The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered [3]  |  Archives [1] 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 261

What do Poles owe to Germans?


Ozi Dan 26 | 569    
21 Feb 2013  #181
What part of TheOther: they share a lot of their history didn't you understand?

To be honest, I didn't really understand any of what you were saying, hence my question.
thetenminuteman 1 | 80    
21 Feb 2013  #182
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.

Except it wasn't unlawful. The Polish state had more or less ceased to exist, and certainly the Colonel's government in London was not legitimate or lawful by any stretch of the imagination. The Lublin government met all the requirements for sovereignty, and was recognised as such internationally. And as I keep saying, their actions were in accordance with the legally implemented 1921 Constitution. Of course, it was amended to suit them, but it was all done legally in terms of constitutional theory.

I've already explained to you how Polish constitutional theory works. The Lublin government derived its authority from the 1921 Constitution and the country functioned according to that document from 1944 to 1952. Every act on paper during that time conformed to the Constitution, and the laws passed were in accordance with it. It was an old Communist trick of gaining legitimacy on paper.

As for laws, let's go back and look at the recognised Polish Government. We had the establishment of the Tymczasowy Rząd Jedności Narodowej , which had the most legitimate claim to being the lawful Polish government at the time. It fulfilled the internationally accepted principles of sovereignty, it was agreed to by both the Lublin Governments and the Government-in-Exile, and it was considered internationally to be the reconstituted Poland. This body organised the 1947 election, and thus gave legitimacy to the Communist government. In terms of pure law and theory, this process was legal. Morally, no, but we're not discussing morals.

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?

And can you provide any proof that the process wasn't in accordance with the 1921 Constitution? I've read the document more times than I care to count, and I can't find anything that suggests that what the Communists did (create a national unity government in times of crisis, hold an election as soon as was possible) was unconstitutional.

The 1947 election law was entirely in line with the Constitution. The 3xTAK referendum amended the Constitution (again, in line with the requirements set out in the Constitution) - ultimately, the process was legitimate in terms of law. If it wasn't legitimate, how could they try people today in court under the laws passed from 1945-1989? Every single act since 1989 has confirmed that the PRL was the legitimate authority in those times. If you're aware of the Polish legal system recognising the Government-in-Exile's decrees instead, I'd love to know more.

If you don't even know the principles of sovereignty, how can you talk about the subject? You should start with Westphalia, as certainly the Polish State in 1945 conformed to this.

but what historical common path of mutual harmony did Poles and Germans as nations walk together?

Europe, 1989-present.
Ironside 47 | 9,503    
21 Feb 2013  #183
the legitimacy of the Communist government in legal theory.

No you don't, you are sweet-talking about legitimacy of the Communist emerge. The only acts of the Communist regime which are legal are those which Polish government choose to recognize as legal and binding,

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.

I think that your confusing come for the fact that you constructed artificial barrier between law and reality or morality. That could be all well if you were debating some theoretical legal twists but you don't.

You are trying to debate one part of the whole, it doesn't make any sense legal or otherwise.

How do you think Poland survived after '89??

I wonder how you survived, the facts you can type that a wonder.
quote=Polson]Well, they participated in the development of such (nice) cities as Wrocław. And Gdańsk, a place I like, for instance ;)
[/quote]
well, places that had to be rebuild by Poles. Not to mention that they take whole credit for destruction such vibrant city like Warsaw and countless towns and villages.

TheOther:
they share a lot of their history

people from Poland and Germany were intermixed for centuries but sharing a lot of history is a cliché if I ever sow one.

The Polish state had more or less ceased to exist,

Ah! Now it became clear where do you inspiration and confusion come form.

You follow claims of aggressor and occupiers. Well Poles, reality and a their legal theory show you a big middle finger to your claim shared by the Nazis and Communist theoretician . You are proudly continuing their line.
TheOther 5 | 3,683    
21 Feb 2013  #184
To be honest, I didn't really understand any of what you were saying

Yeah, that's a disease amongst lawyers - pretending not to understand... ;)
Ozi Dan 26 | 569    
22 Feb 2013  #185
Except it wasn't unlawful.

Yes, it was. Let me be abundantly plain with you - it was a government installed by a foreign, alien power. A change in law of a country imposed by a foreign power to suit that foreign powers own ends is not lawful, nor is it the law. That is the rational of sovereignty - a country makes its own laws. Unless there was some legal authority that was created by the native Polish government (the government in exile or it predecessor) which provided to the effect that a foreign alien power had jurisdiction to install such foreign government and/or change the law to that end, in these particular circumstances, then it was unlawful. It matters not that foreigners said that the govt in exile was illegitimate and therefore able to be swept aside, because that is what sovereignty is all about.

