And the only KZfaq channel that want to organize a plebiscite on the KZfaq algorithm. 🤣🤣🤣🤣

Become verified creators for Brave and I will support you with one BAT.

My great grandfather fought in this battle - thanks for the video...

signed up, and paid, for subscription, specifically for complete "The Great War" series; after searching at their website, no such "channel" can be found... lots of other stuff... nothing Great War Series... not even after "WWI" search... suckered into another scam??

this is not "annnaberg" this place name st.anna mountain

It will be for sure! Especially thinking about the Central Europe(especially Poland and Romania stuff)... Crazy times...

Europe was probably the most chaotic it has ever been during that period. So many wars, proxy wars, civil wars, rebellions, uprisings, conflicts, everything. Same for other places like China. Truly, the "War to end all wars" made the world more divided than ever.

It is. And this guy does an excellent job, doesn't he?

He studied and lives in Vienna, Austria, if I am not mistaken. So that explains the german part. But you are right, it is very nice to have a presenter who does not butcher every second name. 😅

I came to the comments to say the same. Very impressed with his pronunciation!

It’s s a Polish land that’s why the majority was “Polish speaking”, Germans wanted that land for themselves because of the coal. Poland was partitioned and occupied by Germany a few times; each time to try to Germanize, the people (there’s even a sentence about this in Polish anthem “we won’t let our children to be “germanize”) so this region is very much influenced by German culture, even local language has some germanic influences.

Same here. So many people think Nov.11 was the end of fighting in Europe until Hitler came along. not so. In recent period after that Germans were still fighting in the Baltic region against the commies and here against Poland and faction battles n their own broken county, and that's just Germany.

Its interesting. I find it funny in a morbid kinda way that not even in Europe can Europeans draw borderlines on maps without everyone wanting to kill everyone.

@@smathers3104 It took the (communists?) till 2019 to take over the world.

Ww1 map is actual Europe map.poland got robbed

@@Nostripe361 You assume that 'European' is an 'identity'. It's not. Europe is merely an area on a map. No more; no less.

Me too. They should make a Coup d'état on KZfaq algorithm insted :)

Come on Google, don't be evil.

We can win that plebiscite. Give us the date for the vote!

@@stevenginsberg8471 And if we lose the plebiscite, we will invade Germany! wait, what?

@@miguelrodriguezcimino1674 they specifically made a note to remove that from their motto for what reason? you can guess

Literally, we do . The module 'Hilter rise to power ' is about 1918 to 1934 , the wars between the wars . 1/3 of the GCSE is about it...

Indeed, this channel is part of a healthy diet of research, discovery and understanding of everything we were deprived of white growing up on the winners side where glory often matters more than the truth! There. :-)

It's really weird. I didn't know about this conflict either and I went to school in Germany. One would think that in all the time we spend going through this part of history again and again we could talk about topics like these for a minute. Maybe they didn't want to risk somehow destroying the narrative or it just didn't seem important enough, I don't know.

In America we never even learn that the Soviets invaded Poland in 1920 with the intention of spreading the Marxist revolution to Germany and the rest of Europe. I do understand why it is not taught by American educators though, it would make communists look bad.

In fact the Great War continued for another two weeks in East Africa between GB and Germany

Thanks!

I think it's a matter of how much you can fit into the time available in school.

How would that water down the following lessons when we learn in school that everything and anything is OUR fault? Imagine how less the impact would be if we learned that in that place in time that Germany was not the only one feeling a little trigger happy? Does not fit the narrative you want to establish in the heads of Young Germans.

Don’t worry :) a lot of us silesians have double citizenship. Even though this region went to Poland in 1921- in my hometown and area there was not a single polish school, there were only german schools so people were taught in german and they spoke german (like my grandparents). Generally uneducated people have been cheated by polish government and their propagators that there is going to be social country (socialism was trendy back then and germany was poor after losing 1ww) and each miner will get some ownership of the colliery and they will be richer. Obviously after they fought to get to Poland, they received nothing. The only outstanding thing was that the region had autonomy in II republic of Poland. My great grandfather joined back then the german party and his brother - polish. They never spoke to each other again - politics was divisions families

@@parziiich Poles from Silesia didn't fight to get money. They fought, because they felt Polish and wanted to be in Poland rather than be again occupied by germans, who not so long ago abused them. The reason why there were no Polish school in your region is forced germanization. I bet you would like to stand side by side in the WW1 Austrian Army with guy with funny moustache, who later became quite a politician.

