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The above-mentioned changes have been made. ...the point is to change it (talk) 07:19, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Citations

A "Citation Needed" mark has been added to several segments whose online reference no loner exists. If any sources can be found for these, it would be appreciated!...the point is to change it (talk) 03:03, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Dutch Relocation

The last paragraph under Western Germanization says:

An even more radical scheme was devised by Himmler which envisioned the near-future resettlement of the entire Dutch nation to agricultural lands in the Vistula and Bug valleys of German-occupied Poland in order to facilitate their immediate Germanisation.[58] 8.5 million people were to be relocated in total, after which all Dutch capital and real estate would be confiscated by the Reich and distributed to reliable SS men, and an SS Province of Holland declared in vacated Dutch territory. [59]

However a look at the sources indicate BOTH originate with a man named Felix Kersten who has his own wikipedia entry. This talks about the so-called Dutch Relocation.

In his post-war memoirs Kersten takes credit for saving, among others, the whole Dutch people from forced deportation to the Nazi-occupied East. In 1953 the Dutch government nominated him for the Nobel Peace Prize on this account.[1] However a later official Dutch investigation concluded that no such plan had ever existed and that some of Kersten's documents were fabricated.[2]

These citations are sourced to a story in the Atlantic (whose archives are available to the public) and a document that is a German Reprint of something called "Two Legends from the Third Reich." This is written by Loe de Jong who apparently is an incredibly definitive source on WWII in regards to the Netherlands. In light of this information I am removing the claim about Dutch relocation from this article.(SSJPabs (SSJPabs (talk) 14:10, 18 January 2011 (UTC))

Note: My edit was challenged with reference to the policies on wikipedia's verifiability. Thus I have added an altered version of the original text leaving the claim in but accurately summarizing why it's a claim. (SSJPabs (talk) 19:00, 18 January 2011 (UTC))

Germanisation under the Third Reich

Was Himmler the one who was responsible for planning "Germanisation under the Third Reich"? MathewTownsend (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I am surprised that there is no mention of VoMi (Hauptamt Volksdeutsche Mittelstelle) and RKFVD in all of this. Himmler was deliberately responsible for many aspects of the Germanization program. I am also surprised by the emphasis on Poland and Yguoslavia. Similar activities took place in Hungary and Romania and Czechoslovakia. They deserve sections of their own.Imersion (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

NPOV tag

There is a very old NPOV tag. Can it be removed, or if not can someone indicate what is the problem below. Op47 (talk) 19:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Race doesn´t exist. Neither the genetics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.156.106.229 (talk) 18:09, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.nordisk.nu/showthread.php?t=38757. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Diannaa (talk) 18:44, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Surnames section

The final section regarding Germanic and Slavic surnames reads very much as if it has been lifted straight from the paper it claims to be citing. I have not had the time to read the paper myself, but the wiki section here has phrases like 'our study' still present, and retains stastisical analysis in brackets. I would be very surprised if this is not the result of straight copying.

This really needs to be investigated and be re-written in a proper way if it is a copy before the journal notices. It is a clear breach of copyright if it has been copied. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.254.183.18 (talk) 09:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The source link is behind a paywall, but I found another copy of the paper online at http://www.nordisk.nu/showthread.php?t=38757. The material has now been removed. Thank you very much for reporting this. -- Diannaa (talk) 18:46, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Reichsfeinde

The sentence "Later in the German Empire, Poles were (together with Danes, Alsatians, German Catholics and Socialists) portrayed as "Reichsfeinde" ("foes to the empire")" is unclear, who was portraying them as Reichsfeinde? This implies that there was government propaganda depicting them as such, but if there was such, then it should say so. If however, this was just the view of Bismark his political allies, then it should use the term view. It seems from other sources, that Bismark doubted the loyalty, and viewed them as potential threats to the Empire, and would not explicitly name them all enemies. Tinynanorobots (talk) 14:55, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Germanisation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110719060128/http://www.magazin-deutschland.de/de/artikel/artikelansicht/article/auf-der-suche-nach-dem-ich.html to http://www.magazin-deutschland.de/de/artikel/artikelansicht/article/auf-der-suche-nach-dem-ich.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:25, 19 October 2015 (UTC)

capital or small?

This page uses a capital letter - to Germanize. But Webster's [6] uses a small letter, although it notes "often capitalized". I would suggest we change to a small "g" in this article, with a note in the lede that the word is "often capitalized". Unless someone has Reliable Sources - more reliable than Webster's - that prefer the capital letter? MelanieN (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

make chapter: Migrant Germanization (z, US option is the unofficial standard in Wikipedia)

The article refers mostly to nazi Germanization or to the word adaptation. Some migrants get German ID, this is called Germanization also. We are supposed to reveal all data, not the most emotional ones. If something boring is part of the truth should also be revealed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:587:4100:2F00:C96E:5DBA:BFD5:D544 (talk) 19:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Germanisation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:34, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Germanisation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:55, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

This article requires editing for sense.

This article requires editing for sense - especially the second paragraph. I couldn't parse it for love or money. Well, maybe for money... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.191.202.150 (talk) 08:36, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Germanisation. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090904184121/http://www.tcm-kp.de/geschichtliches/johannziesch/ to http://www.tcm-kp.de/geschichtliches/johannziesch/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:02, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

Entire article is a synthesis?

This entire article appears to violate several Wikipedia guidelines and policies. Specifically, it is a synthesis: a gathering together of information from many separate sources to support the idea of a single unified idea called "Germanization.", and synthesis is a no-no because it is a form of original research. As far as I can tell, none of the referenced sources discuss this newly-created synthesis i.e. the idea of germanisation as a single historical trend. Can someone please provide a few such sources? If not, then this article should be broken into multiple articles, one for each (referenced) meaning of the term "germanisation", and the article itself should become a disambiguation page.

Separate from the synthesis problem, the article is in dire need of a through copyedit, but that would be a great deal easier if it were first subdivided.

Please note: I realize that some of these separate aspects of "germanisation" had truly horrific effects, and some of the dogma that drove is was frankly evil. I sympathize, but that is no reason to cram all of this stuff together into one article. -Arch dude (talk) 01:41, 3 February 2018 (UTC)

Brusseles 1902

Do you mean: [7] ?Xx236 (talk) 14:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Does who mean what? Could you please write coherent comments and provide context for them? Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

What is An international meeting of socialists held in Brussels in 1902? I have proposed my link. Xx236 (talk) 08:31, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

It's apparently International Socialist Bureau#1st. Brussels; December 30, 1901.Xx236 (talk) 08:34, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Wrong revert

I have linked Września children strike replacing the general Września link, where the strike is only mentioned. Beyond my Ken has reverted my edit. I'm right. Xx236 (talk) 07:55, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

You have been here for 13 years and have almost 40,000 edits, so there's absolutely no excuse for you not to understand the Wikipedia definition of "vandalism", but since you apparently don't, I suggest you read WP:VANDALISM, and withdraw your aspersion. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

If you read my edit summary, you'd see that I reverted your edit because you removed a "citation needed" tag without providing a citation. However, your change of Wikilink does seem to be an improvement, so I've restored it. I'll accept your apology for calling my edit "vandalism" at any time. Beyond My Ken (talk) 08:25, 11 December 2018 (UTC)