Jump to content

Talk:Prussia/Archive 1

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

Discussion moved from Talk:Prussia (disambiguation)

I've tried to make this English. First of all, I have cut out at least half of the mere translations - giving the German (or hypothetical Germanic reconstruction) in parentheses is not enough. All the material about the Germanic tribes by Tacitus is VERY doubtful. I am far from qualified to rule on lots of this - I don't read the archaeology on which the latest research depends. The 1911 source is certainly not of much use on this material, but neither is anything much published in German before 1970. A pointer for wikipedia -- read the how does one edit a page and use double brackets -- that's this: [ to make a wikipedia link.

For anyone not familiar with Tacitus, see : Penguin Classics , Tacitus, The Agricola and the Germania, Translated by H. Mattingly, Translated Revised by S. A. Handford , Penguin Books Ltd, London etc available at amazon.com , Barnes & Noble and other book stores.

To Michael Tinkler !!! Thank you for your fine job.

Sorry, I need to change it back. Albrecht of Brandenburg did n o t dissolve the Teutonic Knights. He only took off his robe as Grandmaster ( resigned the position ). The Habsburgs continued leading the Teutonic Knights and Maximilian III, son of emperor Maximilian Habsburg II, held among other positions the title : Ordinis Teut(onicus) Magnus many years later.

Just to be pedantic: I think most of the contributers to this page and things Germania are familiar with Tacitus, and most with the Mattingly translation (of which there are many others). The point is that Tacitus is not considered a reliable source on the Germans. Go back and read some MichaelTinkler comments for more elucidation.

The PrUB Preussische Urkunden Buch or Prussian Law book records are published copyright 2000 Stuart Jenks , cannot copy it . So check www.webtop.comm or altavista for :Preussische Regesten stuart Jenks , year 1224 . March

I have a copy of the Hon. B.Carroll Reece Speech . Would anyone please let me know if you are familiar with this ? And your thoughts on this ?

For some of the Polish crown check the Holy Roman Empire (family album) book at http://www.uni-mannheim.de/mateo/desbillons/eico.html and check all the title

If you need to find the family connections go to Uni hull,uk http://www.dcs.hull.ac.uk/public/genealogy/royal/

user:H.J.

The entire first two paragraphs are doubtful, at best. JHK

Paul: you do have a point (to state it mildly), but I must admit, that Prussia/Waid shit was pretty fun to read. --TheCunctator

Should "Pomesania" be Pomerania? I wasn't confident enough to change it. --corvus13

No, Pomerania (Pommern) is north of Berlin . Further east is Pomesania , one of the lands of Old Prussia ,later called East Prussia , City of Elbing (Polish Elblag) is in the land of Pomesania.

OK, thanks, glad I didn't change it.  :-) --corvus13

Took out the following because: a) it just sat there not fitting in, and; b)WHAT Bavarian geographer?

"In 850 AD Bavarian geographers recorded the "Brus"."

It is unclear from the initial entry as to who the participants in the War with Poland were -- as well as who negotiated the Peace of Thorn. It would be good to know this, instead of just putting in something about the Pope and Emperor not recognizing the treaty, as if it was not ok. Did they have that right? Why or why not? What was the result of their action? These are the types of questions that need to be answered in an article, IMHO.JHK

I have quote from book "Unvergessene Heimat Ostpreussen", Bernd G. Laengin ISBN 3-89350-786-8 Weltbild Verlag from Laengin's Zeittafel. (I have previously seen this Zeittafel on internet under Ostpreussen, do not have exact url, but found out Laengin is a correspondent and lived/lives? in Canada. If you check the PR UB Preussische Urkunden Buch Preussische Regesten http://www.webtop.com by Stuart Jenks put on internet in the year 1234 Prussia, Lovonia etc received citizenship under the empire. Golden Bull of Rimini 1226 and 1234 Rieti took Prussia ,Old Prussi Land under pope and emperor direct. The emperor and the pope were the highest authority in Europe. The emperor had precedent over all Christian rulers. user:H.J.

O.K., HJ, I'll take you up on the last sentence alone. The Emperor *claimed* precedence over all Christian rulers. In fact, the claim meant nothing at all. No one outside the Empire recognized anything but a vague 'precedence' - that is, if they'd all been at a dinner, he would have gone in first, or if they'd all been at a conference, he would have been the de iure host. It doesn't mean that anyone outside the empire did anything he said. Ditto for the pope. Most of medieval history is the story of the European nobility ignoring what the popes told them. On to a substantive issue: I am not at all sure what you mean by Golden Bull of Rimini 1226 and 1234 Rieti took Prussia ,Old Prussi Land under pope and emperor direct. Direct what? Direct ownership?
Do you think you might at least TRy to answer the questions I asked? I wasn't debating the facts, only pointing out that this is another instance where you don't write in complete thoughts. You don't say who the participants in the war were, etc. Plus, what you say here implies something very different than what you added to the article. There, you imply that the pope and the emperor had no right to deny the terms of the peace, to Prussia's detriment. Here, you say that they had rights to make the final call on every treaty. Be consistent.JHK

Moved this: , where the Ur, bison of Europe survived to this day.

because it didn't seem relevant to the paragraph and because I checked 6 or seven articles on the Aurochs/Ur, and they said the last true Aurochs died out in 1620. Since then, the breed has been "re-created" by breeding from the genetically oldest cattle breeds -- this was done by Germna scientists, so they may well be in Prussia. JHK

historical conservation of breeds! yikes! There's also that horse-thing that they're rebreeding in Poland, I think. --MichaelTinkler

Took out Auroch reference again. Since the last ones were found in Poland, I can't see how it supports a claim that parts of Prussia remained wild later than the rest of Europe. if you want to be specific, then there's a good argument that the last wild area was the imperial hunting preserve that Goering kept up for his own hunting pleasure. I think that was on the Polish/Hungarian border...JHK

I didn't follw the discussion here, but is there a reason why the German name for prussia (Preussen or Preußen) is not mentioned on the name page? Magnus Manske

Yes, there is a reason. Anytime I input the German name, I am told, that this is an English language encyclopedia and therefore the names have to appear as they are known in English. I have numerous times pointed out, that the correct name should also be used, only to constantly have someone change it. Even my Webster's Collegiate Dictionary lists: "Preussen , Prussia , the German name." But secondly all the older German maps show Prussia or Preussen. Prussia is therefore ok with me. Gdansk or Elblag ,Albrecht the Baer was changed to Albert etc and that however is not ok with me , but when you check wikipedia you will find that it was changed to that too after a lot of crap I have been getting for pointing out repeatedly, that correct names should be used. user:H.J.

Well, Magnus, every time H.J. puts in a little German, she puts in a lot, so editors tend to overreact. The name 'Preussen' should appear, in italics so that we all admit that it's not an English word, immediately after the first occurrence of 'Prussia' and then not again. That much I would live with. All of this 19th century folklore-studies stuff is much less tenable. --MichaelTinkler

To Magnus and Michael Just for curiosity, I did check Webster's Collegiate and verified, that it does state: Preussen. Webster's handles it the same way that Larry Sanger handled Gdingen and Gdynia. But I was told that Larry is not always right. I believe Larry is right and both names (sample given earlier : Instambul and Constantinople should have entrances . MichaelTinkler you have been handling the two name situation very well too. user:H.J.

I see my name used in vain here (in more ways than one, apparently ;-) ). Cf. [1] and [2] (just data points). I imagine that the use of "Preussen" vs. "Prussia" is something that people who write or study a lot about Prussia (in English) would be better qualified to speak about than the editors of Webster's Collegiate or, ahem, me.  :-)

For clarity, let me say that the way I'd propose to handle the Gdingen vs. Gdynia issue is: the history of Gdynia post-1920 obviously belongs on Gdynia. The history of the town before that could be placed on Gdingen, because that's what the town was known as then. I don't have a strong view on that. But it could also (or instead) be placed on Gdynia, I imagine.

The latter issue is not analogous to the use of "Preussen" here, I think: as far as I know, the usual English word for the country has always been "Prussia," and "Preussen" is new to me (it is a German word that, maybe, a few historians writing in English, for whatever reasons they might have, sometimes use instead of "Prussia"). Unlike "Gdingen," which presumably was the name of the town used by English speakers before 1920 (though I'm just guessing!), "Preussen" was (I guess!!) never the usual name for what we in English call "Prussia." If my guesses are all correct, I agree with JHK.

More generally, I totally support the principle Helga explains above, namely, any English names for things ought to be used in the English language Wikipedia. We don't call the article about Germany "Deutschland." "Deutschland," contrary to Helga, is not more correct, in English, than "Germany." (I'm referring to her comment above, "I have numerous times pointed out, that the correct name should also be used.") In fact, it's less correct: it's just confusing, bad, and probably pretentious English to use "Deutschland" when the perfectly good and accurate English word, "Germany," is available. Of course, when describing places that have different names in their native languages, or other relevant languages, sure, it's a very good idea to give the name in the native language once (as Michael says above). But in referring to the place, if there's an English name, then by golly, use it! That's what it's there for!