The Polish state had more or less ceased to exist, and certainly the Colonel's government in London was not legitimate or lawful by any stretch of the imagination.

The government had not though. The government in exile was the native Polish government, as flawed as it may have seemed to some. There was no organic and native Polish authority for the proposition that the Govt in Exile was not lawful, simply because no such finding had been made by any judicial body with jurisdiction to do so.

And as I keep saying, their actions were in accordance with the legally implemented 1921 Constitution. Of course, it was amended to suit them, but it was all done legally in terms of constitutional theory.

I'm well aware that you keep saying it, but merely saying it is not proof of the fact that remains to be proven. You are engaging in the subtle tactic of proof by verbosity. Once again - set out the placitum of either Constitution which supports your claim either prima facie or by virtue of such placitum being the head of power under which another piece of legislation was enacted.

For example:

Article "X" provides that in the event of "A" occurring, the government of the Soviet may, without reservation or limitation, install, or assist in the installation of, any form of government of any makeup whatsoever, with such government to have absolute and unchallenged authority over Poland,

or,

Article "Z" of the Constitution is the head of power under which "Y" Act was created, with such Act (a) not being in conflict with the said Constitution; and, (b), prescribing that in the event of "A" occurring, the government of the Soviet may, without reservation or limitation, install, or assist in the installation of, any form of government of any makeup whatsoever, with such government to have absolute and unchallenged authority over Poland, pursuant to Section "W" of said Act.

I appreciate that it is convenient to base your opinion on what the Soviets said was lawful, but unfortunately it doesn't work that way.

Of course, it was amended to suit them, but it was all done legally in terms of constitutional theory.

And therein lies your petard. The Soviets and/or their puppet regime had no authority or jurisdiction to amend anything whatsoever. Again, this is what being a sovereign nation is all about. You are misconceived if you believe that in theory everything was "lawful", because the application of law to the facts is not about theory, but about actually applying laws to facts. I've asked you to do this, but you haven't, and you refuse to.

I've already explained to you how Polish constitutional theory works. The Lublin government derived its authority from the 1921 Constitution and the country functioned according to that document from 1944 to 1952. Every act on paper during that time conformed to the Constitution, and the laws passed were in accordance with it.

You've done no such thing. You've made bald assertions based on nothing it seems but

an old Communist trick of gaining legitimacy on paper.

It was no such thing.

This body organised the 1947 election, and thus gave legitimacy to the Communist government. In terms of pure law and theory, this process was legal.

I repeat, a foreign power cannot legitimise its takeover of another country by creating the matrix to which such purported legitimacy is derived. This is pure fallacy of circular cause and consequence.

And can you provide any proof that the process wasn't in accordance with the 1921 Constitution?

You misconceive my capacity and intent if you think I would be dumb enough to engage you in sipping from Russell's teapot.

If it wasn't legitimate, how could they try people today in court under the laws passed from 1945-1989?

Fallacy of affirming the consequent.

If you don't even know the principles of sovereignty, how can you talk about the subject?

This comment suggests to me you cannot either support your proposition or indeed do not know yourself what sovereignty means. I asked you to be specific and set out particulars of this supposed 'claim' of the Lublin Govt and how it accorded with your postulated concept of universaly understood sovereignty. You failed to do either, but chose to tell me that I don't know what sovereignty means and essentially 'go read a book'.

This is an excellent way to add persuasiveness to a shakey position - you've sold me.
thetenminuteman 1 | 80    
22 Feb 2013  #186
The modern day Poland recognises the laws created from 1944-1989 as legal and binding. If they didn't, why did they go after people for Communist-era crimes using Communist era laws? Many of those laws are still in force, too.

The situation is clear legally, as the PRL was constituted according to the rules in force at the time. The fact that the parliament that pushed through these rules was a puppet parliament is neither here nor there, as we're speaking about the strict legality of the situation.

As I keep saying, morally it was illegitmate, but it was legal.

You misconceive my capacity and intent if you think I would be dumb enough to engage you in sipping from Russell's teapot.

You're claiming that the situation wasn't legitimate, so surely you should prove this. Polish legal theory is clear on this, the Governments from 1944 to 1989 are recognised as being part of the legitimate Polish state. There was no reboot, no reset after 1989, the law remained in place until amended. Remember, the PRL constitution remained in force until 1992.

