Kosova is Albanian!

[Poltergeist]

I guess I am the only one here who supports the independence of the Republic of Kosova and the right of Kosova's people (the Albanians) to decide on their own fate. Is there anyone else here sharing my views? If not, why do you think the independence of Kosova is unacceptable from a European point of view?

[The Lawspeaker]

I am quite sure you will be the only one there I am not a huge fan of Serbia nor of the majority of Slavic peoples for that matter but I consider Kosovo to be Serb as I consider Vajdaság (Vojvodina) to be Hungarian.

Why I find the independence of Kosovo to be unacceptable: first of all it isn't Albanian and second it will be and it is being used as a staging point for a Jihad on Europe.

[Poltergeist]

I am quite sure you will be the only one there I am not a huge fan of Serbia nor of the majority of Slavic peoples for that matter but I consider Kosovo to be Serb

Indeed, the northern part of Kosovo is Serb and should be annexed by Serbia (as I contended elsewhere as well). But the conception that the whole of Kosovo belongs to Serbia is part of the mindset of Slavic imperialism, the same one according to which Vojvodina belongs to Serbia, according to which Poland stole Silesia and Eastern Prussia from Germany etc.

as I consider Vajdaság (Vojvodina) to be Hungarian.

Of course.

Why I find the independence of Kosovo to be unacceptable: first of all it isn't Albanian and second it will be and it is being used as a staging point for a Jihad on Europe.

So far it hasn't been used as starting point for any jihad, many parts of western Europe are more probable candidates.

[Lenny]

Hamvas, don't let that one obnoxious Serb-troll lead you to make foolish proclamations, like proclaiming your love for...Albanians

...and "Kosovo"

[Jarl]

which Poland stole Silesia and Eastern Prussia from Germany etc.

How predictable...There is always a strong tendency to draw a simplistic picture of history in favour of the nation we identify ourselves with. This is evident particularly if one happens to be a germanophilic Hungarian. It's human nature for which I can hardly blame you. However, ignorance and bias, like yours, can be quite offensive. Since the very first mentions in historical sources, Silesia has been known to be a province of the Kingdom of Poland. In XII century, duke Boleslaw the Wrymouth divided Poland into several different domains inherited by his sons. Silesia was split into many principalities and inherited by various branches of the Polish Piast dynasty. However unlike the Masovian principalities, it avoided re-unification, in XIV-XVI centuries. Some domains remained in the hands of the Piast dynasty until late XVII century. Even in XIX century German sources stated that the country was originally Polish populated. In many towns up till XIX-XVIII century there were separate Polish artisan and merchant guilds. German ethnohrapers called the Silesian dialects Wasserpolnish... and when refering to the Silesian ethnicity they simply wrote "Polish".

It was not until late XVIII century when Frederik the Great settled over 150 000 Germans in Silesia and banned the Polsih language from schools and administration that the country, particularly Lower Silesia, became mostly German. In Prussia, Polish peasants were sometimes expropraited to accomodate the new settlers. Obviously, German settlers kept coming throughout the whole XIX century too. I can list you German sources, with facts and figures, and also German language maps, if you want to. Now, this is what I got to say as far as the "ownership rights" and "land thefts" are concerned... Another thing is that Poland had no say over the 1945 annexations whatsoever. To say that Poland "stole" something - as if some independent, Polish authorities had the rights and power to annex the land from Germany in 1945... is a lie. A blatant, cheap lie only an ultimate historical ignorant could go for. The true, democratically elected, Polish government was on exile in England at that time. It continued to function independently of the communist one until 1989... In 1945 Poland and Poles had no say as to what should be annexed and what should be ceded. All the geopolitical decisions were made by the Politburo in Moscow. Same holds truth for the division of the German East Prussia which, following your very own peculiar logic, was actually stolen by the Germans from the indigenous Old Prussians (whom they brutally subjugated and/or exterminated), and which was split between Poland and Russia.

[Lenny]

Since the very first mentions in historical sources, Silesia has been known to be a province of the Kingdom of Poland. In XII century, duke Boleslaw

You are choosing to start counting from the peak of Slavic westward expansion, no less! A little unfair?

There was a 500 year period (straddling 1,000 AD on both sides) when the land between Vistula and Oder-Neisse was Slavic. It was Germanic long, long before that; and for a long time after that. Until 1945.

Now, this is what I got to say as far as the "ownership rights" and "land thefts" are concerned... Another thing is that Poland had no say whatsoever. To say that "Poland stole" something - as if some independent, Polish authorities had the rights and power to annex the land from Germany... is a lie. A blatant, cheap lie only an ultimate historical ignorant could go for. Poland and Poles had no say as to what should be annexed and what should be ceded. All the geopolitical decisions were made by the Politburo in Moscow. Same goes for East Prussia split in between Poland and Russia.

That much is very true. But it is also true that the Polish government had the offensive and disgusting practice for many years (I think now discontinued) of referring officially to Germany's old east which Stalin attached to Poland as "Our Recovered Land" (or something similar.)



I will say this as well:
The disastrous 1939-1945 European war can be blamed on many parties and their stupid behavior. The undercurrent of anti-German hystericism in the Polish political mind is certainly one of them. Western observers pretty much always ignore this. Polish newspapers in 1938/early-mid 1939 were proclaiming their intent to annex land out to the Elbe, "rightful Polish land". And then the massacres of German citizens living in Poland by the hundreds through the months of 1939. To say nothing of the Danzig issue... The arrogant buffoon Rydz-Smigly agitated for war and was sure he could defeat the Germans and annex East-Prussia at least.