If I have misunderstood anyone or what the debate was about, I apologize profusely in advance.  :-) --LMS

Was Prussia really its own diocese? That seems very strange, considering that usually they were tied specifically to cities. Also, FYI Helga, you can find Adam of Bremen in the Monumenta Germanica Historiae. Again, please be careful when believing this stuff as pure fact -- if we trusted all of these early chronicals, we'd have to believe that the Merovingians were descended from sea-monsters, as Fredegar reports. JHK

he might have been personally Christian of Prussia, but he must've been bishop of a city. --MichaelTinkler
In which case, unless he governed in Prussia, he wasn't Christian OF Prussia, but Christian, a guy from Prussia. In later times, he could conceivably have been prince-bishop, but again, bishops belong to cities...JHK
later, having poked around - No, how odd! According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, he was 'bishop of Prussia'. See http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/03704a.htm They really never mention a city. Very unusual - so unusual that I'm a little put out that they don't mention how odd it is. The papal legate obviously thought it was and divided Prussia into dioceses.--MichaelTinkler
Odd -- but perhaps he was a Chorepiscopos or something -- given apostolic charge of Prussia in the short-term as a kind of Boniface wannabe, and who found himself sorely disappointed when the papal legate stepped in with actual administration...JHK

Removed a bunch of "see also" links because many already existed in the article body, and others had little if anything to do with the article as written. JHK

They achieved this largely through the co-opting of local Slavic chieftains into a system of mutual defense and allegiance. This policy not only bound former enemies to the Emperor, but also prevented any of the Emperor's West Frankish leading men from expanding their own power bases eastward. It is not surprising, then, that when the Emperor created the Duchy of Poland,

largely is an exaggeration. Most of lands were conquered, although soemtimes Germans indeed allowed elite of conquered Slavic tribes join the German elite.

Emperor created Duchy of Poland - he didn't. Unless you provide any source of information, that it were Germans which conquered Poland and give it to Polish dukes. Poland wasn't created by external forces.

Boleslav sent his soldiers - yes, few guards to protect Adalbert. He indeed probably sent Adalbert to increase his influence in Prussia and maybe in future conquer it, but i haven't read anything in any book about sending soldiers. Soldiers stayed in Poland, Adalbert with few monks go into Prussia, where he indeed act quite stupidily by our standards (but not by medieval standards) and was killed.

I will delete that whole paragraph, with replacing that with (some reshaping will be needed)

In 997, Boleslaw I Chrobry, then Duke of Poland, sent Saint Adalbert of Prague to convert the Prussians. Adalbert behaved very agressively, and when he tried to destroy some saint trees, Prussians first expelled him and warned, that he will be killed when he will return, and when he did, they indeed killed him at the Samland/Prussia? coast.

Prussians invaded Poland hundred of times, and it wasn't like they were peacefull people invaded by those evil Poles. So, i will add also: For centuries Prussians invaded Polish lands, and in return Polish dukes organised raids to Prussia. In 1220 [...] To protect his duchy, Conrad asked Teuton Order to come, offered them Culmerland (Chelminska land). However Teutons immedietely turn to Pope, who [(installed them......]

I would have to seek more about history of Chelmno.

Next: Teutons then fought with Poland numerous wars (1308-9, 1326-1332,1409-1411, 1414,1422,1431-1435..) but they belong to history of Teutonic Order not Prussia probably(?). i don't know what death of Emperor had to do with war, war 1409-1411 was between Poland-Lithuania and Teutons, Tatars were indeed part of Lithuanian forces (some 300 of soldiers), i don't know also if it is worth mentioning so called Zwiazek Jaszczurczy (Lizard confederacy?). So In 1444 Prussian cities and knighthood organised Prussian Confederacy. Confederacy tried to appeal to Emperor, but when he decided to side with Teuton Order, Confederacy turn to Poland and asked Casimir IV for help and incorporating Prussia into Poland. Casimir IV agreed, although many from his council, including bishop Olesnicki, oppose him. In Thirteen Years' War Teuton Order was defeated and turn into vassal of Poland, while part of Prussia was incorporated directly into Poland. Part of Prussia receive many privileges, both political and economical (listing privileges like indygenat, privileges to Thorn (Torun) and Danzig (Gdansk) etc...)

After 1568 Duchy of Prussia, accroding to feudal law, should be incorporated directly into Poland, but instead Polish king allow Franconian branch of Hohenzollerns to take over it. The same happened in 1618.

Prussian Confederation

In 1454, the Prussian Confederation asked for protection from the king of Poland, which is granted. The King of Poland became Prince of Prussia, the two states becoming a personal union under his crown. This state of affairs would continue until 1466 when Prussia was granted its own independent duke and the confederation became the Duchy of Prussia.


EEEE?? in 1466 Prussia was directly incorporatedinto Poland. It never received it's own duke. It was ruled initialy by king's governors, IIRC, and i don't know if Polish institutions were immedetiely introduced.

Prussian confederacy was initiated by cities _AND_ knighthood.

szopen

Isn't Prussia sort of the birthplace of the educational system now used in the United States, or at least of public education in general? I'm thinking of Johann Fichte's "Addresses to the German Nation" in the early 1800s. He wanted the state to control education so the nation could recover from Napoleon's conquest. At least according to some scattered articles I read last spring. --Wesley

Well, depends what you mean. Definetely before Prussia there was control state education (KEN - Komisja Edukacji Narodowej, Commission of National Education) was in Poland years earlier. szopen

After 1945 Take-Over by Soviet Union

On the land east of the Oder-Neisse River seperating eastern Prussia ,eastern Pomerania, nearly all of Silesia, eastern Brandenburg from the West Germany.

In 1965 a letter was written by the Polish bishops to the West German bishops. The Polish bishops were strongly critizised by the Polish Communist governmental agencies,press,etc who called the bishops "revangists".

Following are excerpts from a statement of Glos Pracy,Warsaw, Dec 31,1965, Jan 2 and 2,1966:

"...Above all, it must be kept in mind that the Vatikan has not approved the Potsdam Agreement of 1945, that it sees in this no basis for a peace treaty with Germany, and that it regards the concordates signed with Prussia in 1929 and with the German Reich in 1933 as still legally binding.

The episcopates and archiepiscopates in our Polish western territories figure in the Vatican's registers as German episcopates; formally, ecclesiastical jurisdiction there is exercised by German clerics who reside in the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany.

The Polish bishops who reside in the western territories enjoy no formal jurisdiction in their episcopates, which, however, they exercise de facto....Formally, they act as mission bishops, exercising their priestly functions among the Polish population living in the territory of the German nation. ...

The only exeption, since April 1964, has been the Danzig episcopate, in which, following the death of Bishop Splett, the Pole Edmund Nowicki became ordinarius with full canonical authority. The Danzig episcopates, since, according to the Vatican, the Free City of Danzig continues to exist, and since the borders of this episcopate correspond to the borders of the one-time free city, this is completely absurd...

In his letter to the German bishops, dated March 1, 1948, Pius XII expressed his displeasure at the expulsion of the Germans: protested against it and recommended that "that which had been done, be undone as far as it still can be". In his letter, he described Breslau as the "center of the German East". At the same time, the Vatican issued an order to organize an ecclesiastical administration of their own for the refugees on German territory...

...In all the Papal Annuals "Annuario Pontifico" published after the war, the units of the ecclesiastical administration in the western territories are listed in the column ' Germany'. In this respect, Pope Paul VI ia a consistent implementor of Pius XII."

Removed absurd statement in re: ethnicity vs. legal rulership. Language does not equal anything in particular, anyway. MichaelTinkler

Transferred from text:

Numerous pieces of correspondence between the different Prussian factions and the emperors as well as other documents have been published. This large volume of documents covering hundreds of cities and towns involved are now in the process of being integrated in a centralized Prussian Documents system. The emperor was the highest judge in matters which could not be taken care of on a more local level. The Prussian Confederation was subject to the emperor (Pr.U.413 #506)

The arrangements between western Prussia with Casimir IV Jagiello and Elizabeth Habsburg were of a defensive protection alliance nature. Though parts of Prussia were ruled by the Polish monarchs, the people and language remained German. For a glimpse at the Prussian Documents (Preussische Urkunden) see [[3]]

Western Prussia did not have "arrangements of a defensive nature" with Poland. It was a part of the territory over which the Polish kings held sovereignty. Much of the population indeed remained German-speaking, especially in the towns. But can you, user:H.J., put a proportion on it? If you valued historical fact at all rather than merely seeking at every turn to impose your own national chauvinist prejudice on every article, others might be inclined to take your argumants seriously.