@@bartecki6 Don't be ashamed and say that there's no Silesian nation, no Silesian language and culture, in Silesia there're only Poles, and history of Silesia began just after the end of I WW. This is what the Polish governments claim, and this means that they are doing exactly the same thing that the Germans did to the Poles during the partitions. A word that no Pole will even bother to mention is POLONIZATION.

Bad Google 😂🤣😂🤣

Well your surname sounds both polish and german at the same time

I thought Teddy Roosevelt was from NY? :)

You mean Kattowitz !?))))

@Maximus sounds better in German.and historically it is Germany. she was part of the Holy Roman Empire.

@gobas88 Wanna change the Map again and take back the Territory to Warmia and Mazovia?

@@FerdinandGamelin How can it sound better in German if it's just a Germanization of a Slavic name?

It's called Nebula

May our people never fight against each other ever again. Tschüss!

This cold calculated kind of thinking was certainly scarce in France by that time.

@@MSNL123 I mean, idk. France guaranteed the independence of basically all of Eastern Europe. regardless of what the politicians said in public or what might be written down in official files, they acted like they were creating a strong net of alliances and dependencies. France was the main force on the ground when any western power was directly involved. It gave tanks and other equipment to the new nations in the east. It secured investments there... All of this is perfectly reasonable to do regardless of anything else, but it's also the kind of thing that makes onlookers think "oh, these guys are getting strong, maybe we should kick them in the nads before they're too strong?" . Turns out the British really overestimated the French and underestimated the Germans...

@@CatWithAHat2HD These dealings with eastern europe are (in the whole) perhaps the smartest decision the french made in the early 1920s. And maybe, had all of then stuck toghether - a daunting task for the french diplomacy, but achievable thanks to their sheer power (not only military) - maybe they could have replaced Russia in the geopolitical considerations of the region and (that's a huge maybe) allowed France to get away with its vengeance on the germans. I do think the french miscalculated several times, and grossly, by (1) ending the Great War demanding a new regime to negociate with, then (2) presenting IT with an artificially large - and (3) on the process of being enlarged - bill of the mess of their predecessors, partly to (4) enlarge several eastern allies it would (5) then proceed to abandon in the late 1920s and 1930s, starting at Locarno. I don't think the british miscauculated, though. They had fastly diminishing capabilities (political and economical, if not military) to intervene in the continent. A Germany in the 1920s incandescent with hatred towards french and poles is a Germany that needs (armed and watchful) babysitting. To allow it to rebuild their international standing and internal affairs - after printing on the very soul of the nation the lesson on why the old ways were wrong - is a pacification strategy with some chance to work. To pose on the side of the fair players - with some care to not be caught redhanded too shortly afterwards - is not necessarily a principled approach to peacebuilding, but may be a convenient path to remove reasons for a rematch and build trust that can be turned into an useful instrument.

@@MSNL123 I think the post war peace was destroyed the moment French decided that they wanted revenge and to punish Germany instead of just reforming the nation. Pretty much they wanted to break Germany and make it forever a weak power. The problem for them was that the people in Germany would never accept that and all their work to break them just lead to the Germans to walk right into the arms of the Far Right and its promise to fix Germany and reclaim its strength.

That is, as always, the British are very helpful to Poland ! ;-D

Thanks!

@Fabian Kirchgessner I think you have just destroyed yourself

@Fabian Kirchgessner in which part did I show any racism?

Dzięki

@@run2fire for what and to whom?

@Fabian Kirchgessner you are just biased

to chyba jakieś debile XD, jeżeli ktoś myśli że śląsk jest coś wart bez polski to się grubo myli. Może śląsk jest dużo wart jako poszczególny region ale jako osobne państwo to mógłby być przyrównany do jakiś zadupi typu białoruś

"Poles were almost exclusively working class" ?? WHY THE PROPAGANDA?? They were not Poles they were Silesians. SIlesia has not been a part of Poland since the 12th century... suddenly they were Poles? Come on...

