Jump to content

Talk:Silesia/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5→Archive 9

Anyone reading this archive should be made aware that the comments signed as GH were made by the user now known as AM.

Archive3

Earlier discussion:

Add a new section

Suggestions for new intro

1) Leave HRE out. IF medieval times are not important, then mentioning HRE as catch-all for German influences is wrong, since HRE was formality in most of modern times and ceased to exists in 1806. So, sentence "Silesia was either part of HRE or on borders of HRE for most of the millentium" is formally true, but does not give too much new information into article.

2) Also, how would Germans feel if I would put such, formally true, sentence: "SIlesia for most of 2nd century was either Polish province or situated on borders of Poland. Ties with Poland were decreasing over time until in 1945 it became part of Poland".

How we would feel about a sentence like that? Well, since it's simply false we would just laugh, I suppose.
What's false about it? It was was either Polish (until 1327-1368) or on Borders of Poland (until 1792) so you have your "for most of 2nd century" part TRUE. Ties with Poland wer edecreasing but were always existing, with Poles being majority in some regions, and large minority in other well into XIX or even XX century. SO What's false in that sentence, Nico? szopen
It is not the details from Heiliges Römisches Reich deutscher Nation I think is interesting, and when HRRdN was mentioned it was meant as a compromise (by Ruhrjung), I think.
You could also simply say: Silesia was historically German, and the large portion of the historical region is Polish today. You get half of the introduction, and the Germans get the other part of it.
The most important is what Silesia is referring to in the English speaking world. You cannot deny that the historical German province is an important part of it, which have a natural place in the introduction. Details from medieval history have not a natural place in the introduction. The difference between Polish history in the middle ages and German history is: Silesia has been German for 618 years, and there is a continuity. Polish kings in the middle ages are unknown to our English readers, and not what they are searching for in the introduction. In the introduction of the United Kingdom article you wouldn't write that England is a former Danish colony either. But if Poland occupied England or Wales today, it would be rather stupid not to mention British history in the introduction of an article in this encyclopedia. -- Nico 06:35, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

3)Also, if some are saying that only modern time are important, why not sentence "in last century SIlesia for almost 60 years was Polish and 40 German?" HUh? You say that descendants of people who live in Silesia are still alive and that's important to them. That's true. But still some of the autochtons from Silesia also stayed in Poland, despite communism and post-war hysteria.


4) Therefore, introduction, if mentioning history of the region at all, should a) stress that before 1945 Germans were majority in the region b) in modern time it was generally German province c) it was also part of Poland and Bohemia in the past d) Poles were in modern times minority in Silesia but Silesia was considered "lost" province thoughout whole modern Polish history (before WWI Greater Polish organisations were for example funding Polish libraries etc in many ragions of Silesia, were Polish minority was still significant, e.g Opole) e) majority of German population was expelled (not all, since some stayed- German minority in Silesia did not appear out of nowhere)

5) Waiting for suggestion

Nobody answered this. What's wrong with my points? 1) In introduction, mention that before 1945 Silesia was German, majority of population was German and majority of it was expelled after 1945

2) Do not mention HRE since it cease to exist in 1807 or something and usually being part of HRE was fomarlity, while it had bad conntations to Poles.

3) Mention that Silesia in past was also part of Poland and Bohemia

4) reference to the rest to history, when it will all be explained.

I will abstain for any editing until Wednesday. I promise. I won't even discuss or anything. szopen

I believe, that historically delicate facts should not belong to the intro. 128.176.189.138 13:18, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

This is exactly my opinion. Just mention that it was in history German, Polihs, Bohemian and Hungarian duchy.

Nevertheless, i wonder what Nico consider by "German Silesia". In some periods large minority of Silesia was German. Then it was formally part of HRE, but practically was ruled by Czech, Polish, or even Hungarian kings or by local Polish dukes. Then most of population became German (but still, for example in 1834 according to Prussian census, 60% of population of Bytom was Polish - it had Polish large minority even after WWI, and only Polish grammar school was allowed in Germany here - against all odds and after intervention in league of Nations).

Nico seem to think that Poles In Silesia were totally new people. This is not the truth: Poles were in Silesia for centuries.

BTW, how many Poles in Silesia was positively verified and allowed to stay? I've read the figure of 1 million of Polish minority from Opole region alone, which seems to me at least half million too many... szopen

Answering sysop's request for comments on "factoids"

Hi, Uncle Ed et al. ! Missed you all very much. I will stay away from the major conflict here, (because after all, I'm biased myself), and just stick to Uncle Ed's "factoids":

What year is the "Catholic Encyclopedia" from? Because it sounds like Poland was not on the map, when the book was published.

