I was talking about the territory of the Teutonic Order that Poland and other countries are still occupying to this very day.
Ah, you mean the territory the Teutonic Order controlled that was owned by the Polish crown
You just got owned Otter.
Hipis, it had always been my understanding the Teutonic knights were invited to the area known as Prussia to assist in conquering the original Prussian inhabitants, subsequently refusing to leave, until being permitted to exist pursuant to the Prussian Homage?
yeah yeah we know your obsession ...
Tell me about it...
He even tried to argue that szlachta weren't nobility.
As to occupation, whenever a foreign power deposits itself, its agents or its proxies, in a sovereign country to which it has no jurisdiction or consent to occupy, that is an occupation. It matters not that the occupied subsequently were forced, cajoled or entreated to set up an indigenous puppet regime (be it political or militarily), moreso, particularly where the occupying power has done so as an act of territorial aggrandisement rather than in retaliation for the occupied commencing hostilities.
If there is no legitimate and genuine consent from the occupied to be occupied, first had and obtained by the occupying power before occupation, then there is no basis upon which to try to legitimise the occupation ex post facto.
Likewise, there is no "Statute of Limitations" or similar preventing discussion on matters that occurred in the 1920's, the 1620's or indeed in any other epoch. To argue that the discussion is not relevant because of some mythical time line is no argument at all and is pure mischief.