Let's look at some of the "contributions" we've had from user:H.J.:

The Prussians (Germans) in 1454-66 successfully resisted an attempted Polish takeover. WRONG. The Prussian Conferederation accepted Polish sovereignty to free itself (successfully, with Polish help) from the (German) Teutonic Order.

Prussia was subject to the Empire throughout these centuries. WRONG. The Empire NEVER held practical authority in the region, despite earlier claims of "protection" extending to Riga. The Teutonic Order looked to the Pope as its suzerain. After 1466 western Prussia was under Polish rule, eastern Prussia under Polish suzerainty. No Emperor. The fact that the Pope and Emperor didn't support the second Treaty of Thorn was of no consequence: the Emperor had no say in the area, and neither he nor the Pope were signatories. The Order signed away its rights in the west and accepted the Polish king as overlord in the east.

user:H.J. uses a "1570" map (in fact the title page says 1598) to "prove" that Poland didn't possess sovereignty over Prussia, and even goes on to suggest that Poland didn't exist as a kingdom (this is between the Lublin Union and the Polish capture of Moscow, when the kingdom was at the height of its power). The atlas in which the map appears says a couple of pages later that "Prussia belongs totally under the crown of Poland, except the Duchy of Prussia, which is comprised in it, yet having for the present a distinct Duke." This duke's descendant goes on in 1660 to free himself from Polishoverlordship. A later descendant proclaims himself king in [east] Prussia because the Empire has no authority there.

Next, user:H.J. uses some coins from the 1610s to claim direct Hapsburg rule over Prussia. The titles she cites are actually phantom offices related to the post of Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, which had lost its hold on eastern (now ducal) Prussia to its own former head (still a Polish vassal) 90 years earlier.

On top of this, user:H.J. doesn't know when the Brussian dukedom passed from the Ansbach to the Brandenburg Hohenzollern line (1618, not 1568); she thinks Brandenburg's steadfastly Lutheran margrave Johann Georg "let the Jesuits take over" (and then explains this by a confusion with a later Johann Georg who adopted Calvinism!); and she imagines there were multiple dukes reigning simultaneously (one perhaps even a Habsburg!)

I've better things to do with my time than keep re-correcting such gibberish. I'm going to revert this article every time it's vandalised, because that's what it's come to. I hope to be able to incoprporate any intelligent additions by others, but if any are accidentally lost, please point them out to me. User:David Parker

Above text contains a good amount of things different from what I have said. I had added another source of legal documents (Preussische Urkunden. There are numerous imperial documents stating the status of Prussia. It is obvious that there is some pre-conceived and very determined force of English speakers , that insists on declaring everything to have been and to be Slavic and particularly Polish. It does not matter to this pre-demined force, what the actual facts were, they are constantly disregarded with derogative remarks. I tell you what, I give up to this force that is always right. It does not matter what the true facts were. All of Germany and all of Prussia and all the Angles and Saxons and all other Germans have all actually been always Polish. user:H.J.

Mrs user:H.J., you are obviously ignoring what others are trying to tell you. It is _we_ who are trying to convince you about factual facts. Nobody claims that everything in the world is Slavic and especially Polish. It is not. Nobody is trying to say that Germans were never in Prussia or that they never contributed to developmnet of wealth and culture of Poland, since they for many decades were important part of it.

Try to think logical. Let's say that Prussia was not part of Poland, but instead part of Empire. Why then during first partition partitioners asked Polish Parliament for approving their actions? If Poland had no jurisdiction over the area, why they did so?

If Prussia was not part of Poland, why Prussians were elected to Polish Parliament? Why they were sitting in Polish Senate? Prussians elected Polish kings, why they did so if they were not part of Polish kingdom?

Mind you that being part of Poland, or being part of Germany does not imply ethnicity. Again, many leaders of opposition in Prussia, who fiercely opposed reducing its authonomy, were Polish speakers, that is by todays standards Poles (some of them originated from Greater Poland). Some of opposition who demanded incorporating Prussia into Poland were by todays standards Germans.

I, in fact, was mistaken with few things and i happily admit that. Prussia was part of Poland since 1466, but until union of Lublin it had very wide authonomy.

Next thing is that you are mistaking many things. Polish cities for years treated Magdeburg (if i am not mistaken) as today we treat Strasburg, as highest authority. Germans were numerous in Prussia, but many knights, and definetely most of lower classes was Polish (by language).

You are trying to prove that Polish, English, French, Russian, even most of German historians got it all wrong and are under influence of Polish propaganda. In XIX century they were propably under influence of Russian propaganda, since there were no Poland then.

a.d.danilecki "[[szopen~]]"

To szopen,just a short note to say thank you for your nice message. You have several questions. I may put some material together eventually and let you know.To the propaganda point I think at least as much or more came and obviously still comes from sources other than Polish or Russian.Gorbachow, while still in office, had at least the courage to take a history book away from a teenage school child in Russia and said , these books are wrong.I saw this on TV. user:H.J.

Population of Prussia and its Provinces in 1890
Inhabitantsnon-German citizens*
East Prussia1,958,6632,189
West Prussia1,433,6811,976
City of Berlin1,578,79417,704
Brandenburg2,541,7835,213
Pomerania1,520,8891,405
Posen1,751,6421,438
Silesia4,224,45824,811
Saxony2,580,0104,642
Schleswig-Holstein1,217,43737,821
Hannover2,278,3618,089
Westphalia2,428,6619,879
Hessen-Nassau1,664,4269,801
Rhineland4,710,39139,669
Hohenzollern66,720161
  • The numbers for "non-German citizens" represent only people, who did not speak German language.

From 1885 to 1890 Berlin had gained 20% inhabitants, Brandenburg and Rhineland gained 8,5%, Westphalia 10% , while East Prussia had lost 0,07 and West Prussia 0,86 %.

Removed this because it had no clear connection to the rest of the article. User:JHK

In the upcoming World Cup in soccer I'm putting my money on Prussia, to take the gold. I hear, they have a pretty strong team. Does anybody know, which group they're in and which teams they're playing first?

User:Space Cadet

They are in a group with Gallia, Etruria, Califate of Cordoba, Byzantine Empire and Khanate of Crimea.

Soccer Fan

HJ -- removed the bit on the coinage because the article on coin reform doesn't really say much about what the problem was -- only about Copernicus' role in trying to solve it. Also, since it is fairly certain that that article is infringing on copyright (translations do not make it legal), that article may have to be drastically shortened or removed anyway. JHK

Helga and JHK: Can we agree to use "Prussia" for pre-1945 historical references to cities (as in articles about Copernicus) without CONSTANTLY having to add the disclaimer that "it used to be called Prussia, now it's called Poland"?

Or better yet, can we agree to use the term Prussia only for the pagan, pre Teutonic territory, term Monastic state, for the time when the Teutonic knights ruled, Ducal Prussia for the part of teritory ruled by Hohenzollerns (Polish fief till 1657), Royal Prussia for the teritory incoprated in the Polish Crown, the Kingdom of Prussia and finally for the period between the wars - East Prussia. This way we can avoid misunderstandings like "Copernicus was born in Prussia". More accurate would be a statement "Copernicus was born in Polish province of Royal Prussia".

Georg

Ed, I'm sure Helga would really like that -- it would imply support of her point that they are all Prussian, hence "really" German, and unfairly taken from Germany at the ends of the World Wars. Unfortunately, the reason all of these articles are written as they are is that (if you read all the interminable talk pages) several people who are more familiar with how to interpret source materials and who also have no axes to grind had to come up with a compromise. We've done this by trying to make it clear (or kind of skimming over) the fact that, yes, the cities in question are located in a geographical area known as Prussia, but that that doesn't mean they were GERMAN. By giving maybe too much history, we at least avod the POV of unfair land reassignments. Please look through the talk and see which wikipedians worked on this or brought up valid points -- two professional medievalists, a couple more historians, and some other wikipedians well-respected for their level-headedness and quality of contribution. Please think carefully before jumping in to make any such changes -- and then don't. ;-) Thanks! JHK 08:39 Aug 6, 2002 (PDT)
Just saw Georg's comment in an edit conflict -- That's a great solution, except that it means someone actually has to figure out when each was in effect -- that's one of the reasons we avoided it. None of us is an expert, and no one had time to make sure we got it right. For example, I'm pretty sure that Ducal Prussia was under different suzereigns at different times...which makes a difference if one waas the Empreor and another was king of Poland... It really means adding explanations of each of those different entities and their allegiances...JHK

HJ that was a link to a site most certainly breaking somebody's copyright. It didn't show Prussia -- it was a map of Poland in 922, with different populations indicated. Where a people lived is not the same as an actual state. JHK


but in 1660, after the Second Northern War between Sweden, Poland and Brandenburg, the Treaty of Oliva granted full sovereignty to Frederick William I of Prussia-Brandenburg as duke of Prussia.