@syrtar poland did not want anything to do with silesia since 13century or earlier "they were poles" as much as the czech people are poles, similar language and slavic ethnicity.... there is a reason why silesians look different, there is a reason why silesian last names exist

​@@1DEADBEEF1 Bro, chill - I am Silesian, not a Pole and I understand polish propaganda. What I am saying is that people who spearheaded the so-called uprising from the Polish side were mostly Poles (not Silesians). Those were usually people who either migrated to Silesia for work from Greater Poland and Lesser Poland (Dąbrowa Basin to be precise). Just look at the leaders of the 3rd uprising - 2/3 of the leaders were born and raised outside of Silesia. They later tied the working class struggle of slavic people (both Silesians and Poles) to the national conflict between Germans and Poles, successfully dragging a lot of Silesians to the polish side, because it was easier to convince a non-educated worker that the Germans were responsible for their misfortunes than to teach them the about class struggle.

@@1DEADBEEF1 Also sind Tschechen, Slowaken, Ukrainer Weißrussen, Litauer usw. auch Polen mit ehemaligen Jugoslawien usw.?

@@kajetan8986 "I am Silesian, not a Pole" A Silesian is a type of Pole.

After all their sacrifices, some post WW1 Germans would not agree to the dismemberment of their country nor the loss of Germany's territorial gains in Russia. Because they were forged in war and didn't break (like I would have), they developed a whole new Weltanschauung.

Schildkröte shielded toad.

Beautiful example of a mix between german word panzer, and Polish word żaba

Pancerna żaba

@@Lucas_07-PL tak ziomek

Ej a czy nietoperz to po śląsku ”luftmysza"? Jak to kiedyś usłyszałem to padłem. 😁

@Fabian Kirchgessner it was not revenge it was the planned and fully supported attempted extermination of the Polish Nation by the German Government, nothing new since the times of Bismarck.

@@kamratkamrat3302 Germanophobic nonsense and slander. Nothing new since the Silesian uprisings.

They did everything right. The Poles and the French did not care about the opinion of the people and formed a terrorist gang to kill all those who disagree with them. Typical of the West and Poles is deceitful, hypocritical and Germanophobic behavior, coupled with stupid anger and hatred of Germans and resentment.

Do you have sources, I couldn't find it anywhere.

@@Ghreinos You couldn't find any sources about Einsatzgruppen atrocities on the internet?

Keep your eyes peeled for our next episode if you're interested in the topic.

Thank you very much!

@@TheGreatWar The pleasure is all mine. The dedication and skill are yours.

...and I subscribed. Not much, I know, but I don't often do that.

@@piotrbratek3996 Are you really calling me a Hitler? Wow, you have some nerve haven

@Aditya Chavarkar WW1 French where call for war and reclaiming "French land" Germany just decided to make first move

the war to cause all other wars to this day

Just a few wars in the east, Greeks and Turks...Irish and British...

*us dollars

@@SteveVi0lence yea wait till 2023.

That was the "German prosperity" from the propaganda posters back then in reality.

You know you have hyperinflation when someone tips your money out of the barrow and runs off with it.

@@Darwinek it wasn't the Germans fault.

Fair play for them means when they squeeze money from others, even if it is for opium...

Fair play means the British way

Yeah they fair played to death India. South Africa, etc etc etc

Same in india. They are hypocrites

Or Scotland.

We agree which is why modern historians like Jochen Böhler are much needed. His hypothesis is that the post ww1 eastern Europe Situation was a civil war.

Sadly, it's precisely in late 19-early 20th century when people decided that national, ethnic historiography is the way to go. People are described as one or the other. Historical populations are seen as an extention of the modern ones, as if your ancestors from 1000 years ago would even consider you as their own. It's all wrong, but it was how we build a world of the nation states. A view which hurts some regions to this day.

@@Vitalis94 You're right and i think the reason for that change in thinking was because of massive population growth in those times and that caused everyone to need more resources and that led to people claiming lands using these "historical justifications".

@@Vitalis94 Nation-states are not going anywhere. People may be willing to die to defend their nation-state but nobody is going to die for the EU. Covid-19 crisis has shown the power of nation-states. EU has turned out to be a joke despite Eurocrats' protestations.

