Defying Germaniztion in 1901 Polish boy writes 'German girls are ugly'

Poland was occupied full stop.

Secret agreements and making offers that couldn’t be refused equals a fraternal and legal union ultimately with three empires is one strange take on the partitions.

The cloak of legality may serve as an excuse once occupation was completed in the same way that colonial apparatchiks respond "not in an official capacity" when questioned about their knowledge of hideous crimes. You removed this paper thin justification by reverting to prehistoric, pre legal times when might was right. Either way its you are German cos we say so.

The children who defied their teachers were only doing so because they were told to, the occupation of Poland was legal and right and if only those childish Poles would do what they were told they would all be good Germans, and eternal peace would have been ushered in.

No-one said it was legal. However, it could easily be argued that under what can be considered to be international law at the time - the Congress of Vienna more or less legalised things. So - perhaps we could say that Poland was occupied from the time of the First Partition all the way through to 1815, after which, the territory was annexed.

But let's look at the dictionary, shall we?



It's clear that Poland was annexed into Prussia - not occupied. It wasn't as if there was some military occupation and the people living under military rule - they were living under clear Prussian civilian rule. And for that reason, the country was annexed and not occupied.

You wouldn't say that today, Lubuskie is "occupied" by Poland - it was annexed by Poland, plain and simple.

yes give Lubuskie back to Germany - there are so many people there looking forward to the return of the Germans - unlike what it was in 1905 in Wielkopolska - Jews were once illegal in Europe - seems like what is legal depends on who is making the law doesn't it - to paraphrase some famous saying


oh, man - was it anexed peacefully? did the population never revolt against this anexation? sometimes it seems nuances are too much for you delphi (and actually they are not so much nuances)

Did Poland give up its Sovereignty voluntarily or violently?

Re emerging states do so because of de colonisation, state dissolution, peaceful reunification, termination of an occupationor concession of a conquest.

The Polish state was reborn the Polish nation never died.

You can put whatever neo realist (The bastard child of neo conservatism) spin upon annexation vs occupation you want the fact remains that the Polish state was violently conquered and occupied the Polish nation continued to exist and the Polish state was reborn due to the ending of the occupation.

This legal argument is laughable this justification relies upon Britain and France recognising a "fact on the ground" and is applying modern concepts retrospectively.

Signing treaties and sending diplomatic missions throughout the world didn't make for peaceful international relations but provided the justification for colonisation. The correlates of war project make this abundantly clear.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlates_of_War

Most nations were not subject to this Eurocentric definition. The vast majority of nations given this (retrospective recognition) ended up being colonised.

she did so pretty violently - she was on booze, staggered and in a rage - hell with my sovereignty she exclaimed throwing herself at the first neighbours she encountered calling them to put her in shackles so she can have fianlly have peace :)

You said it yourself...
"Myths help define a nation painting it in a good light, today it's called spin."

Polish historical myths - to break or not to break them?

Voluntarily in some respects. Or have you forgotten about those traitorous nobles?

The Occupation is not a myth.


There is no need to coat trail.

I've never been a big fan of neorealism where anarchy is the governing principal of the international system. If you believe that states that dont help themselves fail to prosper and it’s their own fault when they die you are on very shaky ground. The might is right of social Darwinism throws all attempts of legal justification out of the window. You can’t possibly say there was no occupation.

You like definitions and the fig leaf of legality so where are the legal documents formally ending the occupation?

Where are the documents the representatives of the Polish people signed agreeing to annexation?

The legal basis of annexation relies upon Britain and/or France (at different times) recognising the right of three Empires to expand into someone else’s territory ie Seeking permission from the global bullies.

If there was no colonisation or occupation how and why did Poland reappear. Surely if they willingly joined these Empires there was no need for a new Poland

It was an occupation pure and simple.