Silesia has been:

  1. Prussian Conquered by the Kingdom in Prussia in 1840/1842
  1. inhabited 3/4 by Germans, 1/4 by Poles (1905) this infamous "data collection" assumed anybody who had ability to speak german language, to be of German nationality, assumed everybody else to be Poles and completely ignored the Silesian nationality
  2. Slavonic (an 800 year period)
  3. controlled by Poland (In 999 Silesia was conquered by the Poles) there is no evidence of any military conflict at that time, so perhaps the word "incorporated" should replace "conquered"
  4. controlled by Bohemia (1327-29)
  5. colonized by Germans (from around 1210) "destination for strong German immigration" would avoid lots of misunderstandings
  6. a battleground: the Hussite Wars (1420-37)
  7. controlled by Hungary (1469)
  8. "regarded as a dependency of Bohemia" (1526)
  9. largely controlled by Prussia (after wars of 1740-2, 1744-5, 1756-63)
  10. enlarged by adding half of Lausitz (Lusatia)
  11. divided into Upper and Lower Silesia?
  12. split: part of Silesia which remained an Austrian possession after 1763.

Sincerely
Space Cadet 21:06, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Factoids (the brief version): Silesia German for almost 700 years until 1945

Factoids: The brief version is: Silesia has been a part of different German states (Heiliges Röhmisches Reich deutscher Nation, Prussia, Germany) for 618 years until 1945, and had an overwhelming majority of German population in 1945, which were brutally expulsed by the stalinists. Nico 06:47, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

after 1945 not whole population was expelled. Polish minority, which was verysignificant, was allowed to stay.
Besides, i am simply... i don't know what i should say. 618 years? 1327 is the date when SOME, not even MOST, but SOME Silesian duchies recognised BOHEMIAN overlordship. In the same time (until 1357) NASOVIA was also recognisinf BOHEMIAN overlordship. SO WAS MASOVIA GERMAN? Majority of population was not German for quite long time. For example Bytom (don't know German name), large city east of Katowice in 1834 more than 60% of population was Polish (and close to 60% of population voted in erferendum to be part of Poland, but they stayed in Germany). szopen




Thats odd... a page on Silesia and no mention of mining... Alun Ephraim 16:16, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

The article mentions 'coal' in the introduction, and it contains an Economy section - to be written soon ;-) Grzes of Poznan 19:47, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Most people looking for info on Silesia would be looking for stuff that has never been written, due to a dispute over who owns the place. I was thinking of doing a list of mining regions, but this has made me think about reconsidering it. Alun Ephraim 11:36, 2 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Silesia is an integral part of Poland and Czech Rep.

I don't like the idea of calling Silesia a European or Central European region, because it suggests that this is a disputed area (something like Northern Ireland), or that Silesia has some sort of special legal status, which is not the case.

  • Polish Silesia is an integral part of the Republic of Poland.
  • Czech Silesia is an integral part of the Czech Republic.

Stating these facts in the intro is not necessary, but we have to keep them in mind all the time, when writing about modern Silesia. We can discuss all the things, we can make every compromise, but there cannot be any discussion or any compromise about the territorial integrity of the two countries.

I don't know if this comes from ignorance or bad will, but it is very disgusting that a couple of editors constantly try to avoid these facts by various words manipulation and text puzzles.

Previous version of the intro was much better - it is enough to say to the readers that Silesia is a region in SW Poland and NE Czech Rep.

Grzes of Poznan 20:07, 31 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Silesia wasn't historically a part of Poland until after 1945, and is not presently an actual political unit in either Poland or the Czech Republic

But Silesia wasn't historically a part of Poland until after 1945, and is not presently an actual political unit in either Poland or the Czech Republic. Since when there actually *was* a specific political unit called "Silesia," said political unit was part of Germany/Prussia, it seems fair to simply call it a "European region" rather than a Polish region, ro whatever. john 09:54, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Silesia was historical part of Poland until 1327-1368, part of Polish church province until some XIX century and with Polish-speaking majority in some regions or siginificant minority in others well into XIX century. Also, some parts of Silesia became part of Poland in XV century again (Siewierz, Auschwitz) szopen

I'm afraid you are misinformed about history of Silesia. Poland emerged as a state in years 950-1000, when the first Polish monarchs Mieszko I and Boleslaus I the Brave had united a couple of Polish tribes (Polanes, Mazovians, Pomeranians, Vistulans, Opolians and Silesians) into one political body. This fact was acknowledged by the Pope and by the Roman Emperor, 2 most important political authorities of this time, by the creation of Polish church province in 1000 (archbishopric in Gniezno; bishoprics in Poznan in Greater Poland, Wroclaw in Silesia, Cracow in Little Poland, and Kolobrzeg in Pomerania).