Which Frederick William I are we talking about here? The one I know, the "Soldier King" of Prussia, lived from 1688 until 1740. AxelBoldt 04:47 Nov 14, 2002 (UTC)

Axel, the numbering was "reset" after Friedrich Wilhelm III the Duke of Prussia, proclaimed himself Friedrich Wilhelm I the King in Prussia in 1701. Friedrich Wilhelm I, der Grosse Kurfürst (the Great Elector)the duke of Prussia (1620-1688) is the one who managed to turn the Polish Province into independent Duchy in 1660.
I hope this is helpful, Axel, although I'm sure Helga could've explained it better. BTW, where is Helga? Is she OK? I kinda miss her in a unique sort of way.
Space Cadet

Prussian Perspective

Is anyone else here besides me Prussian? If you are I would love to hear from you. I think the article needs more Prussia from a Prussian's perspective & a little more objectivity on the received Imperial Hegemonistic legacy.

What does this mean ? Please translate into English ;-)

Removed something, for it basically says "If they had stayed, everything would have been ok- but now they're displaced, homeless criminals, just as people from russia with german ancestors":

"In Germany there is usually no distinction made between those who have managed to get to Germany since then and Russian-Germans. A low self esteem and lack of identity is responsible for much crime amongst this population there."

CHris

From VfD

  • Prussia makes confusion, because it tries to describe 3 completely separate entities. As I described in the Prussia_(disambiguation) page. The word Prussia can refer to:
    • the Baltic country Prussia (baltic)
      • the province Prussia (province
        • East Prussia
        • West Prussia
        • the state Prussia (state) As the prove that the disambuguity really exists, Kingdom of Prussia had a province, called Prussia. The province of Prussia doesn't have much in common to the Baltic country Prussia. Baltic Prussians spoke baltic language, were paganic, the country were located more to the East then Prussian province of Prussia. Kingdom of Prussia included many provinces, i.e. Rheinland. I vote for deletion of [[Prussia], so one would be redirected to the disambiguation page, where he can pick which term Prussia he is interested in. WolfgangPeters (145.254.118.211) 13:22, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
    • This is not a matter for Wikipedia:Votes for deletion. Try to get consensus on the articles' talk pages. --Morven 15:10, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
      • You can't delete something because it contains confusion. If it needs to be rewritten or moved, then do that. You can't just blank an article that has a huge page history like this one. Angela 15:17, 18 Nov 2003 (UTC)
        • Moved everything to the 4 different pages and create Prussia_(disambiguation): Since Prussia the most often refers to Kingdom of Prussia

I decided to redirect everything to Prussia (state) - already merged with Kingdom of Prussia. I just started to review all occurance of Prussia and try to disamiguate the references, that are not to Prussia as a state, but either to the Province of Prussia or to the Baltic Prussia.

I could not follow the reasoning behind re-directing everything to Prussia_(state) is seems most logical to have the disambiguation page come up when anyone clicks on Prussia. If the 500 or so links are ambiguous then like it or not we must make them clearer. so I corrected Prussia's redirect to the disambiguation page. In fact why not do as Angela suggests? By the way who removed the Preussisch reference? Most prussians who remember speak the Preussische low-german dialect at home and only High-german when appropriate.

I don't like this new situation. Prussia (state) is a very irritating title for a major article. It should also be noted that there has never been a single province of Prussia. There have always been two - Ducal and Royal Prussia became East and West Prussia, respectively. Thus, those articles could be "East Prussia" and "West Prussia." As far as the Baltic country which was eventually split in two to form the two Prussian provinces/states referred to, yes, it's distinct, but also the whole thing is closely related. I don't think the interest in doing this supercedes the interest in having an article called "Prussia" that details the general history of Prussia. In particular, the Kingdom of Prussia is the most common use of the term, and ought to be the article heading. Other articles on East Prussia (to which Ducal Prussia could redirect) and West Prussia (to which Royal Prussia could redirect), and then an article on the early medieval region could be listed on the disambiguation page. At any rate, I think a full explanation of the whole history of the term Prussia, and what it applied to, is highly in order, and this is discouraged by splitting up into several articles. john 03:56, 28 Nov 2003 (UTC)
John, you are wrong! Province of Prussia where one entity. As the example: Copernicus was high official of whole Prussia, he worked on currency reform that included the whole country. This didn't matter, that part was ruled by Polish King directly, part by Ermland Bishop and part by a Prussian prince. The Province of Prussia as united entity existed:

in the Teutonic Order state 1525-1660 and in XIX century for 50 years. Also people used the word Prussia for the province, without dividing it, which one. Another important point is, that Kingdom of Prussia and Province of Prussia is completely different and must be in a different artciles. WolfgangPeters

Yes, Prussia (East and West) was a single province between 1829 and 1878. But I also think it may be better to have the article about the state at Prussia, because most of the hundreds of links to Prussia refer to the state, so they should also lead to the article about the state, not to a disambiguation page, and we wouldn't want to change all those links. --Wik 13:52, Nov 28, 2003 (UTC)
I don't mind checking out & clarifying all those links for you. But it really is most logical to have all links point to one disambiguation page and let the readers use their brains to work out wherte they should follow on. Also I think John is right about the explanation. Though it is important not to confuse the united Prussian nation with the German nation in the same way Austrians would not like to be confused, the political distinction Ducal/Royal (as Wolfgang mentioned) may not really be important since it divides up the nation artificially. However, the East west distinction has more basis since ostpreussen in its last forms was basically the area of the original prussian nation and the speakers of the preussische dialect (and the prussian language before that).

Conrad invaded and conquered

"Conrad invaded and even conquered Prussian land". Ziemia Chelminska (culmerland) is territory with mixed population since ealry medieval times. It's hard to say who started invasions, but definetely they started much earlier than in times of Conrad. szopen

The two statements that Prussia was eliminated after World War II are confusing. I thought Prussia was absorbed into Germany as of the German Empire.

The German Empire remained rather federal; and Prussia existed as a Kingdom within the Empire until 1918, when it became a state within the Republic. Morwen 10:18, Dec 30, 2003 (UTC)

Move

It makes no sense to keep this article at [Prussia (state)] if [Prussia] redirects there. --Jiang 10:15, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

I'm glad this isn't a disambiguation page anymore. Morwen 10:18, Dec 30, 2003 (UTC)
I am not glad that this is not a disambiguation page anymore. Was there a vote on this? I must have missed it! But seriously it makes no sense to click a link to Prussia only to see that I have to click again to find out the full story of the nation doesn't it? The page one arrives at instead of telling the story of the nation pretends to only be about the 217 year long Kingdom of Prussia while in fact what it is really doing is keeping a German Hegemony on the area hiding its multi-national origins, its desperate present, and perhaps Federal European future. I was awarded a year-long Polish government scholarship to do research on the nation and minority politics in the EU, and I can honestly say that it really is given short grace in the article here. Prussia is a nation still in existence and any encyclopaedic entry about it should as an act of consideration for the abuse suffered by this nation upto and especially since the 1950s treat it as a nation and not a dead kingdom. I hope I don't sound too emmotional, my family made a promise a long time ago and it became a tradition for the eldest son to mind that promise, so I am just doing my job :-) User:Zestauferov
Presumably, Zestauferov, you are saying there's a need to bring in discussion of the Baltic heritage in Old Prussian language and mention how the original Prussians were assimilated by both Slav and Teuton? - unkamunka. 16:53, 31 Dec 2003 (UTC)

There was no vote on this. Someone redirected this to [Prussia (state)] and I moved the article to avoid an unnecessary redirect. IMO, the disambiguation is a waste. All of that information should be incorporated into the introduction of this article to avoid the confusion. Some clarifying should be done. Zestauferov, given your credentials, you should do this. --Jiang 21:52, 30 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Right, ok then I will do my best. Give me a couple of days so that I can be sure that I don't miss any POVs which should be incorporated. I will try to merge what I can from various related pages. If one section of the article gets too big (hypothetically for example Militarism in Prussia) I will simply create a new relevantly named link (e.g. Prussian Militarism) and post the info there. Zestauferov 10:44, 8 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OK, its done. I have made the whole article one of disambiguation, trying to keep the bias on the area of Prussia proper. There is a ton of more stuff that could be put into this page but we can do that slowly. Some of the smaller Prussia links might better ultimately be merged with this page. I discovered that most of the info from this page had been duplicated from the Brandenburg-Prussia article, so I moved it back there. I have already started the process of disambiguating links to this page which should better link to Brandenburg-Prussia.Zestauferov 01:57, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Reposting my comments from Talk:Brandenburg-Prussia:
Also, Brandenburg-Prussia is a completely inappropriate article to discuss Prussia after 1806, at latest, and is not useful for the earlier period, especially since the article doesn't discuss at all the period before 1701. john 04:59, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The period prior to 1701 does need beefing out a bit. I have a little info for it. The Brandenburg-Prussia state existed right up until the Weimar republic so I don't know what event you are refering to in 1806.Zestauferov 07:44, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The whole variety of meanings of the word "Prussia" should be explained in the article on Prussia, including the history of the Kingdom and Land of Prussia under the Hohenzollerns, Weimar Republic, and Third Reich. john 04:59, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. Perhaps eventually all the smaller prussia articles can be put on this one page..Zestauferov 07:44, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Certainly, said article should not pretend that the term Prussia refers only to the Baltic region which was originally called Prussia. john 04:59, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)


