Hello,
in old chronics it actually states that the german speaking protestant population in West Prussia already declined before WWI in some parts. This is from the site: Die Kreise der Grenzgebiete der preussischen und pommerischen Provinzen Westpreussen. It shows the change of the population to a certain degree and is in German, some parts in English.
with regards,
Andrea
----Original Message Follows----
There had been a decline in the German/Lutheran population in the
Polish territories due to the Ostflucht or flight from the East of
Germans migrating to the industrial centres of the Prussian Rhine
provinces. The phenomenon was of great concern to German
Nationalists who sought to reverse the trend by limiting the sale of
estates to Germans and encouraging German colonisation on land
compulsorally purchased by the Prussian State. The process was
impeded by some resistance from German noble landowners who dreaded
the precedent of state expropriation of estates.
The State itself moved between a policy of seeking to Germanise the
Slavonic population and less often of seeking to conciliate them.
Polish national feeling and its expression through Catholicism seemed
ineradicable which prompted the fears of Nationalists and Junkers
alike.
Cordially,
John (Rohde).
Let us not forget that the land we are talking about had
been part of Prussia for a long time. Something like the age
of the United States of that time. Nevertheless, the landless
German AND Polish populations saw little advantage for
hanging around as farm laborers without chance of ever
owning any of their own land and looked for places where
they could advance themselves or at least make a better
living. They left in droves for the Ruhr (Kohlenpott) to work
in steel mills and in the mines there. This exit started in
significant numbers in the late 19th century and lasted right
through the 20s when political pressure and joblessness
simply added to the numbers. I know of no expropriation but
many large farms went bankrupt and came onto the market
as the state took them over to attempt to settle smaller
sections via restribution to landless farmers or monied
individuals.
Fred
4788 Corian Court
Naples, FL 34114
239-775-7838; 609-284-6007 (cell)
FredRump@earthlink.net
"The road to hell was paved with good intentions."
Yes but the United States had not been annexed to a foreign Power.
Canada might be a more apposite example, perhaps.
The population balance was shifting back to the advantage of the
Poles with a relative decline in both the German and pro-German,
German-speaking Jewish populations.
Cordially,
John (Rohde).
re:
in steel mills and in the mines there. This exit started in
significant numbers in the late 19th century and lasted right
through the 20s when political pressure and joblessness
Adalbert Goertz responds >>>>>>>>>>>>
I have a few statistics in my faq.prussia on my website.
John, not to get into a lengthy historical discussion but the
US was a series of annexations too. 
Seriously, the word annexation may be a bit overused in the
concept of the 18th century. People were part of the deal
which sovereigns made in their plans of aggrendizement.
It's the story of the development of the European state
system. Whether these people spoke this or that language
did not really matter. Even within Germany it was often
difficult to communicate in a common language because of
the regional dialects. Yet, people came with the deal of the
larger neighbor who took them over. It was the way it was
and annexation sounds a lot worse then simply having a
new lord in some far away place. Take Hannover and their
rulers in far away England as an example or the
suzereignity of the Polish crown over the lands the
Prussians 'annexed'. In reality Poland as a state was a
political mess and the rulers were the local landowner class.
The state system was still under development.
Poland likes to claim Royal Prussia as a historical part of
Poland simply because they had claimed it in peace treaties
from the Teutonic Knights but the people who lived there
didn't change yet there was much immigration of Polish
people from Polonia proper and in effect Polonization was a
long time affair as this was not native Polish land. Ducal
Prussia had the same people and the same effort to
colonize around the cities of the old German Hansa for
purposes of trade and commerce.
Point I'm making here was that there was a centuries old
struggle for the heart of the culture of the people - their
language - but the need for a better life always seemed to
take preference and that was were German culture had a
definate advantage. In order for the Slavic one to win it
basically had to override (eradicate) that which was German
and which always resulted in more success on the everyday
living standard. Kashubs and others felt more German as it
simply allowed them a better life and better opportunities for
their children. The various plebiscites held after WWI
vindicate this position. Still, the land was poor and much
emigration to even better opportunities like America resulted
in the movement of millions of people, both Polish and
German away from their respective countries. We often
tend to forget that the conditions of very basic daily life
influenced what people voted for with their minds and feet.