I think you also seem to confuse the role of the Soviet Union. It was Poles doing this to Poles, the Soviets merely assisted by their mere presence. But even their presence was legitimate under the law at the time.
mariusz4616 - | 1    
22 Feb 2013  #187
The situation is clear legally, as the PRL was constituted according to the rules in force at the time.

What rules are you referring to?

What reboot, reset should there be? It's a first time I read about anything of that sort.
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,378    
22 Feb 2013  #188
he PRL constitution remained in force until 1992.

And you should remember that when Wa£ęsa was installed as Poland's first democratically elected post communist President, at the inauguration ceremony he received he seals of office from Poland's last President in exile Ryszard Kaczorowski. This clearly demonstrates the the previous regime was illegitimate in the eyes of the people.

Image 2
Ozi Dan 26 | 569    
22 Feb 2013  #189
The modern day Poland recognises the laws created from 1944-1989 as legal and binding.

The issue is not about what modern day Poland chooses to adopt from the Communist era, but rather the issue is whether or not at the time (44/45) the Communist installed puppet regime was lawful. It was not.

Seeing as you seem an expert on Polish Legislation, can you tell us if it's the case the modern day Poland enacted legislation legitimising Communist era legislation, or if such Communist legislation continued to be in force by virtue of not being repealed by modern day Poland.

The fact that the parliament that pushed through these rules was a puppet parliament is neither here nor there, as we're speaking about the strict legality of the situation.

You just don't get it - the 'puppet parliament' pushing through these 'rules' (what rules?) did not have authority or jurisdiction to do that. You cannot create a law to give you authority to create another law if the law does not give you the power to do so at first instance. This is legal theory 101. It can't take it in any further or make it any simpler than that.

You're claiming that the situation wasn't legitimate, so surely you should prove this.

Really? Are you really that hell bent on your position that you wish me to engage you in an illogical exercise even after I told you I wouldn't because I'm not that dumb? Please, have some self respect - it's getting embarrassing.

For fun, I'll meet you half way though and grant you an indulgence just to show you the absurdity of your position. My proof of the fact that it was illegitimate is that it's illegitimate according to the 1921 and 1935 Constitution and the universally understood concept of sovereignty. Go on, ask me specifics of my proof - my answer will always be it is illegitimate according to the Constitution and sovereignty.

By the way, you've ignored my other contentions in my post 195, so it can only be assumed that they are accepted. This is the new by-law of Polishforum that I hereby create according to the existing Rules of PF and because there is nothing in the Rules that says I can't. If admin creates a Rule that purports to prevent me from doing this, my contingency Rule that I've now created takes effect such that any Rules created by Admin. that do not accord with or frustrate any previous or future Rules that I may create are automatically repealed. Moreover, because some Mods have been the subject of (undue) criticism, I don't recognise their Authority, nor, by virtue of their association, the Admin of PF. In the vacuum created by that fait accompli, my actions I deem to be legitimate, because there is no-one to say otherwise.This is all done according to the PF Rules just in case you're wondering - if you don't agree, prove that I can't do it.

What rules are you referring to?

C'mon man, get with the program - he's referring to the Rules from the treaty of the Constitution of Mutual Assistance and the legislation created by the sovereignty of Westphalia's lawful puppet government of Soviet constitutional theories and practices. If you don't know about this, how can he discuss it ;)

And you should remember that when Wa£ęsa was installed as Poland's first democratically elected post communist President.

Careful here Hague - was Ryszard Walesa constituted of the 1921 Constitution and Rules of legally strict legal sovereignty?
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,378    
22 Feb 2013  #190
Careful here Hague - was Ryszard Walesa constituted of the 1921 Constitution and Rules of legally strict legal sovereignty?

I believe that all power is derived from the people for the people. Any modern government that does not draw its legitimacy from the people, is illegitimate in my view. The fact the Poland's democratically elected representative chose to take his seals of office from the last Polish President in exile means that the people saw the government in exile as their representatives during Poland's time of soviet occupation.
Suwka - | 21    
22 Feb 2013  #191
Ryszard Walesa

Ryszard Walesa? - Who is this?
thetenminuteman 1 | 80    
22 Feb 2013  #192
In a hurry, replying quickly

And you should remember that when Wa£ęsa was installed as Poland's first democratically elected post communist President, at the inauguration ceremony he received he seals of office from Poland's last President in exile Ryszard Kaczorowski.

Yes, that was interesting. However, I've never found anything to suggest that this was anything other than a symbolic act, as it didn't carry any legal significance at all.