@@CrazyLeiFeng What does it have to do with anything? I never claimed anything about the future of the nation states. Just national historical narration. And defenitelly nothing about Covid. Just chill, man.

Super!

Gegen seine Ostoberschlesier gekämpft, wie traurig denn sie waren nicht nur Menschen sondern auch Cousinern, Tanten, Brüder, Schwester usw.

@@tJnani-rg5rl can you write that in understandable language?

@@KoW4LsKy Ich kann Englisch nicht.

My great granddad on german side :D

Thanks!

The Polish legions fought in WWI in hope of creating an idependent Poland.

There were many separate polish corps fighting on all sides of the conflict that later served as base for new army

Thanks.

Bullshit

The Poles did the same and all Polish people in Silesia were immigrants and only lived one or two generations there. In contrast, the German and native Silesians lived there for dozen of generations.

@@felixjohnsens3201 OMG what a BS. For first Silesians are Polish Tribe and one of 3 Triebes that build Poland before year 1000. Germans came later and they was minority in Silesia.

@@0plp0 Nope you are completely wrong. They were a Slavic tribe, not a Polish tribe. So stop with your propaganda.

@@felixjohnsens3201 You are wrong. "The Silesians (Polish: Ślężanie) were a tribe of West Slavs, specifically of the Lechitic/Polish group, inhabiting territories of Lower Silesia, near Ślęża mountain and Ślęza river, on both banks of the Oder, up to the area of modern city of Wrocław. They were the first permanent inhabitants of the site of Wrocław where they build a fort on Ostrów Tumski in the 9th century or earlier, which at the time was an island on the Oder."

Maybe you should look on peace treaties created by Germans Treaty of Frankfurt in 1871 in or in 1918 Treaty of Brest-Litovsk.

@@horatio8213 The germans up to that point can hardly be said to have a gracious victor's attitude. Or maybe this sentence would gain in precision if "germans" be changed to "prussian elites". Yes, they gladly swallowed up sovereign countries that opposed the unification of Germany under Prussia. Yes they imposed unnecessary hardships on the french on 1871 and sought to demolish Russia's or whoever controled the old Tsardom's lands power. But this was all on a old world, to be superseded in theory to a new world that the french themselves paid lipservice to. Crucially, all of the injustices signed into treaty under the pain of facing german bayonnets don't change the fact the french counsciously and deliberately made the young Weimar Republic's life harder than it already was predictably going to be. They planted the seeds of discontent whose fruits would be collected by grateful demagogues and chauvinists while signing off a said-to-be new order's blueprint. While one can hardly blame them from having the urges to do so, anyone can see they had yet to correct the same kind of behaviour that earned their XVI century predecessors some very negative remarks from Machiavelli about their (lack of) political and state-crafting capabilities. If they wanted to engage in old world's practices, they should have at least made sure that the old (Imperial) german regime was the one humiliated. As the partner with the C-in-C of the allied powers in 1918, if it was its ardent desire to get revenge or "justice" for old world's grievances on the germans, they should at least have made it blatantly clear for the germans that this was the legacy and heritage of the old regime, by having all of their agreements signed off by said old regime. By signing treaties punishing the germand for the vices of the old regime and having it signed by the new, the french made hollow any words they may have said about a new world, and in this un-dead old world, with all the inflamated old prejudices - that they lent plenty of fuel also by petty acts such as failing duties they accepted to perform, to keep the peace on Silesia - only ruthless diplomacy, of the kind they (spoiler) failed to engage in, or brute force, of the kind they knew since before the Great War they would not be able to exert across the Rhine could save them from ruin.

It's not really true that there was no "engagement" in ruthless diplomacy. France had wrapped up self-defense treaties with the US & UKs governments against Germany as early as 1919. The first was held hostage by the US Senate, which refused to ratify it since it had failed to be consulted in the drafting of the Versailles Treaty - why commit America to a policy of supporting terms they (ie, the staunchly anti-German Republican majority) couldn't contemplate ? The second was dropped by the Lloyd George cabinet when US Senate ratification became a lost cause - the UK understanding was that their commitment to backing France in support of Versailles was contingent on US support. Ultimately, the turning point for France wasn't the severity of the Treaty terms, but Wilson's determination to keep control of the US mission to Versailles in order to try to push for a uniquely non-punitive peace settlement that wasn't politically viable in Washington.

