The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 280

What do Poles owe to Germans?


Palivec - | 380
16 Feb 2013 #151
Sorry, no. Half the country was German reparation for WW2.

Private property can't be used as compensation since this form of expropriation is illegal.
Ironside 48 | 9,824
16 Feb 2013 #152
Tell it to your Nazi friends.
OP pawian 161 | 9,971
16 Feb 2013 #153
Private property can't be used as compensation since this form of expropriation is illegal.

I am so sorry there were some illegal acts after WW2. :):):):) I hope it doesn`t spoil good Polish German relations??? :):):)
Ziemowit 12 | 3,562
16 Feb 2013 #154
A looooooooooooooooooooooot of cultural items and Half of the country, which belongs today to Poland.

Sorry, no. Half the country was German reparation for WW2.

It had nothing to do with any German reparation to Poland. The shift of the borders was the result of an agreement between Russia, United States, Britain and France. Poland had not been invited to negotiate or to sign this agreement.

Another result of that agreement was dividing Germany into four zones, each of them under the military occupation by the parties signing the said agreement, which in turn resulted in the creation of the two German states: Bundesrepublik Deutschlands and Deutsche Demokratische Republik.
OP pawian 161 | 9,971
16 Feb 2013 #155
It had nothing to do with any German reparation to Poland.

Actually, it did. Informally, though, but did. :):) Look below:

Private property can't be used as compensation since this form of expropriation is illegal.

Read how Prussian Trust lost the case for the ex German property in 2008.

and what German government said about it:

Contributory factors to the special quality of relations between Germany and Poland include the former's unconditional admission of guilt for the Second World War and its renouncement of subsequent material claims after the war. The Federal Government supports neither private restitution claims by expellees nor complaints like that submitted by the private Prussian Trust to the European Court of Human Rights. Federal Chancellor Merkel has repeatedly reaffirmed this position. (The German Federal Foreign Office, October 2008).[7]

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prussian_Trust

PS. I found sth funny. The Polish entry Regained Lands has no German version. :):):)
pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ziemie_Odzyskane
Are Germans still indignant about it or what???
Ziemowit 12 | 3,562
16 Feb 2013 #156
Actually, it did. Informally, though, but did.

I very much doubt it. If so, Germany should make reparations to other countries, too, but it wasn't the case. True, Russia did get the Kaliningrad enclave, but the ultimate aim here was to erase any remnants of East Prussia from the map of Europe. The underlying cause could have been partially compensating Poland for the loss of her eastern territories to Russia and weakening Germany at the same time, but not reparations to Poland.
OP pawian 161 | 9,971
16 Feb 2013 #157
The underlying cause could have been partially compensating Poland for the loss of her eastern territories to Russia and weakening Germany at the same time, but not reparations to Poland.

Everything what you say is true. But it refers to 1945 Potsdam conference which set new borders.

Underneath, in 21 century, in this Polish forums, in my replies to Palivec and The Other, there is this notion:

and what German government said about it:

I hope you understand my idea. No need to dig further into it. It would be a loss of time as I stick to my opinion and am not going to change it. :):):)
TheOther 5 | 3,831
16 Feb 2013 #158
The Polish entry Regained Lands has no German version

Because we established already in a different thread that "Regained Territory" was a dream of the fascist ND, which had been picked-up by the commies after the war. Germans are done with the reds, the brown-shirts and both their propaganda; certain Polish circles obvioulsy not. :)
OP pawian 161 | 9,971
16 Feb 2013 #159
That is good that Germans are so orderly and disciplined and they always do what their leaders tell them to do. :):):):):):)

PS. So, is there any other name that Germans have for Regained Territory? :):):)
TheOther 5 | 3,831
17 Feb 2013 #160
That is good that Germans are so orderly and disciplined and they always do what their leaders tell them to do

Yeah, many Poles had the same weaknesses after '45, I heard... :)

Seriously though: there's not much support left in Germany for the commies, and even less for the fascists. File it under bad experience.

So, is there any other name that Germans have for Regained Territory?

Depends on whom you ask, I'd guess. Erika will call it "The stolen territory" or "currently under Polish administration", the rest of the country doesn't care. WW2 is over, people have moved on, and there are not many nostalgics left if you know what I mean. That's at least my impression when I talk to Germans.
OP pawian 161 | 9,971
17 Feb 2013 #161
Seriously though: there's not much support left in Germany for the commies, and even less for the fascists. File it under bad experience.

One more position to include in the list of things we owe to Germans. They have become civilised at last. :):):)

That's at least my impression when I talk to Germans.

Good! Another item to include!
TheOther 5 | 3,831
17 Feb 2013 #162
They have become civilised at last.