I would be very interested to know if any of the decrees by the Government-in-Exile were transposed into Polish law after 1989.

The modern day Polish state has done absolutely nothing to counteract the Communist era legislation, and has routinely endorsed it by prosecuting people under those laws. They've gone after Jaruzelski and friends by prosecuting them under the 1952 Constitution, not under 1935 or 1921. The name of the State might have changed and the Constitution might have changed, but to all practical extents, the PRL is recognised as the legitimate Polish government at that time.

You just don't get it - the 'puppet parliament' pushing through these 'rules' (what rules?).

But are you sure that it didn't have the authority? The presence of Mikołajczyk as Deputy Prime Minister after resigning as the Prime Minister of the Government-in-Exile certainly gave a great deal of legitimacy to the parliament at the time, along with Prime Minister Morawski.

And the final question : if it wasn't a legitimate regime, why does the modern day Polish state recognise it?

I believe that all power is derived from the people for the people..

Would you agree then that the 1935 Constitution and Government-in-Exile were therefore illegitimate too?
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,378    
22 Feb 2013  #193
Would you agree then that the 1935 Constitution and Government-in-Exile were therefore illegitmate too?

What part of the 1935 constitution? The government in exile, in the absence of a democratically elected government in Poland, was seen as the legitimate representative of the people's will. Poland was under the soviet occupation until 1989, and its people were not allowed to express their will, so the government in exile did it on their behalf. The regime in Poland was illegitimate, because it failed to live up to its obligations as stipulated in the Yalta treaty, which means that all its subsequent actions were null and void.
thetenminuteman 1 | 80    
22 Feb 2013  #194
What part of the 1935 constitution?

All of it, as it was adopted illegally and more or less abolished democracy in Poland. If you're interested in this, there are some news articles online written at the time that more or less say it straight that Poland had become a dictatorship with the 1935 constitution.

I'm not convinced that the Government-in-Exile was neccessarily the legitimate representative, as it completely failed to hold any elections and itself split at one point. It's a shame, as had they been more effective at creating a parallel Polish state abroad, they might have been more of an opposition rather than an irrelevance.

The regime in Poland was illegitimate, because it failed to live up to its obligations as stipulated in the Yalta treaty.

I thought there were no Polish representatives at Yalta?
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,378    
23 Feb 2013  #195
I thought there were no Polish representatives at Yalta?

The Polish representatives putting the wishes of the Soviets into practice. The Soviets who were in Yalta, and agreed to allow Poland to have free and fair elections failed to deliver.

failed to hold any elections

And how exactly would they have done that?

All of it, as it was adopted illegally and more or less abolished democracy in Poland.

It was adopted legally, and it did not completely abolish democracy in Poland. It certainly curtailed it, but it did not abolish it.
Ironside 47 | 9,503    
23 Feb 2013  #196
if it wasn't a legitimate regime, why does the modern day Polish state recognise it?

cause commies are in charade.
Ozi Dan 26 | 569    
25 Feb 2013  #197
The modern day Polish state has done absolutely nothing to counteract the Communist era legislation, and has routinely endorsed it by prosecuting people under those laws.

Utter nonsense, and a sterling example of a non sequitur - a prosecution under an old Soviet law is most certainly nothing to do with an endorsement of the government that created such law, but is most certainly in line with not offending the principle against retroactive legislation. It would be an interesting scenario indeed if every new government repealed all laws created by its predecessor purely by virtue of the fact that the new government was concerned that the retention of such laws could be seen as an 'endorsement' of the old and different political party.

Prosecution under the Constitution? Didn't know any Constitution anywhere carried penalties for breach, because that isn't the purpose of a Constitution, but you're the 'expert'.

But are you sure that it didn't have the authority?

Positive.

The presence of Mikołajczyk as Deputy Prime Minister after resigning as the Prime Minister of the Government-in-Exile certainly gave a great deal of legitimacy to the parliament at the time, along with Prime Minister Morawski.