@@gitothies6520 I'd agree that these moves are the engagement in some sort of diplomacy aimed at crippling Germany's ability to threaten France, but hardly it can be described as ruthless or even suficient. Looking into the future, France would surrender both its best defence on the case of a German Attack - an occupation zone well into its industrial heart - and any sense of trust its continental allies, Poland and Czechoslovakia had by seemingly throwing them under the bus at Locarno. The reversal of belgian policy that led to its neutrality even on the face of detailed german plans to invade it can be at least partly traced to french diplomatical failures, and they failed to either change the belgian policy or adapt to it. Furthermore, that the defensive works on the belgian border were kept really unimpressive compared to those on the german border, in part to not offend the belgians is symptomatic to a country either deluding itself or unwilling to accept some fundamentally simple truths. The first of which is that by building an extensive defensive line on their shared border, they were painting a target on Belgium and she, unlike France had no hope to defend against a concentrated attack by Germany. That they could protect Belgium on belgian soil or, if the belgians didn't agree to that, at least try to make her less tempting to the germans by barricading the franco-belgian border. And then they sat down and tried to appease Hitler, which was not insensitive (without hindsight) but that ended on the sacrifice of Czechia (even if the Germans had complied by the treaty, the country was now basically defenceless and lost a big chunk of its heavy and military industry. They should also know that these efforts would fly in the face of any attempt at a more stern diplomacy to try and defend Poland. On the eve of the war, they lost sight of the reason for their historic defense of Poland - to undermine Germany, and failed to agree to quite sensitive soviet terms to protect her. I mean, everyone knew Stalin's intentions towards Poland, but soviet troops would have to enter it regardless if they were to defend it. And why would they not agree to soviet demands? Because Poland protested? I'm terribly sure the Czechs hadn't such power to bar what France viewed as its strategic imperative (them to keep peace, now to keep Germany's war efforts divided). They felt reassured that the ideological gap between Germany and Russia had grew too deep for a cooperation between them, and failed to either try to prepare for it, to try to have a contingency on that case or to try to react to it. Finally, they allowed themselves to be dragged into a war to defend a country they hardly felt any need to actually ACT to protect, failed to give Belgium enought reasurances to convince the country to allow their troops into it and sat down, dreaming with plans to fight germans in Norway, in Sweden, anywhere but the places it had her troops in or where the germans actually were. When you look to this, you see that France didn't make mistakes here and there, like Britain did. The whole interbellum policy of France towards Germany was a huge mistake because even when they adopted a course of action that wasn't that bad, they immediately undermined their own effort, and all efforts in a set of years would not be corrected, but activelly undermined in the next.

I'm generally in agreement with you, France's leadership was as troubled as any internal policy debate in France was at the same time. All this aside, my comment was focusing more on the direct post-Versailles state of play. What diplomatic commitments did France pursue (successfully or no) when negotiating it's side of the Treaty ? On this point, the original sin for France remains to me increasing it's stake at Germany's expense (a huge risk, with such a powerful neighbour) in the talks while certain that it's safety was guaranteed by all the Entente powers. The Treaty was set in stone by the time the US, the UK & later Italy made it clear no support would be given. A strong hand suddenly turned weak & France in the 20s & 30s pursued an erratic policy of holding on to the best parts of Versailles, while at times trying to offset it's loss of protection by pumping up Central European allies, then sometimes abandoning them to favour Germany or the UK and maybe solidify a modus vivendi that way. With assurances from the Entente going forward or even just the UK's uncommited support, I think we have the ingredients for a far more coherent French policy.

that's interesting....this region, even though it has a long history, reminds me of something like the americas...."new" peoples sussing out (modern economics, industrial professional tools of violence, and government) their claims of what is power while sorting out new ideas of the ethno-state, and how borders are delineated aka "new lands"

we still belive that we gonna get autonomy again...

@@mlodszyahmed Why lol.

@@Lucas_07-PL Because thats why our grandparents died in the uprising in the first place. They joined the Polish forces, because the promised that Silesia will have autonomy. We were then in 1945 betrayed, same in 1990.