Except for a short period of Bohemian rule in 1039-1050, the status of Silesia as part of Poland was not questioned for several centuries (until 14th century). In year 1138 Polish duke Boleslaus III the Wrymouth has created a 'federal' or 'feudal' Polish state consiting of several provinces (Silesia among them). Provinces of Poland were to be ruled by the descendants of his 4(5) sons, but one of the duke (the oldest one) were to hold Cracow and to be the overlord or high-duke of all Poland, responsible for foreign, military and other national affairs. This was the preparation for a royal coronation. Again this 'constitution' was confirmed by the Emperor and the Pope. In the following years the dukes quarreled who should be the grand duke, but the constitution of Poland was not questioned.

Silesia, one of the provinces of Poland, was ruled by the descendands of Wladyslaw II, the oldest son of Boleslaw III. Because the Silesian dukes were the oldest branch of the Piast dynasty, they considered themselves to be destined to be the overlords of all Poland. In 12th-13th centuries Silesia became the strongest province of Poland (politically and economically) and this period is called the Monarchy of Silesian Henrys (Henry I, Henry II, Henry III, Henry IV). Preparations for the royal coronation were broken by the Tartar invasion in 1241 (Henry II died in the battle of Legnica/Liegnitz), and Henry IV almost achieved Polish throne before his death in 1290. Royal City of Cracow was inherited by Przemysl II of Poznan and he succeded to achieve Polish royal crown in 1295, there is no doubt that this royal coronation was prepared politically by the Silesian dukes, who considered themselvs dukes of Poland.

After King Przemysl II death in 1296, the royal ambitions were inherited by his 2 nephews: Ladislaus II the Short of Cuiavia and Henry II of Glogow (in Silesia), but also by the Venceslas II of Bohemia, who took control of Cracow, married Przemysl's daughter and was crowned King of Bohemia and Poland in 1300. For the next 50 years or so there were 2 competing Polish kings in Prague and Cracow fighting each other and declaring his oponents decisions to be illegal. This dispute was resolved by a compromise. King of Cracow resigned his rights to most of Silesia and Masovia, and the king of Prague resigned his rights to the 'Polish' title.

But still the Bohemian chancellery, Silesian cities, the chronicles authors in their documents had no doubt the the Silesian duchies and cities belong to the Kingdom of Poland (Regnum Poloniae). In 14th-15th centuries students from Silesia at the German universities were assigned to the Polish nation academic corporations.The Silesian dukes considered themselves the dukes of Poland, and they ruled their duchies until they died out in 1675. They called themselves The Piasts from the dynasty legendary founder (Piast), and the Piast term itself was invented in Silesia in 16th century. Silesian eclessiatical province of Wroclaw belonged to the Polish archbishopric in Gniezno up to the 18th century, although there were serious attempts to transfer it to the archbishopric of Prague.

When time was passing the real political belonging of Silesia to the Kingdom of Bohemia was prevailing over the legal belonging of Silesia to the Kingdom of Poland. Since there was a significant difference between the legal boundaries of Poland, and the real boundaries of territories controlled by the Polish kings, the jurists had developed a legal definition of the difference between two legal bodies.

  • the Kingdom of Poland - means the territory of all the lands that belonged to the Polish kingdom, when it was first established in 1000/1025.
  • Crown of the Kingdom of Poland - means the territories that are actually controlled by the the Polish king.

According to this legal definitions Silesia and Pomerania belonged to the Kingdom of Poland, and did not belong to the Polish Crown. On the other hand Red Ruthenia belonged to the Crown, and did not belong to the Kingdom. The medieval documents show that these terms were used frequently and had significant legal meaning. For example a couple of provincial dukes sweared their oaths to the Polish King, the Kingdom, and Crown of the Kingdom.