That is a POV which is discussed in the article. Prussia proper is understood by all to be the area focused on, for more detail about "Greater Prussia" (the Kingdom of Prussia) readers should look at the Brandenburg Prussia article.Zestauferov 07:44, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Looking more closely at this article, it's complete nonsense, horribly written, POV, and containing hardly any information at all. john 05:07, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ok it would be helpful if you mention which parts you consider to be nonsense. Being horibly written is an unfortunate side effect of trying to incorporate everyone's ideas. As for POV which POVs are missing that bother you the most?If it is the sequence of the layout that bothers you then simply re-arrange it. It is a much better start than the disambiguation page at least.Zestauferov 07:44, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Let's see

  • To confuse the Prussian nation with Brandenburg is as clumsy as confusing Hungary with Austria because of the Austro-Hungarian state. Basically, you are saying that we can't call the Hohenzollern state "Prussia", which is ridiculous.

You can name the lands of a royal family after one of the areas they own, but it does not magically make the proper location of that area vanish or truely bigger. No-one is denying that the Hohenzollerns ruled the kingdom of prussia, but I am trying keep in mind the true extent of prussia proper. Or would you have it that England Scotland & Northern Ireland be called "Wales" after the title of the Prince?Zestauferov 12:55, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • The whole militarism paragraph is weird stuff about Scythians, and then strange material about the clumsiness of Frederick the Great's army

Whatever you don't like about it please change. the point is that Prussia does conjur ideas of militarism and it is interesting to note the origin of the ancient traditions which were continued there. Zestauferov 12:55, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • The geography paragraph makes no attempt to mention the Kingdom/State of Prussia, only discussing the historical Baltic province

If you think your point i.e. that at one time almost all of Germany was included in the kingdom of Prussia has not already been understood by everyone then please feel free to make it one more time just in case someone did not catch it.Zestauferov 12:55, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • The history discussion of the period before 1918 is completely inadequate

If you ever read the replies I made then you will see that there are plans to bring the other small related articles (e.g. Baltic Prussia, Ducal Prussia etc.) in under this main article. Why don't you make a start?Zestauferov 12:55, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • The discussion of the Weimar Republic and World War II is rambling and weird, and the chronology is extremely unclear. Further, any discussion of "Prussia" under the Weimar Republic should properly be about the Land of Prussia, not the Prussian province of East Prussia.

The land of Prussia proper never changed and when the kingdom ended it returned to its proper extent. Only Nazis wanted to extent that to include parts of Poland which is why the name of the region was not reverted back to simply Preussen instead of retaining the dream of a greater Prussia by continuing to refer to it as Ostpreussen (though to be fair Gdansk could genuinely have been called Westpreussen). This is the same reason the decision to delete the area was made i.e. to smash dreams of "Greater Prussia" once and for all.Zestauferov 12:55, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

  • The postwar material has many of the same problems, and is also blatantly POV. It also contains long, rambling quotes from Lithuanian sources.

Then delete and it re-word it for NPOV if you can do better. My special knowledge is on the area of Prussia proper as a nation not in the details of every specific period. There are Polish historians who know much more about Ducal Prussia and German historians who know much more about the Kingdom of Prussia. My only commission was to fuse different ideas together and I have made a start here.Zestauferov 12:55, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Is that specific enough? I think there's probably some useful material to be culled from this stuff, especially with regards to the postwar fate of East Prussia, but as is it's completely unacceptable. john 09:07, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for saying at least there is something about it. And the great thing about wiki is that unacceptable "stuff" with good elements can be edited by others. I notice you have made a good start on this with the Brandenburg-Prussia page, so why don't you stop complaining and start doing what you can to improve it? I will be taking a break soon because of a baby, but i will oppose attempts to call Germany as Prussia that would be like calling Southern Ireland as England despite its long standing seperation. In 1918 with the end of the kingdom Prussia, Prussia shrunk back to its original historical national (Baltic) extent. it is as simple as that.Zestauferov 12:55, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

No, it absolutely did not. The Weimar Republic was a federal state, and one of the 20 or so Länder (Provinces, States, what have you) was Prussia, with exactly the same borders it had had under the Reich, with the exception of Northern Schleswig, Eupen-Malmedy, and the eastern lands given to Poland and Lithuania. The Land of Prussia played an important role in the history of the Weimar Republic, notably as a haven of the Social Democrats. The prominent Social Democratic figure Otto Braun was Minister-President of Prussia until 1932, when a coup by Franz von Papen overthrew the Prussian government and replaced it with a right wing one. Prussia continued to exist, with basically the same borders (although the state distinctions became basically meaningless under the centralizing policies of the Nazis) until 1945. When, I suppose you could say, Prussia shrank back to its historical national (Baltic) extent, although I'm not sure this is particularly appropriate, since that historical region, also, was not called Prussia. I'll try to work on it. john 19:57, 10 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I am afraid your point of view is a nationalistic bias. Prussia did shrink back to its original size at the end of the Kingdom. Prussian lands were not "given" to Poland but simply the Kingdom's hold over such lands was broken, and whether or not Brandenburg areas still choose to call themselves Prusia is besides the point (many Newzealanders caontinue to call themselves Englishmen though people from England would disagree with their self designation). You see the whole point behind deleting Prussia was because of the attitudes like the points of view you are trying to express i.e. that Prussia IS Greater Prussia and that there is no small portion of Prussia that can be identiied as Prussia other than the greater extent. The historical fact is that Prussia grew from a Baltic region to a Giant North European Kingdom and shrunk back to its Baltic region again (despite the desired claims of inter-war year Germany and the Nazis) before it was deleted. In the words f the British Parliment "Delenda Est Borussia" note they did not say Ostrpreussen but Borussia and its reference was to what the nationalists has insisted was only Ostpreussen. Also the Land was not a haven for social democrats but was infact strongly leaning towards communism the communist party was strong there as was the Jewish population both of which are why Hitler's Gestappo was first created IN that region to counter these influences. Remember the high number of votes the nazi party there was due to the voting regulations excluding communists & Jews. In fact we may never know what the precise ration of the population there was pro Nazi invasion of Poland but it was probably noty very much at all.

As for your "work" on the page User:Cautious you have totally reversed what is supposed to have been done. All the relevant pages are supposed to eventually come together into one universal article which tells the story of Prussia from its birth, through its growth and demise not be dispersed into minor essays elsewhere. The Kingdom of Prussia ceased after WW2 and if not for the nationalists would have remained a permanent disconected Germanic nation of Prussia to this day, unfortunately they could not let the dream of a german empire centered around Greater Prussia die and thus by refusing to accept post WW1 Ostpreussen as historical Prussia proper they brought about its end. Prussia is a land with a story to be told the details of each period may be given in sub-articles. This is what we were staring to do until john complained and I was only unable to finish working on it right now because of the arrival of my first child. I will return and finish the work when time permits, no matter how far away from this form it is taken.User:Zestauferov 15:57, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What you are trying to achieve is complete nonsense. Province of Prussia has very little to do, with Kingdom of Prussia. The Kingdom took his name after the Province and the Province took its name after Baltic nation. All those things are completely separately. I give you an example: Danzig in XVII century was located in the Prussia, but it didn't want to be included in the Kingdom in XVIII century. Family von Hohenzollern came from Bavaria or Frankonia. Try to make your mind again, what exactly you want to show. Cautious 21:28, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)
Actually, the Hohenzollerns came from Swabia, originally. I think that Zestauferov's project here is to deny that the Kingdom of Prussia is, in fact, entitled to the name "Prussia". john 22:32, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sigh, Zestauferov. The Kingdom of Prussia ceased to exist after World War I, becoming the Land of Prussia within the Weimar Republic, with the same borders, except that the Polish Corridor, Danzig, Memel, Eupen-Malmesdy, North Schleswig, and part of Upper Silesia were no longer part of either Prussia or Germany. This Land (Land being the German word for "state" or "province") of Prussia continued to exist until 1945. There is no getting around this, and this has nothing to do with German revanchist desires. It is simply a fact. I'd further add that the post-1945 material that Curious moved to Brandenburg-Prussia and you moved back here is simply awful, and ought to be deleted. I'd also note that the Balkan province of Prussia, along with the Land of Prussia, ceased to exist in 1945. Neither the Poles nor the Russians nor the Lithuanians call the region Prussia any longer, so far as I am aware. john 00:27, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Don't delete something because you don't like it. I did not do that and the result is not very readable but at least it does not suppress any info. If you think you have editing talents then please re-word the info but do not suppress it. I was awarded a government scholarship through the Jagiellonian University to write an unbiased socio-historical context for the region to be presented in a paper concerning Poland's placement in the EU and the possibility of Kaliningrad region becomming a fourth Baltic state as Russia's foot in the EU. The results are far to extensive to place here, but I was invited because of my non-bias to do something withthe Prussia articles. The writings I included were gleamed from Wiki and messages from people mentioning info they believed was important for an article on Prussia. Thus I am not perturbed by your attempts to discredit me. Even if my efforts are rejected here on the internet at least they have been apprecuated at a governmental level.