@@mlodszyahmed You got an autonomy in country you'r grandparents fought for . And you know that this country was massacred , destroyed and reincarnated as a Communist Poland . You know well that we didn't had anything to say in PRL and couldn't change anything as communist authorities would never accept this. And after 1989 nodbody know that u want autonomy , they weren't mass demonstrations of Silesians demanding it. And so what , what Silesians want to do then ?

all while we tend to think prussia is ancient history.

No spoilers, please 🙂

The Polish leader Pilsudski foresaw the future.He said ."We are living in a golden cage.."

@@tolrem That republic only existed and it was founded because of Pilsudski.

@@rtservice6858 Und sowohl Pilsudski als auch Korfanty waren katholische Diktatoren.

That explains a lot of the present in Alabama.

Lots of Polish heritage in Birmingham?

@@run2fire, not really. Of course it depends on the definition of polish as the borders shifted quite a bit. Probably easier to define by region. My neighbors claimed Czechoslovakia as place of origin but this was prior to the split into Czech Republic/Slovakia. My understanding is most were Silesian that came to Birmingham to work the coal mines as that's what they did in the old country. There was also a group of Eastern orthodox that settled in Brookside northwest of Birmingham to work those mines. Not sure which region they came from they were just called russians.

I also remember a south Alabama neighbor who always claimed to come from a country that no longer existed. I would later learn he was croat who came with a group who immigrated to work in the local barrel mill as that's what they did in the old country. (I grew up in Birmingham but we still own the family homepage in South Alabama.) Kind of impressive the skilled trades that immigrated.

The Greeks and Italians probably had a bigger influence on Birmingham. The Greeks went into the restaurant business as all the fine dining establishments were greek owned including many of the best BBQ joints. The Italians became green grocers starting with just carts and eventually dominating the local grocery chains.

youre german though....and now forced pole. And silesian...youre not anymore since OOHH so long...

Don't forget your Austrian roots also ! lol 😆 Empress of Austria Maria Theresa lost Silesia to Frederick the Great in the mid 1700s.

@@faelger9473 How someone can be forever to be Who he is

More or less the Poles betrayed the coal workers in Britain !

Ok, could you explain it though? 'Cause the normal, dictionary sources just say it basically means "just" or "beautiful".

@@CatWithAHat2HD It's a much more nuanced concept than 'just'.

@@agrantharrison472 Then please explain.

That wasn't germanys problem

@@Wickedonezz Well it was, they had big problems with "Spartacus" so Yes THIS WAS their problem

Was hat die wahnsinnige Abschlachtungen der unschuldigen Menschen in Oberschlesien mit dem slavischen Krieg zwischen Polen und Russland alle insgesamt Slaven?

He is buried in Munich and his grave still exists!

@@maxsnuffy2159 What was he looking for in Silesia? It's not his land...

@@CrazyLeiFeng of course it was his land, he was German!

@@maxsnuffy2159 No, it was a conquered land of Slavic people. Nothing to do with Germans.

@@kms_scharnhorst It was the result of military conquest by Germans not because it had been German. Slavs lived even further to the West than Silesia.

Britain today: Because we made sure the Germans did not have a chance for a peace party to rule it, by not enforcing the treaty we set ourselves in the first place.

@@jeffvella9765 And the reason the treaty was not enforced, was that the Allies were not in the position to enforce it...at least not without a war or Germany turning communist. Look what happened in Turkey...

@@felixjohnsens3201 To enforce something all it takes is to support politically and not backstab the German govt they put in place at first chance to absolutely destroy any chance for it to work. They wanted Germany dis-stabilized but instead what happened was that reason was thrown out of the window and the war party took over because they were the only party promising a better future.