The presence or otherwise of Mikolajczyk has as much relevance to the issue of legitimacy as the mere presence of 100's of 1000's of Poles in the concentration camps does to an argument that the concentration camps were endorsed and legitimised by the Polish people because of their presence there.
OP pawian 151 | 7,983    
18 Jun 2013  #198
Did you know that Hans Dürer became the court painter for Sigismund I the Old and made some frescos at Wawel Castle?:

s
Palivec - | 380    
19 Jun 2013  #199
At that time Kraków actually had a German majority, which was maybe also one reason why Wit Stwosz moved there (St. Mary was the German church back then).
OP pawian 151 | 7,983    
19 Jun 2013  #200
Hmmm... I am afraid you are mistaken by about 200 years in your estimates about German majority of Krakow at the times of Durer and his adventures at Wawel Castle. :):) Last true German residents were finished off by King £okietek for starting a rebellion against him in 1311. :):):)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebellion_of_mayor_Albert
Palivec - | 380    
19 Jun 2013  #201
No, Germans became the majority again. Until the early 16th century the town council was German-speaking and the biggest church of the city the German church. This changed during Sigismunds reign, who gave St. Mary to the Poles (1537).

It's quite interesting that this is almost unknown.
OP pawian 151 | 7,983    
19 Jun 2013  #202
Yes, indeed, unknown.
But I know now why WW2 German occupiers of Krakow insisted that it was a German city. :):)

Germans buy a lot of Polish manufactured goods. Germany tops the list of Polish export destinations.

Poland's exports to Germany amounted to $56.5 billion or 26.1% of its overall exports.

1. Vehicles: $7.2 billion
2. Electronic equipment: $6.2 billion
3. Machines, engines, pumps: $6.1 billion
4. Furniture, lighting, signs: $4.5 billion
5. Plastics: $3 billion
6. Iron or steel products: $2.5 billion
7. Oil: $1.6 billion
8. Wood: $1.6 billion
9. Rubber: $1.5 billion
10. Copper: $1.4 billion

TheOther 5 | 3,683    
28 Sep 2015  #203
Imports look the same: worldsrichestcountries.com/top_poland_imports.html

"Germany's exports to Poland amounted to $58.8 billion or 26.8% of its overall imports."
OP pawian 151 | 7,983    
14 Mar 2019  #204
OMG, I have reread the whole thread and feel like crying - those golden times when we used to run such fascinating discussions with so many motivated members taking part seem long gone. And we could freely insert pics and quote excessively. To se ne vrati.... (:(:(

Or am I wrong?

I suppose it might be worthwile reviving the thread as I have come across new info.

Just a little reminder - this thread`s Leitmotiv is What, not If. What do Poles owe to Germans? and not Do Poles owe anything to Germans? Let`s talk about positive contributions, so could you abstain from mentioning partitions, WW2, etc because these topics belong to other threads. And owe doesn`t mean being indebted, but feel grateful to someone because of the way that they have helped you. Whether that help was deliberate or accidental, doesn`t matter.

Also could you try to avoid pointing to things which Germans contributed to the whole world, e.g., composers, but rather focus on Polish German connection?

So far we have talked about the following things, among others:

Works of art/ Magdeburg layout for towns / A few medieval artifact gifts/ German settlements in Poland / First book printing / Vocabulary borrowings / Polonised Germans

If you can`t find them in the thread, I will provide links upon request.
TheOther 5 | 3,683    
15 Mar 2019  #205
Abolition of serfdom in Prussia in 1807.
OP pawian 151 | 7,983    
15 Mar 2019  #206
Oh, that`s interesting because it is rarely mentioned. What always counted more was the abolition of serfdom in tsarist Russia 50 years later as it affected a bigger part of Polish lands, then controlled by Russians.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abolition_of_serfdom_in_Poland
Spike31 2 | 869    
15 Mar 2019  #207
What do Poles owe to Germans?

I don't know where to start :-)

Let's start with the obvious:

> We owe them financial compensation for all those German soldiers who died during invasion of Poland in 1939

> And we owe them for the destruction of Warsaw. At least we should compensate the cost of explosives used to planned demolition of the city

> And for those who broke their leg, or God forbid, a neck falling from a watchtower at Auschwitz concentration camp

> For those who got killed by freedom fighters (I mean no freedom fighters but Polnische Banditen of course!) during Warsaw Uprising in 1944

There's so many things we owe them. How are we ever going to repay them?
OP pawian 151 | 7,983    
15 Mar 2019  #208
There's so many things we owe them.

Yawn, An attempt at a witty reply but still based on an unoriginal concept, because there were already a few like that before. I thought you were more intelligent - do all nationalists reason in the same simplistic way? :)):
Weimarer 3 | 521    
15 Mar 2019  #209
@Spike31

As a german i can tell you we give a ****.

We dont owe you anything and you owe us nothing, move on.
OP pawian 151 | 7,983    
15 Mar 2019  #210
That`s a reasonable approach. As for moving on, it is impossible for some guys, they just can`t stop looking back. E.g, that crazy history-obsessed guy who started this thread.


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.