The legal status of Silesia was that the province belonged to the Kingdom of Poland, and at the same time it belonged to (was controlled by) the Crown of St. Venceslas (or Bohemian Crown). Poland was an electoral monarchy probably since 1177 and certainly after Polish-Lithuanian Union in 1386. Every Polish royal pretender between 1370 and 1772 could attain the Polish throne on the sole condition that he will sign a document guaranting nobility priviledges, integrity of Polish Kingdom and promise to do everything to get back the lost lands on his own cost.

The 16th century Polish historian Jan Dlugosz (Dlugosius, Longinus) author of the multi-volume Chronicles of the Polish Kingdom, commenting the end of the 13-year war (1454-1466) wrote that he is very happy that Gdansk Pomerania and Prussia had returned to Poland, but he would be even more happy if Poland could re-claim other lost lands: Silesia, Lubusz land and Slupsk/Szczecin-Pomerania. His cronicles were the main source of historical and political thinking in Poland in 16th-18th century and this means that the legal rights of Poland to Silesia were never forgotten.

In the 18th century Poland became a weak country and these rights could not be executed. In the partitions of Poland (1172-1795) even the Polish state ceased to exists, but the Polish political nation and Polish Kingdom were not liquidated. The Kingdom was always considered to be a sacred thing - it continues to exist even if there no King. Existence of the Polish political nation was proved by its amibiton to return to the political map of Europe, the repeating Polish uprisings, and peaceful national activities.

These political Polish dreams came true when Poland regained its independence in 1918 and regained the lost territories in 1945.

From legal point of view, Silesia was part of Poland for all the time since the foundation of Poland in 1000, and it doesn't matter if the province was actually in hands the Polish monarchs or temporarily controlled by other political bodies. The Polish monarchs had invited many guests from other countries to settle in Poland to find a better life. They and their decendants were guaranteed significant political, language and economic freedoms and rights. But they and their decendants also had a political obligation - to be loyal to the Polish dukes and kings. Most of them were loyal. We are very sorry we had to expell from Poland those who were not loyal.

Grzes of Poznan 14:30, 1 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Silesia historically German

Should all countries claim the territories which kings of their nationality controlled in the middle age? England was a Danish colony at this time. Should Denmark claim this territory today? I don't think there is a continuity from these kings you consider Polish until the Polish state, and I don't find this relevant. Silesia was historically German, and with an overwhelming majority of German population, and was occupied by Stalin and given to Poland after World War II. That's the facts. Medieval and earlier history should be kept in the history section, the introduction should state what Silesia mainly is referring to in the English speaking world, which includes an historical German region as a very important part of it. -- Nico 05:24, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Is there and always were significant Danish minority in England?
Was England part of Denmark for at least 340 years in medieval times, and later ruled by Danish dukes, and later ruled by Danish kings (as part of Bohemian crown, though)?
Was England part of Danish church province for centuries until recent times?
Were Danes constantly since medieval times to modern times tried to regain England?
Were Danes once majority in England and Englishmen are either colonists or anglicised Danes?
If not, you can't compare Silesia to England.
Second, not whole Silesia was given to Poland afetr 1945. Chunk of Silesia was also reclaimed after WWI. And beforepartitions also chunks were part of Poland.

szopen

A hole in the history

GH

Currently there is a gap in the history between 1241 and 1327, when Bohemian Kings took over. There is no information, why they claimed the province?

I propose to add a fragment like follows:

In 1306 Wenclaus III king of Poland and Bohemia was assasinated. After his death, Great Poland, Lower Poland, and Eastern Pomerania were taken over by Wladislaus the Short, while Bohemian kings claimed their rights to other provinces of Poland, including Silesia.

Well, Bohemian kings claimed their rights to whole Poland, not just Silesia. That's why they called Kazimierz the Great "king in Cracow" instead of "King of Poland". It was what, 1343 or something when they finally gave up their claims to whole Poland and Kazimierz resigned from claims to "this duchies, which recognize Bohemian overlordship" and then again some years later officially resignde from Silesia... But then, just before his death Kazimierz sent to pope asking him for relieving him from this deals and prepared to war over Silesia... szopen

I am of Silesian descent (my father's family comes from Waldenburg (today Walbrzych)). Silesia always had been a mix-region of people from Poland, Germany, Austria and other Slavic regions. Before WWII "Niederschlesien" was culturally mainly influenced Austrian. After WWII it is a part of Poland and because of the ethnic cleansing after the war it is nearly completely settled by people that had to leave their houses in the East of former Poland. Nobody doubts that, not in Germany, not in Poland. Nobody in Germany (only some Neo Nazis) wants to have it back. (Andreas)