What went on above them concerned only a small
proportion of the population and of course their
governments.
Fred
4788 Corian Court
Naples, FL 34114
239-775-7838; 609-284-6007 (cell)
FredRump@earthlink.net
"The road to hell was paved with good intentions."
Seriously, the word annexation may be a bit overused in the
concept of the 18th century. People were part of the deal
which sovereigns made in their plans of aggrendizement.
It's the story of the development of the European state
system. Whether these people spoke this or that language
did not really matter. Even within Germany it was often
difficult to communicate in a common language because of
the regional dialects. Yet, people came with the deal of the
larger neighbor who took them over. It was the way it was
and annexation sounds a lot worse then simply having a
new lord in some far away place. Take Hannover and their
rulers in far away England as an example or the
suzereignity of the Polish crown over the lands the
Prussians 'annexed'. In reality Poland as a state was a
political mess and the rulers were the local landowner class.
The state system was still under development.
The Polish Partition was different because it did not, simply involve
a foreign monarch on the Polish throne. That had been the case in
most of the 18th Century - though there it was Saxony that played the
role of Hanover for the Wettin Kings of Poland-Lithuania. Poland had
a constitution and a sense of identity that was not based upon
nationality at all but on the idea of a Republic or Commonwealth. A
similar concept applied in the Holy Roman Empire but in Poland there
was a uniformity of citizenship among the nobles that helped bind them
to the state. Though some individual states within 18th Century
Germany were more centralised than Poland, the Empire as a whole was
less united. The magnates of Poland, who were the equivalents of the
German princes, were never able to separate themselves to the same
degre nor to interpose themselves entirely between the King in
Parliament and his subjects.
Poland likes to claim Royal Prussia as a historical part of
Poland simply because they had claimed it in peace treaties
from the Teutonic Knights but the people who lived there
didn't change yet there was much immigration of Polish
people from Polonia proper and in effect Polonization was a
long time affair as this was not native Polish land. Ducal
Prussia had the same people and the same effort to
colonize around the cities of the old German Hansa for
purposes of trade and commerce.
It's worth remembering why it is called, "Royal Prussia" - because it
was directly under the rule of the King of Poland, unlike Ducal
Prussia that was ruled by his vassal until 1658. The loss of Polish
suzerainty was resisted by the Germans of Ducal Prussia and had to
suppressed by force.
Point I'm making here was that there was a centuries old
struggle for the heart of the culture of the people - their
language - but the need for a better life always seemed to
take preference and that was were German culture had a
definate advantage. In order for the Slavic one to win it
basically had to override (eradicate) that which was German
and which always resulted in more success on the everyday
living standard. Kashubs and others felt more German as it
simply allowed them a better life and better opportunities for
their children. The various plebiscites held after WWI
vindicate this position.
I'm not aware of any plebicites in the Cashubian region. There was a
Masurian plebicite among the Lutheran Poles of that region who voted
to stay German. I'm not sure where this slavic-germanic culture
juxtaposition applies. The old Polish Commonwealth was not a slavic
state as such but aq particular evolution from the medieval
Estate-state (!), like the Holy Roman Empire, Switzerland, Holland or
the United Kingdom.
In the course of the 19th Century Cashubes, Germans and Poles
drifted to German-speaking cities or further West. They migrated
with no less alacrity in the 20th Century rto the Polish-speaking city
of Gdynia. It doesn't argue for a preference for German culture
anymore than Germans going to Russia does for the superiority of the
slavic. It was cities and factories that drew people away from the
land and free farmland that drew them to it.
There are anthropological differences between Slav and German
cultures and differences within them but to appropriate the credit
for the renaissance, the Enlightenment and the Industrial Revolution
to German culture makes no sense at all.
From the Partitions on there was a hardening of boundaries between
Lutherans and Catholics - e.g. fewer intermarriages or mixed
godparents - but I see no evidence of a drift from Catholicism to
Lutheranism.