[Jarl]

You are choosing to start counting from the peak of Slavic westward expansion, no less! A little unfair?

There was a 500 year period (straddling 1,000 AD on both sides) when the land between Vistula and Oder-Neisse was Slavic. It was Germanic long, long before that; and for a long time after that. Until 1945.

First of all, I said that historically (as far as historical accounts are concerned), Silesia has been primarily a Slavic country until late XVIII, XIX century. Read the sources: Dagome iudex, ibn Jakub and Al-Masudi's description, Bavarian Monk's chronicles, The Prague Document of 1086, Papal bulla of 1155 etc. From the earliest mentions in the sources, Silesia was a Slavic country and Silesians were Slavs. If you know any historical source that sates otherwise, please feel free to share it here...

Secondly, ancient Germania has been inhabited by different tribes - not only ethnically Germanic - just as Sarmatia was not only inhabited by Sarmatians. If you ever read ancient sources - Pliny the Elder, Tacitus or Ptolemy - you'd know that in antiquity, particularly early Roman Period, the term "Germanic" was most used as a geographical term... Tacitus classified the almost certainly Baltic "Aesti" as "Germanic" and he even wanted to classify the almost certainly Finnic "Fennians" as Germanic... All we know is that in antiquity Śląsk was a part of the Przeworsk culture area. Now, the debate as to what exactly was the Przeworsk culture is very far from being conclusive. Scholars are divided and a minority favours the Germanic variant.

The origin of the name itself is also disputable. The derivation Silesia-Silingi was first proposed by a Prussian schoolteacher in, around, 1820. This has been questioned numerous times. Most recently by a German scholar and linguist - professor Jurgen Udolph in "Der Name Schlesien, Studia Onomastica et Indogermanica" (Graz 1995) and in "Der Name Schlesien; Opuscula Silesiaca" (Stuttgart 1998). He heavily criticised that point of view and pointed to the fact that similar hydro and toponyms, containing the -sil element are to be found in Slavic and Romance languages. Consequently, they cannot be treated as Germanic per se.

This theory is also problematic from a historical point of view. There has never been any tradition linking Silingi to Silesia. It is a modern, XIX century invention, from the period of surging German nationalism and Kulturkampf. What is more - there seems to be no uniform tradition as to the name of Silesia itself. In the very first sources it has been spelt as:

- "Sleenzane” (Bavarian Monk)
- „Zlasane” (Prague Document from 1086)
- „Selenza” (Hadrian's IV bulla from 1155)

There have been other variants as well. The version "Silesia" is present only in one German source - bishop Thietmar's chronicle. Only in XIII century and later, this verison, most probably thanks to German scholars, became more popular.


Thirdly, I highly recommend you read Ptolemy's "Geographica" at Lacus Curtius website:

http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/home.html

Read the chapter about ancient Germania and see where did the Silingi live in the I-II century AD... Then check who inhabited the lands between Oder and Vistula. Ptolemy evidently localises Silingi on the Elbe, while placing the "Lugi" tribes in Silesia. He also places there a town called "Lugidunum". It is very interesting because -dunum is a Celtic ending, and means "fort". What is more there has been a Brythonic tribe of Lugi, living once in Sutherland. Lastly, even if there had been some Vandals in ancient Silesia - what does it have to do with the fall of Nazi Germany in 1945?

[Poltergeist]

Hamvas, don't let that one obnoxious Serb-troll lead you to make foolish proclamations, like proclaiming your love for...Albanians

...and "Kosovo"

No "love". Just the matter of principles.

[Jarl]

That much is very true. But it is also true that the Polish government had the offensive and disgusting practice for many years (I think now discontinued) of referring officially to Germany's old east which Stalin attached to Poland as "Our Recovered Land" (or something similar.)

What "Polish government"??? I already informed you where the democratically elected Polish government was at that time. As for the disgusting communist propaganda... I see it no more disgusting than the German proganda stating Silesia, or Cracow or even the ancient archeological "Lusatian culture", has always been part of the "German East"...

I will say this as well: The disastrous 1939-1945 European war can be blamed on many parties and their stupid behavior. The undercurrent of anti-German hystericism in the Polish political mind is certainly one of them. Western observers pretty much always ignore this. Polish newspapers in 1938/early-mid 1939 were proclaiming their intent to annex land out to the Elbe, "rightful Polish land".

Sorry, but I like historical debates based on sources... I will not discuss Nazi propaganda...

And then the massacres of German citizens living in Poland by the hundreds through the months of 1939. To say nothing of the Danzig issue... The arrogant buffoon Rydz-Smigly agitated for war and was sure he could defeat the Germans and annex East-Prussia at least.

Which massacre? Where and when??? Are you calling Rydz-Smigly an "arrogant buffoon" because you read that in some 39 Nazi brochure?



P.S.

I understand that being a nationalist you adopted quite a hardcore viewpoint on this part of history, but unless you give me facts and sources (and by that I mean something to actually have a discussion about) I will not waste my time on digging through bullshit...

[anonymaus]

Texas is Mexican!