Nobody doubts that Silesia is a region of mixed culture and ethnicity. In my opinion this is precisely described in the introduction of our article: Because of its rich history the region has produced a unique cultural mix based on the local Silesian elements with heavy Polish, Czech and German influences. Today the region is inhabited by Poles, Silesians, Germans, Czechs and Moravians. Before the Prussian conquest of the region in 1740s Silesia was half Polish, half German,from ethnic point of view, although this means Slavonic and Germanic groups, and it is difficult to say what were the real national and ethnic feeleings of the Silesians. Some of the Poles may have been Silesians and Bohemians. Anyway before 1740 Silesia had 2 official languages: German and Czech(Bohemian), as the region was considered part of the Bohemian crown.

Grzes of Poznan

Is the Görlitz area part of Silesia?

In the east of what is today Germany's state "Saxony", in the Region around the city of "Görlitz", also a small part of Silesia today still belongs to Germany. In the Introduction is said, that Silesia is today a part of Poland and the Czech Republic. I think this German part should be added.

Some were arguing that Goerlitz historically is part of Lusitz, not of Silesia. I have no opinion in that case szopen

In years 1816-1827 the historical region of Lusatia (Lausitz, Łużyce) was disbanded by the Prussian government and distributed between the provinces of Brandenburg, Saxony and Silesia. In my opinion the Goerlitz area is not part of modern or historical region of Silesia and that's why it should NOT be mentioned in the introduction. However it should mentioned in the history section and/or geography/geographical-division section. Besides it is controversial if the name of Goerlitz area should be used here. The city of Goerlitz/Zgorzelec is located on both banks of Nysa/Neisse river and belongs in half to Germany, in half to Poland. Grzes of Poznan(caius2ga) 12:05, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

  • You, my friend, think the Görlitz area not is a part of Silesia, because it only has been part of Silesia since 1816. Well, then, since Silesia only has been part of Poland (Soviet) since 1946 (or the present state since 1990), I could argue that Silesia not is a part of Poland either. -- Nico 05:36, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)
  • The Görlitz region of course is part of historic (!) Silesia. Even though in the region also live Lausitz people, the population is "german Silesian", too, of course not Silesian in current polish sense. But, because the part of Silesia that still belongs to Germany is very small and just part of the state of Saxony, it is not very important in the whole Silesian measures. The Neiße/Nysa became german-polish border after the war, before it was admidst Silesia. If a czech part of Silesia is named, a German should be, too. But both of them are very small in relation to polish Silesia and both of them just are parts of the historic "german Silesia" that doesn't exist anymore. 82.82.117.237 22:03, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC) from Germany

Where is Silesia?

I've heard nearly a dozen opinions. Should we vote on it, or what?

Is Silesia an historical region, like Palestine? An area populated by people of a certain ethnicity, like Kurdistan?

Silesia is an historical region which was German for almost 700 years until 1945. By that time, 3/4 of the population were Germans. Silesia do not exist as a political unity anymore, and is divided between Poland, Germany and the Czech Republic. The large portion of the historical region Silesia is Polish today. Nico 06:55, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Should we say that this part became part of Poland in this year, and that part become part of Czechoslavakia or the Czech Republic in that year?

(By the way, I have a hard time reading long lists of issues. Can we try to settle one issue at a time?) --Uncle Ed 16:09, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)


In my opinion Silesia is a historical, geographical, local government and administrative region.

The historical section can describe precisly every teritorial changes year by year.

BTW. The border between Poland and Bohemia (dividing Silesia into 2 parts) was settled in year 1050 and survived for almost 1000 years, with some minor exceptions: county of Klodzko belonged to Bohemia proper upto 1742 when it was joined to the Silesia province by the Prussian monarchs, the Cieszyn Silesia which was divided between Poland and Czechoslovakia on 1921, and small part of Upper Silesia joined to Czechoslovakia in 1920s.

Grzes of Poznan(caius2ga) 18:45, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

You all know, I hope, that these issues have all been debated before. I would hope that szopen and friends will allow others the same courtesy that some of us endured when HJ was Germanizing everything. JHK

JHK, I was fighting over with HJ too. And a lot. You may not remember me, since i had long break in my wikipedia activity, but I WAS DISCUSSING THESE QUESTION HERE AND THERE since 2001.