@@jeffvella9765 "Sir H. Kennard (Warsaw) to Viscount Halifax (Received August 19, 9.30 a.m.) No. 271 Telegraphic [C 11592/54/18] WARSAW, August 18, 1939, 5.25 p.m. It was made known yesterday that a decree would shortly appear applying to large estates in frontier zone, which had previously been exempt from the law regarding agrarian reform. 2. Many of the estates affected are German-owned and though decree is non-discriminatory, it was being hinted by P.A.T. official agency yesterday that it would in fact operate to expropriate German estates. ... 5. I have however persuaded responsible British journalists here to take the line that decree is non-discriminatory and an extension and continuation of existing legislation and the French Embassy have taken similar action. There is no comment at all in Polish press. " "Sir N. Henderson (Berlin) to Viscount Halifax (Received August 24, 12.15 p.m.) No. 450 Telegraphic: by telephone [C 11914/15/18] Herr Hitler's reply' clearly indicates that immediate question is not so much Danzig and the Corridor, which by implication can wait for later solution, as persecution of German minority. 2. I do not see how this question can be dealt with except by direct contact with Poles. However exaggerated German press reports and whatever the incitement to German nationals in Poland from this side of the frontier may have been, and is, there is no doubt that there is much ground for German complaints in this respect. Expropriation law referred to in Warsaw telegram is to me, I submit, the basic indication of a very understandable but equally inopportune effort to get [? rid of] the German population in Poland under cover of guarantees of Western Powers. ..." Nothing really changed except the British were a lot more hostile to Germany, giving Poland a false sense of security, and yes, Germany was again strong enough to actually do something about it.

@@tak4043 Please explain exactly what you are implying. The govt put by the Allies was there to supposedly represent German interest and when the dispute with Poland came up the govt made promises to the people it could keep only if it had any real power. The truth is that the Allies had the real power and did not care about German interests and when the poles got what they wanted, the next day the govt collapsed and the war party took the opportunity to take over. If you mean that Germany was strong enough to do something while the Allies controlled govt was in power, that definitely was not the case.

Hardly a new information, to be honest.

@@Vitalis94 well it is for people who are not from that region

This was an important factor - we even went into a bit more detail in our previous episode on the first two uprisings.

If by many you mean a minority of modern-day Silesians consider themselves Silesian first then we agree. We have to remember that a larger part of today's Silesian population is composed of Poles that were deported from modern-day Ukraine and Belarus.

Not really. People from Silesia are getting 13 and 14 monthly wadges, deputat węglowy and so on. They live like pączki in butter. .

In silesian "Chaja uo Anaberg"

„Schlacht von Annaberg" in German

Impossible to pronounce😑

Also Polen hat um Polen gekämpft, also mit sich selber gekämpft, oder was?

In shitolish*. There, fixed that for you.

Sounds like something ISIS or Al Queda would say.

@@gordomg Really? Comparing a writer to radical terrorists? Ever heard of philosophers? In your opinion, they must be evil incarnate :D

@@gordomg Rather, sounds like something a romantic would say

@@Vitalis94 Shrugs. Karl Marx?

That's why the Danes insisted on a referendum (and Switzerland refused to take the westernmost part of Austria [Vorarlberg]).

Silesia was its own thing for a few centuries, and had history swung another direction it could've very well been the case that Silesia would be an independent country in its own right.

@@TheDirtysouthfan In the end, a country is a dialect with it's own army. Any given region could've easily been it's own state, if things had gone differently.

In the end those German settlers got overun by polish deportess.

@@Demicleas Overrun? What?

@@Vitalis94 oh polish people used to exist in Ukraine and Belarus they all got deported.

Yes, KZfaq is very anti history.

Greetings to the fatherland!

@@dittmannrudolfrohr2149 But that's Poland

@@Lucas_07-PL „Regnum Sclavorum, Gothorum sive Polonorum“

@@dittmannrudolfrohr2149 What ? Speak in tea language.

@@dittmannrudolfrohr2149 ave

@Fabian Kirchgessner germanization

@Fabian Kirchgessner Nah, just all that suppression of Polish culture, in particular in the part occupied by Prussia and Russia, resulted in a lot of damage. Important people for Germany like Bismarck completely hated Poles, also continuing the old Tartar tradition.

@Fabian Kirchgessner He did though. He had an immense hate towards Catholics and Poles in particular. I'd have thought you knew your own history.

@Fabian Kirchgessner I've seen explicit and very prejudiced Bismarck's statements about Poles and Catholics.

silesia was not a part of the polsih commonwelath.

Nonsense

@@thomaswolf2896 How?

Yes but they voted for germany at the time

@@jacopofolin6400 No. The majority of Polish Silesians voted for Poland.

@@tuvimoex6982 That is irrelevant though. You don't only count the votes of the predominant ethnic group. What counts is the overall vote. If the majority of the population voted to remain, that's the vote. What's there to discuss?