You sound a bit childish here, and it doesnt advance your agenda if you insist that governmental level has approved your work, whereas [bad/dumb] wikipedia users dont. Dont brag around, it really sounds like this. Convince us by arguments, not by the mentioning of how good you are, recognized by govt, have received a scholarhip, being non biased by default, but discredited by others, etc. etc..

I on the other hand should appologise to you since following your first outraged comments and (I realise now only off the top of your head) ignorance concerning the basic circumstances of the formation of Brandenburg Prussia I assumed you knew very little of the details in general. I have since noticed that you do indeed have a good library to refer to since you have put in details icould not recall off the top of my head. It also suggests to me you have a lot of free time to dedicate to wiki. However I suggest to you that some of the Books you are reading are written with a bias which should be sifted through. To call Germany (specifically Brandenburg) the land of Prussia would be like calling India the land of Britain. Even contemporaries realised this and that the name "Kingdom of Prussia" was a political game, which is why it was often refered to as Brandenburg-Prussia. The Land of Prussia proper (not Greater Prussia) always has been a wedge between Poland & Lithuania.

Well, you assume johns knowledge is from books only, whereas yours is live knowledge, also therefore understandably sometimes incomplete. Was this really what you wanted to convey, does an apology really looks like that ? Hope not.
For your point, you insist and insist and insist that Prussia has after the dissolvement of the Kingdom Prussia "reverted back" to its old extent, after existing 200 years, it doesnt get more true by repeating it.
Alright, the story is as follows:
The King Friedrich I. was crowned in Königsberg actually as "King in Prussia", and the Brandenburg and other territories inside the Holy Roman Empire of german Nation actually called : Prussian "Länder". Gradually, over the years and particularly after the Holy Roman Empire ceased to exist 1806, the Term was gradually adopted to the full extent of the Hohenzollern Territories. Accordingly, the Kings of Prussia referred to themeselves as such, and not Kings IN Prussia anymore. (Similar thing happened to the Term "Saxony", originally determining the area of todays Lower Saxony, but via its rulers transferred to the territory of the landgrave of Meissen) So, we can say that in the 19th century the Term Prussia described the whole area (and state) from Memel to Aachen. What happended now 1918 ? Nothing. Alright, not really, the King had abdicate and the Kingdom OF Prussia became the Republic (Freistaat) Preussen.
Your referred to people calling Prussia Brandenburg-Prussia: True, but only in the first decades. Afterwards, the Name Prussia was commonly accepted for it. And, let me add something: You seem to fight vehemently for Prussia being only the Prussia of its former extent, for you seem to associate with it something i cannot really lay my finger on. What is it, what is bothering you ? After all, its only a name...


As for your reference to a Balkan Prussia I must confess ignorance. Or perhaps your geography is at fault? Oh and Poles do refer to the combined regions of Kaliningrad, Mazury and Warmia as Prusy and Lithuanians do also as Prusai. Prussians (Preussischers) still exist as a minority in exile mostly in Kazakhstan and increasingly in Germany. 12,000+ have returned to the region of Prussia proper and they call it Preussen. Zestauferov 06:12, 24 Jan 2004 (UTC)


Chris

I am not familiar with the term "Brandenburg-Prussia" ever being used to refer to the Prussian state. The extent of territory under the Hohenzollerns after 1701 was always (as far as I know) referred to simply as "Prussia". Brandenburg was but one of many parts of that conglomeration. The Kingdom of Prussia existed all the way until 1918; under the Empire it was a component part (along with several other Kingdoms, Duchies, etc). The German Emperor was also King of Prussia, and they clearly regarded the royal title as more important (Friedrich III, instead of Friedrich I. He was Friedrich III of Prussia, who also happened to be German Emperor). After 1918, Prussia became a Land in the Weimar Republic, and indeed retained its political coherence until 1947, when it was abolished. Prussia as a political entity does not exist today. Any article on Prussia must necessarily focus on the political entity. Prussia as a distinct territorial landmass is not nearly so significant, and Prussia does not, insofar as I am aware, exist as a national group. Mackensen 19:23, 24 Jan 2004 (PST)

Agree, I only now realised that Prussia is in the last part of the article only means the area of "Ostpreussen". Thats quite a strange viewpoint, not many historians would agree on. Chris

Surely not any historians would agree on this. Certainly all those historians who refer to Otto Braun as Minister-President of Prussia, or to the coup against the Prussian government by Franz von Papen in July 1932, or to Goering's control of the Prussian police in 1933, would be surprised to learn that Prussia didn't exist at that time, except for the province of East Prussia. john 19:29, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Sigh, this article is a complete mess. At least random user 194.whatever deleted nonsensical content. I don't even know where to begin with fixing this mess. At the moment, this page is basically a bizarre rant by Zestauferov, with a bunch of links. I'd say that this page should 1) talk about ancient Prussia, the oringinal Baltic Prussians, and so forth; 2) talk about the development of the Baltic province, i.e. Teutonic Knights, secularization, "Royal" vs. "Ducal" Prussia; 3) Discuss the Brandenburg inheritance, and the creation of the Kingdom in Prussia in 1701; 4) then go on to discuss the history of the Kingdom in/of Prussia and the Freistaat Preußen until the abolition of Prussia in 1945 or 1947. A discussion of the fate of the historical region of Prussia can follow. The Brandenburg-Prussia article should probably redirect to this (its content can be moved here). Most of Zestauferov's (or whoever else's) nonsensical rambling and ranting about Scythians and the expulsions should be removed. Anyone with me? john 00:14, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Absolutely. The idea that the main article about Prussia does not once mention the Elector of Brandenburg is mad. What the devil is all this Scythian stuff, anyway? It might belong with a discussion of Prussian military training (I doubt it), but it certainly doesn't belong here. Mackensen 01:29, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I appologise for causing an upset. As far as I understood people were sick of different factions fighting over the use of the term Prussia and wanted to get rid of the disambiguation by creating one concise article about the land of prussia and how it grew from a Baltic province to a Germanic kingdom before returning to its original size. Nobody in the original lands of Prussia proper refer to Brandenburg & Pomerania as Prussia these days only the Russian & Polish lands retain that title. Please John, Chris, Mackensen Lets come to a compromise and reduce the article to a discussion of the controversies and links to the names used in their respective periods. It seems making this into a disambiguation page will be the best least controvercial route afterall. All information can be moved to relevant sub-articles.

Prussia Proper: Baltic Prussia Teutonic Prussia; Ducal Prussia; Royal Prussia; East Prussia (Ostpreussen);

Greater Prussia: Brandenburg-Prussia; Kingdom of Prussia; Freistaat Prussia

You can create links to other new articles like Prussia Militarism and Prussian Personalities and move relative info there. I only started to do this as a favour. I was not insulting Wiki which I believe is an excellent idea but simply defending myself I don't see it as bragging but a rhetoric spin doctor would certainly take the oportunity to put that angle on it. Well done. Dont expect me to stop editing these pages however, if necessary without prior discussion as I have been doing so far. I will not be creating new IDs like Cautious and using anonymous IPs like 145.254.119.140 since I am not afraid of the validity of a NPOV even if it leads to my being banned. Zestauferov 05:42, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Zestauferov, the term "Prussia" is not used any longer by anyone. Certainly, the parts of the former Prussia that are now in Poland are not called that. The Warmian-Masurian Voivodship contains most of Poland's lands from the former East Prussia, and West Prussia is in the Pomeranian Voivodship. As far as I am aware, the Russian part of the former East Prussia is usually called the "Kaliningrad Salient" or Kaliningrad Oblast. Not sure if there's a special name for the area around Klaipeda. But, point is, the term Prussia is not particularly in use at present for any region, which means it's perfect appropriate to discuss Prussia as being the larger entity which later took that name, rather than the smaller region. Can you point to any recent examples of the use of "Prussia" to refer to these regions? john 06:28, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Cautious, please do not move this horrible material to other articles. That will only make it more difficult to isolate and get rid of. If you could revert your changes so we can edit this article into a reasonable state, that'd be great. john 09:33, 26 Jan 2004 (UTC)

@Zestauferov: I do see the point that you wanted to defend yourself, by mentioning gov.grants etc., alright. Something else: The whole point is, that Prussia did NOT "return to its original size" after whatever date. The Meaning of Prussia as a single baltic province was superseded by more than 200 years of Prussia as a german kingdom, which comprised of a whole lot more territory. The Baltic Prussia was in this time and later referred to as "Ostpreussen" to avoid confusion with the "Preussen" term which meant more. I also guess, that polish sources rather avoid using "Prussia" as term for the now-polish parts of it, for it is commonly associated with being german. Except, when the try is made to draw a clear line of succession from slavic baltic tribes to nowadays [slavic] polish territory, then (to my impression) the term "Prussia" is welcome do show this supposed heritage.