Let me put it straight: I do not want to falsify Silesia history. I do not want to deny ties of SIlesia to Germany. am opposing to writing article in a tone which would imply that only Germans had contributed to history of the region and only them had right to them. If you can't understand that "Silesia through last millenium was attached to or on border of HRE before it became German province" is POV, then how would you respond to "SIlesia for last millenium was attached to or on border of Poland, links with Poland decreased over time and it ceased to be Polish province"?

Also, JHK, I am ready for discussion and i am discussing. I try to understand point of opponents and propose new compromises which IMHO should please them. But instead i keep hearing that i am Polish nationalist, and now, that i lack of common courtesy. GRRR.

But you know what? I will leave wikipedia for some time to catch breath. I advice the same to some involved in disputes. THe emotions will be lower when we would be back. In the time, some neutral person should read the points, write the proposition and then we will see if it is accepted by both sides, "POLISH NATIONALISTS" camp and "GERMAN NEUTRALS" camp. What do you think? szopen

Ultimately, there will be many points on which contributors disagree. The only solution possible is to say that some people, particular Polish, say THIS and other, particularly Germans, say THAT. There can be no compromise, only acknowledgement of our differences. --Uncle Ed 21:47, 6 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Historical boundaries and divisions of Silesia

Please see Talk:Silesia:Historical boundaries and divisions of Silesia


How many years Silesia was part of Poland and Bohemia

I don't like the sentence in the into saying: In the past, Silesia has been part of different Polish states (for about 360 years, including the vast majority at present), Bohemia (for about 250 years) and different German states (for about 400 years, not counting Bohemian rule - although some also count Bohemian rule of Silesia as a time of German rule).

independent Silesian duchies

  • independent Silesian duchies ca. 600-875 = 275 years

various Polish states

  • early Duchy/Kingdom of Poland 990-1038, 1050-1348/1392
    • incorporation of Silesia into Bohemia 1348
    • last duchy independent from Bohemia till 1392
    • parts of Silesia on the Odra right bank still in Poland 1038-1050
  • Polish dukes of the Piast dynasty who died out in 1675: 990-1675 = 685 years
  • Duchy of Oswieciem belonged to Poland 1475-1772 = 297 years
  • Duchy of Oswieciem belonged to Galicia, Polish privince of Austria 1772-1918, and to Poland 1918-1939 = 146+21 years
  • Duchy of Siewierz
  • Silesian Voivodship 1921-1939 = 18 years
  • modern Silesia in Poland 1945-2003 = 58 years

Total Polish rule 990-2003 = 1013 years

various Czech/Bohemian states

  • Great Moravian Empire 875-894 = 19 years
  • Duchy of Bohemia 894-990, 1038-1050 = 96+12=108 years
  • Opava Silesia belonges to Bohemia 894-990, 1038-2003 96+965=1061 years

Total Bohemian rule 875-2003 = 1128 years

German rule of Silesia

Can someone explain to me how Nico etc came to 700 years of German rule in SIlesia? Even if they count Bohemian rule of some of territories, then 1945-1327 = 618. German colonisation on wider scale started after 1260/70 or so.

Last independent SIlesian duchy, very large, ceased to exist in 1368. Since 1327-1525 Silesia was part of Bohemia, formally part of HRE - but this was mere formality for example when it was ruled by Polish kings (e.g 1470? - 1525) Native kings (Jiri Podiebrad) etc. Moreover, while Germans became quickly majority in the cities (at least the elites, plebs was of mixed nationality fo long time) most of popluation was still Slavic in at least half of region well into XVI century (Oder is commonly used as border before majority German/majority Polish population) with Polish speaker s being still 25-35% of population before WWI. How so he get "Silesia is German for 700 years?"

But enough of ranting. See my introduction proposals above. szopen

My understanding is that the last Piast Duke of Silesia (the Duke of Silesia-Brieg) died in the 17th century some time. john 09:06, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Silesia German for 618 years until 1945

I didn't came to 700 years of German rule. I said almost 700 years.