While most other nations still need some time. What about the Poles? Are you there yet ... ? :)

(just kidding)
Ziemowit 12 | 3,562
18 Feb 2013 #163
I hope you understand my idea. No need to dig further into it. It would be a loss of time as I stick to my opinion and am not going to change it. :):):)

No, I don't understand your idea of "reparation" since the shift in Poland's borders from east to west had nothing to do with reparations to Poland on the part of Germany whatsoever, so this idea of yours is simply false. It is only your personal judgment of the facts that happened to which judgment have the right as everyone has the right to be of opinion that Earth is flat. I have no intention to make you change it, I am simply showing to other people reading this thread that such an opinion is false, since it is not backed up by any facts to make it a credible one.
OP pawian 161 | 9,971
18 Feb 2013 #164
No, I don't understand your idea of "reparation"

I am sorry, I cannot help you anymore. Let it stay so, then.
Ozi Dan 26 | 569
19 Feb 2013 #165
The shift of the borders was the result of an agreement between Russia, United States, Britain and France. Poland had not been invited to negotiate or to sign this agreement.

Precisely. Poland cannot be held to account for something that was done without the consent or execution of its lawful government. As the "Polish" communist government was not lawfully constituted in any manner, then any acts/omissions purportedly ascribed to Poland in a blameworthy sense post the installation of the Communist puppet government are incorrect and the Polish people have no legal, ethical or moral responsibility to feet guilt for same, let alone to have to answer such misconceived and absurd accusations. Such is the 'benefit' of having others force decisions and take action purportedly on your behalf -you get to skip the blame if things go wrong.

I of course am open to any genuine challenge against my position...
thetenminuteman 1 | 80
19 Feb 2013 #166
As the "Polish" communist government was not lawfully constituted in any manner

Arguably, in terms of constitutional theory, the Communist government had more legitimacy than the Government-in-exile as the Communists derived their legitimacy from the 1921 constitution, while the Government-in-Exile used the 1935 one that wasn't legally adopted. The evidence for this also comes from the fact that the April and December Novelisations and the 1992 Small Constitution were in accordance with the Stalinist 1952 one, which in turn derived its legitimacy from the 1921 one.
Less777 - | 50
19 Feb 2013 #167
Arguably, in terms of constitutional theory, the Communist government had more legitimacy than the Government-in-exile

Hardly as Soviets had no right to meddle with Polish government or Constitution.

while the Government-in-Exile used the 1935 one that wasn't legally adopted.

Hardly matters as it has been used and was the legitimate source of law.
Ziemowit 12 | 3,562
19 Feb 2013 #168
I am sorry, I cannot help you anymore.

You really don't have to, so no need to be sorry for that.
Ozi Dan 26 | 569
19 Feb 2013 #169
Arguably, in terms of constitutional theory, the Communist government had more legitimacy than the Government-in-exile as the Communists derived their legitimacy from the 1921 constitution, while the Government-in-Exile used the 1935 one that wasn't legally adopted.

There are no placitum from either Constitution which provide that legitimacy of rule of an invader may be sourced from mere reference to the Constitution, far less so from reference to a superceded Constitution. Respectfully, your theory is a nonsense. If you can show me placitum from either Constitution that support your theory then please do so.
thetenminuteman 1 | 80
20 Feb 2013 #170
Hardly as Soviets had no right to meddle with Polish government or Constitution.

In constitutional theory, what the Soviets did or didn't do is irrelevant. What matters is where the Polish government at the time derived their authority from. The 1921 constitution was legal beyond any reasonable doubt, the 1935 one was questionable at best, not least because it wasn't in accordance with the 1921 one. That's before we even start talking about the dubious morality of the 1935 constitution that more or less concentrated power in the hands of the military elite and destroyed democracy in the II RP.

Hardly matters as it has been used and was the legitimate source of law.

It was not legitimate. If it was, then it would have entered in force in accordance with the previous constitution of 1921, but it didn't. There were rules, and these rules were not followed. Therefore, the 1935 constitution cannot be accepted as in any way lawful. It is notable that the III RP symbolically accepted the credentials from the last President-in-Exile, but chose deliberately to recognise the authority of the 1921 Constitution as amended and replaced throughout the years.
Ozi Dan 26 | 569
20 Feb 2013 #171
In constitutional theory, what the Soviets did or didn't do is irrelevant.

I'm confused now - first you say that the Communists were more legitimate than the Govt-in-exile by virtue of your opinion on the way in which they supposedly espoused the 1921 Constitution, now you're saying it's irrelevant?

It was not legitimate. If it was, then it would have entered in force in accordance with the previous constitution of 1921, but it didn't. There were rules, and these rules were not followed.

If we accept your position here, then please show us specifically from the 1921 Constitution where it provides for a puppet Soviet government to be installed in the event of a domestic Constitutional crisis, and further where it prescribes that said puppet regime should adopt the nomenclature and style of a Communist dictatorship for 45 years whilst presumably caretaker of Poland pending the resolution of said Constitutional crisis.

It doesn't does it.

That's because there can never be legitimacy in any way, shape or form surrounding the way in which the Soviets took over Poland and installed a puppet regime because such regime was never born of the ultimate legitimising factor - the will, consent and creation of the Polish people.
thetenminuteman 1 | 80
20 Feb 2013 #172
I'm confused now - first you say that the Communists were more legitimate than the Govt-in-exile by virtue of your opinion on the way in which they supposedly espoused the 1921 Constitution, now you're saying it's irrelevant?