@john: You'll do the job, i'm sure :-)

Chris

Chris, you're basically right, I think, although between 1829 and 1878 the two Baltic provinces were joined into a single province of Prussia within the Kingdom of Prussia. At the same time, though, Prussia had a province of Saxony, quite distinct from the Kingdom of Saxony. And later would have a province of Hesse-Nassau quite distinct from the Grand Duchy of Hesse. So I'm not sure how to assess that. As to what to do now, this article is in such an odd state, and stuff is so spread out among different articles, that I am at a loss to figure out how to fix it. john 19:37, 31 Jan 2004 (UTC)

How about one step at a time. sentence by sentence if necessary. That's what I was going to do unless you are afraid of impatient individuals smashing your attempts before you even get started.Zestauferov 08:08, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Zestauferov, to be quite honest, I simply don't trust you, or what you're trying to do to this article. You clearly have an agenda you're trying to push here, and, as far as I and seemingly pretty much all other posters who have commented on this can tell, that agenda is an odd and idiosyncratic one. And passive-aggressive comments like the above certainly don't make it any better. The situation with these articles was certainly a mess before, but the changes you've made have done very little to alleviate it, and have generally made things worse. Before I go about trying to fix this, I'd be interested to know what, exactly, are your goals for this article, and for the Prussia complex of articles in general. john 09:11, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the vote of confidence. But seriously, conspiracy theories are not really very healthy.Zestauferov 12:25, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Thanks for the constructive reply! To believe that one person has an agenda is not to believe in a conspiracy theory. The word "conspiracy" implies more than one person, as far as I am aware. I'd like to clarify, however, that I am not questioning your good faith, but rather your judgment, in your contributions to this article. john 17:36, 1 Feb 2004 (UTC)

This is not a very good article. History of Prussia and Republic of Prussia are pretty bad as well. This whole subject needs to be started again I think. Adam 12:27, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Everyone is behind you there Adam. The problem is that as soon as one person starts to try and do something with it their efforts are torn to shreds before they even get started. Too many conflicting points of view and not enough willingness to accept a Neutral description of the situations. The history of Prussia article is a new one. I did not realise it existed. It is probably all over the place. People are confusing references to the province, and to Ostpreussen and making them all refer to the state and vice-versa. There is a chaos because no one has been careful enough with the labels in the official history books as well as casual researchers. It will take time and much debate.Zestauferov 13:51, 6 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3

Prussia "the old continent" dates back to 1400 B.C.

'East Prussia' as the Wikipedia article states dates Prussia back to the 14th Century. Dating Prussia to 1701 should be only referenced to the first King of Prussia and have no relevance to Prussia itself as Prussia goes farther back than the germanic Kings of Prussia as it becomes Kaliningrad Pussia as the Kingdom of Prussia. This is what is known on Wikipedia.

What is NOT KNOWN on Wikipedia is:

1. Prussia dates back to 1400 B.C. as the "old continent"

2. Ukraine was the first developed country under the continent Prussia

3. Prussia was the territorial claims by the inhabited "slavs" to mark territorial borders away from "the middle east"

4. Prussian was the first launguage of the slavic dialect "broken words"

5. Prussians was slang for outcasts of the "ancient middle east" of mesopotamia 70.181.249.210 (talk) 06:17, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


I would like to add that Prussia is really Pussia and Persia is really Ersia. 70.181.249.210 (talk) 06:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

Ersia was the name of Earth at the time. Persia is Pussia and Ersia combined together I guess. Wikigov (talk) 07:11, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
What on earth is going on here? john k (talk) 12:25, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

····....There are no such things as "Ersia" or "Pussia" and there never were.

Can there not be just one uncomplicated sentence?

wtf?

Let's just say that I'm in my 40s and I failed Geography eons ago. I am presently reading about WWI and thought I could find a simple answer about where Prussia would have been. Instead I am greeted, in the opening section, with information overload. I would suggest a simple sentence that says "Prussia was an area consisting of this country and part of this country and part of this area but dates back to blah, blah, blah." Also this map is not helpful at all. It looks like a child coloring book except that there are no numbers to tell me what is what. Don't get me wrong, I sincerely appreciate every effort, but from an average reader standpoint, this really isn't very helpful. MagnoliaSouth (talk) 03:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the map: What part of: "Prussia (blue)" in the caption beneath it is it that's too hard for you to understand? WTF indeed. Observe: average reader |= brainless bozo reader.77.5.100.69 (talk) 21:01, 26 November 2010 (UTC)

I'm not certain where you fit in to this article, it would appear you are a contributer who failed to login in order to make your ridiculous comment calling someone a brainless bozo reader. No matter, it is an offensive remark, granted the previous post was also a bit hostile in nature but you had no reason to directly insult the person who is merely trying to figure out where Prussia's borders were during WWI. In comparing this Wiki to others of now broken up or absorbed kingdoms, states, countries, etc. Prussia in particular is indeed lacking what the rest of them have, and it happens to be exactly what the previous post refers to. That is a brief introductory statement that gives a simple description of where the area is. There are hundreds of examples and it is the norm, not some outlandish request. Examples: The Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR), Ottoman Empire, Achaemenid Empire, ad nauseum. As a matter of fact this is the only one I have come across that does not have a written description. So please do consider the fact the Prussia Wiki is not in fact following precedent, a very simple one or two sentence explanation of Prussia's approximate borders "at its peak" would clear up the discrepancy and improve the Prussia Wiki. If it is not something you can do, I will request it be done by someone else.75.17.215.115 (talk) 20:59, 6 January 2011 (UTC) J. Scott

I'm almost certain that Prussia did not move it's capital to Berlin in 1451. Fix it someone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.215.16 (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree with MagnoliaSouth's statement. The lede is an introduction that simply explains the scope of the article, the abstract of the following information, if you will. I find this one to have lost its way. The member's comments about the map mirror my own thoughts the instant I saw it. The purpose of a map is to provide information in an orienting way. I love maps, but this one lacks way-finding markers. There's no labeling, no outlines of the various entities that made up Prussia at some point or even today's borders, no cities are marked. A map similar to this one that depicts the Kingdom of Germany would be much more illuminating: http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/File:HRR_10Jh.jpg .
I find 77.5.100.69's comment to be reactionary, defensive, and outright rude. It demonstrates that s/he has no interest in listing to a member of the target audience and learning from what they say. Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 16:55, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree that the map is very confusing all by itself. There needs to be an index map of, say Europe, to locate this map segment. 192.95.255.231 (talk) 17:48, 1 April 2017 (UTC)

Redirect to Kingdom of Prussia per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CFORK