The eradication of German identity in the region followed on from
the Tehran Conference and was an idea cooked up by Churchill and
Stalin, with the aid of three pencils. The Poles transferred their
people expelled from the East into the lands from which they had
expelled the Germans. The London government of Poland in exile never
accepted the deal. The lands of the East were had great cultural
significance to the Poles and of course, the Poles resented leaving
their lands and towns as much as the Germans did.
Cordially,
John (Rohde).
re:
was directly under the rule of the King of Poland, unlike Ducal
Prussia that was ruled by his vassal until 1658. The loss of Polish
Adalbert Goertz responds >>>>>>>>>>>>
Ducal Prussia is an incorrect term for 1658 East Prussia.
Since 1618 the Hohenzollern dynasty took over in East Prussia
who were Kurfu:rsten of Brandenburg, and "Fu:rsten" (without the
Kur-) in East Prussia. The proper term would be "Principal Prussia"
(Fu:rstliches Preussen) as it is called in the church records
of Gr.Nebrau in the 1600s, and correctly so.
Well, from Herzog to Fuerst would have been a demotion in feudal terms
;-). In 1611 John Sigismund, Elector of Brandenburg had been
invested as heir to his cousin, Duke Albert Frederick of Prussia by
Sigismund III King of Poland. On the Albert Frederick's death in
1618, John Sigismund succeeeded him as Duke. Whatever he called
himself at home, his Electoral dignity had no relevance to his
position within the Polish-Lithuanian Republic. As Duke of Prussia he
was entitled to sit in the Polish parliament and obliged to supply
military forces to his Lord the King. The rights of the Duke's
subjects were guaranteed by their sovereign, the King of Poland.
After the Treaty of Wehlau (1657) the Duke of Prussia was sovereign
within his Duchy but still in "perpetual alliance with Poland" and
obliged to furnish forces for the wars of the Kingdom. In the event
of the extinction of the Ducal House in the direct line, sovereignty
was still to revert to the King of Poland. In fact, the only
Brandenburg-Prussian troops at Vienna in 1683 formed the obligatory
contingent of the Duchy to the King of Poland's army - the Great
Elector was in secret alliance with the French at the time, who were
inciting the Turks to attack the Emperor.
The Prussian subjects of the new Duke took such a dim view of that
the burghers of Koenigsberg called upon the King of Poland to protect
their rights against him, refusing to accept that they were no longer
under Polish suzerainty. For that appeal, schoppenmeister,
Hieronymus Roth was imprisoned in perpetuity (1661) In 1672 the
nobles made their stand and Kalckstein, their leader, was abducted
from Warsaw and the protection of the Polish King, to be executed.
So, Polish sovereignty was a reality, legal and practical. Ducal
Prussia was a part of the Kingdom of Poland. The Duke, as vassal of
the Kingdom, could not arbitrarilly amend his status, even to demote
himself ;-). I would guess that "prince" was being used in the sense
of, "ruler" rather than in place of the Duke's legal title.
Cordially,
John (Rohde).
My, my - we have quite a historian in John Rohde in our
mids. While I would think that the Bürgers of the cities of
East & West Prussia (Ducal & Royal versions) were more
interested in maintaining their independence with a weaker
and farther removed overlord then to be subjects of a new
direct (& taxing) ruler, the facts are what they are in John's
note.
The cities (and the Stände) also rebelled against the
Knights and the Poles used that as an opportunity to
expand their territory by making the necessary deals for
future independence by the new subjects in return for
nominal inclusion in their own dreams of empire. In the end
the cities were most concerned with their own
independence and couldn't have cared less who they swore
allegiance too - as long as they stayed out of their hair.
Everything always is a matter of self-interest. The
Reichstädte were battling those same dreams of
independence from direct overlordship in the empire. They
would make deals with the devil if necessary to be as free
as possible. The beginnings of democracy.
Fred
4788 Corian Court
Naples, FL 34114
239-775-7838; 609-284-6007 (cell)
FredRump@earthlink.net
"The road to hell was paved with good intentions."