What the Soviets did is irrelevant to the discussion, as we're merely talking about the legitimacy of the Communist government in legal theory.

whilst presumably caretaker of Poland pending the resolution of said Constitutional crisis.

You're mixing up constitutional theory and practice. We all know that the Communist government wasn't morally legitimate (then again, neither was the Government-in-Exile), but in terms of strict legality, yes, it was. The Lublin Government was the only one that could present a claim in 1945 based on the universally understood principles of sovereignty, which is why it was recognised by the West.

Yes, they used the 1921 Constitution and amended (and then replaced it) with something that suited them, but it was all done in accordance with the law. Remember, the Communists were very big on appearing to be legitimate - hence the 3XTak referenda and so on. There's a reason why the key players have all been tried under the Communist-era Constitution - in Polish legal theory, they are using the law at the time against them rather than following the completely immoral West German approach which has been prosecuting people for crimes that didn't exist in East Germany.

Remember as well, the 1935 Constitution was written to more or less ensure that Poland remained a military dictatorship.
goofy_the_dog
20 Feb 2013 #173
Poles owe Germans, nothing, however what German owe Poles... thats a great topic.
What do you think people, how many billions of euros should they pay us?
Because I think that there should be a lot of money payed to victims like my ancestors.
APF 4 | 106
20 Feb 2013 #174
What do you think people, how many billions of euros should they pay us?

You think, Germany never paid anything? How do you think Poland survived after '89??? Is the half of Germany country you got also not enough for you??
Maybe 12 | 409
20 Feb 2013 #175
What do Poles owe to Germans?

Lots of Mercedes. lol
TheOther 5 | 3,831
20 Feb 2013 #176
Poles owe Germans, nothing, however what German owe Poles

Poles and Germans walked a very long way together; they share a lot of their history. That's what they owe each other.
Polson 5 | 1,771
20 Feb 2013 #177
Poles owe Germans, nothing

Well, they participated in the development of such (nice) cities as Wrocław. And Gdańsk, a place I like, for instance ;)

Poles and Germans walked a very long way together; they share a lot of their history. That's what they owe each other.

Exactly. Even if it's not always obvious for many Poles and Germies.
goofy_the_dog
20 Feb 2013 #178
If you are referoing to the Mieszko-Otton relation, then please... that was a throusand yars ago, apart from that Germans where always hostile towards the Polish nation.

You think, Germany never paid anything? How do you think Poland survived after '89??? Is the half of Germany country you got also not enough for you??

I don't know what are you taking mate, but I assdure that Poland never took any lands from Germans, if you are talkling about Ziemie Odzyskane, then the key is the word Odzyskane ( Regained). We still lost quite a lot of our country on the East.

I don't think that Germans ever paid us - the full amount of money for all evil that they've done to us throughout the second woprld war. In contrast, I know that they are still paying to Jews!
Ozi Dan 26 | 569
21 Feb 2013 #179
What the Soviets did is irrelevant to the discussion, as we're merely talking about the legitimacy of the Communist government in legal theory.

It has everything to do with it because it was the Soviets who installed the Polish Communist Govt which is one of the key reasons behind why the Polish Communist Govt is illegitimate and unlawful.

You're mixing up constitutional theory and practice.

That's an interesting opinion. Do elaborate so I can learn from my mistakes...

but in terms of strict legality, yes, it was.

You could so easily vindicate your position by, once again, specifying which piece of legislation/Consitution (and the particular section, article etc) is authority for the proposition the the Communist Govt was 'legal'. Had you based your proposal on such foundations, you would have already provided us with such authorities, but you haven't, despite my request, which from previous experience really means your suggestions are baseless and wrong.

One cannot postulate a 'legal' submission without reference to the law or case authority to which it relates. Merely saying something was

done in accordance with the law

is not enough. It will be asked, as I have done, 'which law'? You seem to be saying 'the Constitution', but which Article of the Constitution?

The Lublin Government was the only one that could present a claim in 1945 based on the universally understood principles of sovereignty, which is why it was recognised by the West.

Please particularise the purported 'claim' and let us know how it accorded with this supposed universally understood principle of sovereignty. It must have been a principle promulgated and universally understood by the Soviets alone however, because I'm unaware of any principle or otherwise in respect of the legal and factual matters concerning sovereignty that say it's okay to occupy a country then install a puppet regime whose raison d'etre is to slavishly follow the said occupier's political and social mantra.

Poles and Germans walked a very long way together; they share a lot of their history. That's what they owe each other.

Please, don't be ridiculous. We all appreciate your favouring of your German heritage over your Polish one, but what historical common path of mutual harmony did Poles and Germans as nations walk together?
TheOther 5 | 3,831
21 Feb 2013 #180
what historical common path of mutual harmony did Poles and Germans as nations walk together?

What part of

they share a lot of their history

didn't you understand?

favouring of your German heritage over your Polish one

The only time I care about heritage is when I do my genealogical research. Otherwise I give a flying hoot.


Home / History / What do Poles owe to Germans?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.