As you said, Silesia was German, under different states, from 1327 until 1945, in modern times it had been German for 618 years. Nico 06:13, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There's no doubt that majority of Silesia was Prussian/German in political sense in years 1742-1945. An not all of the region. Parts of Silesia belonged to Bohemia, and Poland (and indireclty they were under Austrian rule). Grzes of Poznan 07:33, 13 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Protected again

As Messrs. Nico and Wik have restarted their reversion war, I have have protected Silesia again. It should by now be clear that this page must, unfortunately, remain locked until all users involved agree on the content. I suggest that the protection be not removed before Nico and Wik publicly demonstrate a viable compromise text and declare the end of their differences. Kosebamse 23:17, 8 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I've never even heard of Silesia until I saw it was a protected page, and as far as I'm aware, I have neither German nor Polish ancestry; thus, I hope I can be neutral about all this. I have to agree with a previous suggestion in this talk page: remove the sentence in the introduction saying how long Silesia has been controlled by whom. Not only does it seem to be the main point of contention, but I can't see how it belongs in the introduction. -- Khym Chanur 04:33, Nov 9, 2003 (UTC)

Advices from people who never have heard about Silesia before (heard about Europe?) is not interesting. This is an encyclopedia. Understand that the German history of Silesia is a very important part of what this name is referring to in the English speaking world. This was a region with an overwhelming majority of German population, and which had been German for most of the 2nd millennium, when it was occupied by Soviet in 1945 and the whole population brutally expulsed. Nico 05:49, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Well, the United States of America occupies territory that was occupied for thousands of years by Native Americans, and they were treated pretty brutally by the colonizing Europeans, yet none of this is mentioned in the introudction on the USA. I don't see why the history of the region has to be emphasized in the introductory text. -- Khym Chanur 00:40, Nov 11, 2003 (UTC)
The thing is: Silesia is an historical region, which do not exist anymore. The historical region is divided between Poland, Germany and the Czech Republic, and most of the Silesians were expulsed (from the territories occupied by Stalin). In English, the term Silesia is referring to both the historical German region Silesia (Schlesien), and the Polish province named Slask after 1946. When searching in Google for Silesia + German, you get more results than when you are searching for Silesia + Polish. When searching for Silesia + Germany, you get almost the same number of results as when you are searching for Silesia + Poland. Not to mention both meanings of Silesia in the introduction of this article is just like not mentioning Königsberg in the "Kaliningrad" article. Nico 01:20, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Dear Nico!

Actually, neutral opinions are very important and interesting! Much more important than opinions who have been already proven wrong, inaccurate or part of XIX century ahistorical Prussian propaganda, which certain people, of known reputation to vandalize others' hard work and research, keep reinstating with a stubbornness worth a better cause.

Wikipedia is a team effort and nobody has a monopoly on what's official or not. Or whose opinions are intersting or not.

Khym Chanur brought a very good point. You don't see ridiculous comments about how long the area has been controlled or inhabited by whom on the Vilnius (Wilno), Hrodna (Grodno) or L'viv (Lwow) pages. Although you like to accuse every user of Polish persuasion of nationalism, revisionism (do you really know what this word means?) and vandalism, you don't see them vandalize articles on former Polish territories.

As long as there is a comment in the history part about Polish history of the city and a Polish name is mentioned at least once, I don't care if the name L'viv is used, even when talking about city history in XIV through XVIII centuries. And it doesn't matter, that my mother was born in Lwow, and in 1947 spent 2 months starving in a cattle train, being driven away from her home. When You write an encyclopedia article, Nico, you have to leave emotions behind. That's what NPOV is all about. And please don't discourage anybody from voicing their opinions on the talk page.

Judging by the depth of your inputs on WIKI, you yourself never heard of Silesia before, until about a year ago (maximum!). And you haven't really read much about the subject since, either, with exception of some irredentist articles from the net, written by historically handicapped laypersons. Neutral readers are the people to whom this Encyclopedia is addressed, and their opinions are crucial and ultimate. Encyclopedia should be an attempt to find the objective truth, not the "Wailing Wall".

Please reconsider your biased attitude of vandalizing everything of any German past, for the sake of the "Neutral Reader".

Sincerely, Space Cadet 14:43, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Keep your insults for yourself. Nico 01:20, 11 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Hey!
If the shoe fits, wear it! But of course, I was not trying to insult anybody! As always, instead of picking up a dialog and trying to answer the points, you resort to making yourself look like a victim of the polish "revisionism". (No, really, do you actually know what "revisionism" means? Or did you want to say "preservism"? I'm serious!)
My e-mail: spacecadet123@inorbit.com
You can explain, what offended you so much, (that you didn't do to others), in private, if you're too embarassed to do it here.
Sincerely,
SC

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Silesia/Archive_3&oldid=273857987"