The current article is largely a content fork of Kingdom of Prussia, which is the primary topic for the term ambiguous term Prussia. Per WP:PRIMARYTOPIC and WP:CFORK, Prussia should redirect to Kingdom of Prussia. Since this article (Prussia) is slightly more developed than Kingdom of Prussia, the relevant sourced parts should be merged before redirecting. Comments? 07:46, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, redirecting would be wrong, Prussia and the Kingdom of Prussia are not the same. Prussia existed before and after the Kingdom of that name. (The home of the Old Prussians, the realm of theGerman Knights, a Polish Duchy and a state of the Weimar Republic). --Kgfleischmann (talk) 11:42, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
I am aware of the different meanings of Prussia, that's why I referred to WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. The region or duchy of Prussia you mentioned above are not the same as the Berlin-based state (kingdom) of Prussia this article is about. If someone is looking for "Prussia", they usually mean the kingdom (see traffic stats), not the region and the provinces/duchies therein. As for the free state, a "free state" is nothing but a former kingdom, and Prussia's time as a free state was only the time of the Weimar Republic (i.e. a decade). The time Prussia was a great player of international (and national) importance was the time of the kingdom, 1701-1918. In any case, it does not make sense to have two articles, this one and Kingdom of Prussia, which are largely identical and cover the same topic. For everything named Prussia beside the kingdom, there is a dab page and dedicated articles. Skäpperöd (talk) 12:54, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
This article is about more than the kingdom, possibly you should study the table f contents. I could agree to make Kingdom of Prussia a redirect to paragraph 5 of this article. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 13:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Section 5 (about 80% of the article) is a copy of Kingdom of Prussia, or vice versa, therefore the CFORK argument. All other sections consist of just a few paragraphs without any subsections. Section 2 deals with geography and population of the kingdom, section 1 explains the Prussian flag and CoA. What remains are the sections "free state" and "end" - these are an abstract of the few years of aftermath, link the main articles and would well fit in the "kingdom" article also. The section "brandenburg-prussia" is about the precursor and legitimately serves as background. The section "Early history" should be cut and replaced by "ethymology", "name" or something, as it is not about the early history of the state of prussia, but of the region with that name.
I would not object to have "kingdom of prussia" redirect here and keep this article focussed on the kingdom, as is the case now. What I do object to is two articles about the same topic, which are largely mirrors and both in bad shape. I have just turned Brandenburg-Prussia, which was in a likewise messy and unsourced state, into a well-referenced article, and intend to start working on the kingdom article too, but I want to have the technical stuff sorted out first. I don't want to invest my time and efforts in a merging candidate, nor do I want to contribute to the current state of content forking. Skäpperöd (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Would titling the main article Prussia with a major section about Kingdom of Prussia (and presumably the other meanings) work? --Bermicourt (talk) 16:52, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Well, either we have no primary topic, then Prussia needs to direct to Prussia (disambiguation). Or we have a primary topic, then Prussia needs to direct to Kingdom of Prussia. I believe that "Kingdom of Prussia" is the primary topic, and back this by the traffic stats as well as common sense (If someone says "Prussian army", "Prussian virtues", "Prussian foo" without a qualifier, then one will think of the state of Prussia - if the duchy, province or region is meant, this is usually qualified by context). Skäpperöd (talk) 17:10, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Redirecting to Prussia (disambiguation) is possibly the best idea. --Kgfleischmann (talk) 07:28, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
"If someone is looking for "Prussia", they usually mean the kingdom..." is the perfect reason not to merge, damn any rule to the contrary. Being so, there's need to find/display that there's more to Prussia than the Kingdom of Prussia. In a nutshell. Regards, --G-41614 (talk) 05:57, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
I agree having looked at all the articles in question. Prussia should be the overarching, top-level article covering the entire period from the Old Prussians through the Duchy of Prussia, Kingdom of Prussia, Free State of Prussia (1918-1933) to Free State of Prussia (1933-1935) and Prussian should redirect to Prussia (there are thousands of links to Prussia and hundreds to Prussian). It should have sections summarising the subordinate articles headed up by hatnotes e.g. a section summarising the Duchy of Prussia with a {{main article}} hatnote to the Duchy of Prussia. This will entail reducing the emphasis in the Prussia article on the Kingdom of Prussia and beefing up the other sections to make it more balanced. --Bermicourt (talk) 15:51, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

What is this? Prussia is Prussia, not Kingdom of Prussia. Teutonic knights exterminated Prussian population. If you are looking for Prussia, then you should not be finding Kingdom of Prussia. Simply two diffrent things. What you guys are doing is CHANGING HISTORY, so wake up. KTTdestroyer (talk) 14:42, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

We haven't changed anything yet. We're just having a discussion. --Bermicourt (talk) 17:27, 26 October 2011 (UTC)
I think Kingdom of Prussia should be merged into this article. Nothing is lost and it makes it easier for users. Rjensen (talk) 17:43, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

File:Max Liebermann Bildnis Otto Braun 1932.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Max Liebermann Bildnis Otto Braun 1932.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests January 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:16, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Prussia in the Weimar Republic

Paragraphs 3 & 4 (of 6) appear to say Nazis rising out of Prussia and needs to be sourced or removed. It looks like an article attack since Hitler was Roman Catholic and came to power on a vote of the Catholic Centre Party following the 1932 Prussian Coup by the Roman Catholic Van Papen. The Catholic Centre Party were at odds with the Protestan German factions, according to that page and the demographics at the time. Gives a contradictory account is all.69.179.107.207 (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Supporting history to confirm cotradictions in the two paragraphs to be removed:

Involvement with the Thule Society - By 1916, Sebottendorff had attracted only one follower. In that year, however, he came into contact with the Germanenorden, and was subsequently appointed the Ordensmeister (local group leader) for the Bavaria division of the schismatic Germanenorden Walvater of the Holy Grail. Settling in Munich, he established the Thule Society, which became increasingly political, and in 1918 established a political party, the German Workers' Party. This party was joined in 1919 by Adolf Hitler, who transformed it into the National Socialist German Workers' Party or Nazi Party.

So we see the Nazi Party was formed in Bavaria, not Prussia. This is shown to be the case as the Catholic Centre Party, which voted in the Nazi Party & Enabeling Act, was formed to oppose the culture struggle with Prussia.72.161.239.141 (talk) 21:58, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

The article does not say or hint or suggest the Nazi party was formed in prussia; it emphasizes the strength of non-Nazi parties in Prussia. Hitler's Nazi party was opposed at election time by the catholic Centre party. Rjensen (talk) 23:13, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Simplicity

I think the two articles should be merged. It would be easy to make the (unimportant) distinction between the two kinds of Prussia within the same articlePrincetoniac (talk) 22:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)

The distinction is not "unimportant". Initially Prussia was the name of a region, later devided in the Western Royal Prussia and the eastern Ducal Prussia. Ducal Prussia would become the Kingdom of Prussia in 1701 and while the Kingdom perished in 1918, Prussia remained the largest State of Weimar Germany. No, we shouldn't merge Prussia and the Kingdom of Prussia. HerkusMonte (talk) 07:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Please explain motto

"Suum cuique ("to each, his own"), the motto of the Order of the Black Eagle created by King Frederick I in 1701, was often associated with the whole of Prussia."

This seems to be a remarkably laissez-faire attitude for a king to adopt as his order's motto. Why did he do so? What about Prussia caused it to adopt that motto, too? Just leaving that sentence dangling there is so unsatisfying! Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 17:06, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Probably unrelated, but to each, his own is literally translated as ¨Jedem Das Seine¨, which means ¨Everyone gets what they deserve.¨ It was put on Buchenwald concentration camp and is used in many german idioms. Think of it more as a warning. Kaiser Kitkat (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:00, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

Prussia, not to be confused with Russia - seriously?

We know US-Americans are un-educated, but PLEASE! Who would confuse Prussia with Russia? Wikipedia is going downhill... 84.128.163.154 (talk) 08:53, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You give many/most Americans too much credit. I can't find any Summer 1945 map of Germany showing East Prussia as being subject to occupation. I can find maps showing the pre-Potsdam Soviet Occupation Zone as including all of the German eastern provinces except East Prussia (likewise, such maps of course include no identification of what became the Oder-(Western)Neisse Line). Also, the U.S. State Department lawyers assumed any final western border of Poland would be the subject of negotiation of what they believed (in the Summer of 1945, following the Potsdam Conference) would be an impending German Peace Treaty . . . they only missed that mark by 45 years (1990), when most of them were long dead anyway. International Law did not recognize the Oder - Western Neisse western border of Poland until the 1990 German Peace Treaty. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.14.243.123 (talk) 10:43, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

That treaty made it politically acceptable for the USSR to turn a blind eye to the re-unification of the DDR & BRD.1812ahill (talk) 22:16, 20 October 2013 (UTC)

The assignment of East Prussia to the Soviet Union was not officially approved until the September 1990 Final German Peace Treaty; prior to that time it was administratively assigned to the Soviet Union in International Law. International Administrative Law doesn't include a specific provision for ethnic cleansing. There was nothing in the Potsdam Agreement about the Soviet Union sharing its administrative responsibilities in East Prussia with Poland; however, the Soviet Union gave the southern part of East Prussia to Poland (in August, 1945?). It is likely the Soviets claimed that southern East Prussia had already been ethnicially cleansed of Germans prior to their giving it to Poland. There is nothing in International Administrative law about a country assigned to administer part of another country subdividing that assignment and giving part of those administrative resposibilities to a third country. Nonetheless, the Germans recognized the Russian-Polish border in East Prussia in the September 1990 Final German Peace Treaty. Thus, International Law in 1990 recognized that Russian-Polish border after 45 years of East Prussia being in an administrative status in International Law.

I don't think its too far-fetched to think someone with a budding interest in history might hear the word "Prussia" and then wonder what it is. I remember as a kid, avid WWII buff, I never really knew what Prussia meant until I got older and expanded my own history horizons. But, I don't think anyone who is incapable of telling the difference between Prussia and Russia though, is going to be searching wikipedia for either country. So it does seem pretty unnecessary, but I suppose wikipedia might as well be as helpful as possible. 108.75.6.129 (talk) 06:52, 12 July 2013 (UTC)

Prussia doesn't believe in women ruling. I find that hurtful. Anybody else agree with me? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wolf luver (talk • contribs) 15:35, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Some people can be astoundingly uninitiated, but such is the nature (or plight) of an overly populated species. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreyse (talk • contribs) 13:51, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Prussia/Archive_1&oldid=1120986490"