The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 49

Silesia occupation


MartAnthony 2 | 38
8 Jan 2011  #1
Is Silesia still under occupation ?
jonni 16 | 2,485
8 Jan 2011  #2
Not since early 1945.
Polonius3 1,000 | 12,448
8 Jan 2011  #3
Don't recall if the Sielsian regional mvt has been discussed on PF... But what do you think of it? They want their own Sejm like in II RP and far-reachinnregional autonomy within III RP.
sobieski 107 | 2,128
8 Jan 2011  #4
Good. In the end Europe will be the Europe of regions.
Regions have the right to have their own autonomy. Kaszuby, Slesians...of course they should feel first part of their own nation culturally and socially and often economically as well. A Kaszub is first of all a Kaszub and then a Pole. I do not see anything wrong with that.

After all, the socio-economic needs of Schlesien are far different of Białystok. Just as Flanders has different targets compared to Wallonia... or Catalonia as compared to Basque country...
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
8 Jan 2011  #5
Good. In the end Europe will be the Europe of regions.

No it wont.

Regions have the right to have their own autonomy.

No they dont.

Slesians...of course they should feel first part of their own nation culturally and socially

There's no such nation as Silesians.

A Kaszub is first of all a Kaszub and then a Pole. I do not see anything wrong with that.

Everything is wrong with that and Kaszubi and Ślązacy prefer to be Poles first too.

After all, the socio-economic needs of Schlesien are far different of Białystok

Why are you using a german name? Economic partition time?
jonni 16 | 2,485
8 Jan 2011  #6
Any area or region has the right to seceed and declare independence provided they have a referendum open to all residents of that region, regardless of identity. The Silesians (a distinct group, by the way, with a foot in two countries) aren't interested in independence, but there is a move towards more regional autonomy and Katowice certainly wants this. No reason they shouldn't get it either.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
8 Jan 2011  #7
but there is a move towards more regional autonomy and Katowice certainly wants this. No reason they shouldn't get it either.

First of all there's no move, a move implies increasing interest in a cause, there's none, and yes there's a reason ,the reason is that 98% of the regions population is against it.

Any area or region has the right to seceed and declare independence provided they have a referendum open to all residents of that region, regardless of identity.

Well given the polls approximately 2% of Śląsk inhabitants want autonomy, case closed.
jonni 16 | 2,485
8 Jan 2011  #8
the reason is that 98% of the regions population is against it.

You'd think that would be relevant, but it isn't. Not least because no concrete proposals have been formulated, discussed at either a local or national level or put to the voters yet.

Well given the polls approximately 2% of Śląsk inhabitants want autonomy, case closed.

Case very much open, for the reason above. Your comment:

move implies increasing interest in a cause, there's none

is rather silly, since regionalism is a complex thing about identity, dialect and culture, all of which in Silesia have been very much a focus of "increasing interest" since 1989.

Now run along young man, it must be well past your bedtime.
OP MartAnthony 2 | 38
8 Jan 2011  #9
But wasn't there a referendum once already? Who would vote in the new referendum? Only the people living there now, or also the the people who were forced to move out? (not many still alive so maybe there children could vote?) After all if you have past family born in Silesia back to the 1700's or earlier, I think there should be some kind of rights for this. Not only german Silesian were force to move after the war but also germanized poles (and what is a germanized pole. 1/2 geramn 1/2 pole by marrage or a pole who learned to speak german?).

And Silesia is now in 3 parts by the way.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
8 Jan 2011  #10
You'd think that would be relevant, but it isn't. Not least because no concrete proposals have been formulated, discussed at either a local or national level or put to the voters yet

Yes there were very concrete proposals formulated discussed and rejected by the crushing majority who were offended by the small groups hint that you could be Silesian first Pole second, Silesians consider themselves Poles first.

Just because YOU are an idiot who wouldnt bother to research the subject before opening his yapper doesnt mean stuff didnt happen, it did.

is rather silly, since regionalism is a complex thing about identity, dialect and culture, all of which in Silesia have been very much a focus of "increasing interest" since 1989.

Increasing interest by whom? The Silesian authonomy movement decreased from 90.000 members in 1999 to 42.000 in 2010 so not only is there a decreasing interest but its not even 2% today, in fact its not even one percent.

Sorry but you're still an ignorant idiot now go do some research.

As far as Poland is concerned regionalism is a non issue, there's virtually no drive to it internally.
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
8 Jan 2011  #11
ndependence, but there is a move towards more regional autonomy and Katowice certainly wants this. No reason they shouldn't get it either.

Bad idea, Poland would end up like Britain, with a bunch of jumped up petty states constantly seeking to blame the central government for everything, and the worst of all another useless layer of bureaucracy, filled with second rate Labour politicians who can't even speak English-and probably not even count to 10.

Who really wants a Polish equivalent of that fool Salmond.

or also the the people who were forced to move out? (not many still alive so maybe there children could vote?) After all if you have past family born in Silesia back to the 1700's or earlier, I think there should be some kind of rights for this.

That would close to impossible to implement, after all their children would quite plausibly have only 1 parent who came from Silesia.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
9 Jan 2011  #12
The problem with regionalism in Poland is that no one wants regionalism in Poland, if we added the various regional movements i doubt we'd scrape 50.000 people together in a nation of 38.2 milion, various Kaszubian authonomy movements had a whopping 600~ members when combined, out of a region with a few milion inhabitants.

An interesting note is that many of these very few activists for authonomies are german, a point could be made that regionalism, as far as Poland is an attempt by Germany to break polish political coherence in an attempt to nab this or that, note that Sobieski openly used a german name for Śląsk when speaking about authonomy.

So a polish autonomous region suddenly gets a german name?
jonni 16 | 2,485
9 Jan 2011  #13
Poland would end up like Britain, with a bunch of jumped up petty states constantly seeking to blame the central government for everything,

There were moves towards regionalism under the Major administration, with the Regional Development Corporations, which local politicians hated because it took some of their power away, and various ideas floated in the Blair years which never proved popular, but you're right, the UK (England anyway) has never much liked the idea.

What Sokrates (an American who pretends to be more Polish than the Poles) almost certainly doesn't know (or understand) is that quite a few politicians, especially in Upper Silesia are keen on the idea of European funding going directly to them, perhaps not as directly as the Germany/Denmark border region - which wouldn't be popular in Pl - but allowing them to have a greater say in the use of funds. Indeed some of the EU money has to be spent regionally.

As for Alec Salmond - he doesn't have universal support in Scotland, and the issues surrounding devolution are very complicated - more so than the Velvet Divorce - but if the Scots really want to leave the Union and confirm that by a legally constituted referendum we can't stop them by any ethical or democratic means. And polls show that they would leave with most English people's blessing. As I presume from your user name you support the ConDems - or at least the cons - I would have thought you'd like the idea - it's very much in the electoral interests of the Tories to say goodbye to Wales and Scotland.
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
9 Jan 2011  #14
Seeing the last remnants of Great Britain drift apart?-NEVER!!

I don't understand, in an age when nationalism is supposedly less important why would would you want separation? Why would you deny yourself the centuries of British heritage, and the heritage of the greatest Empire that the world has ever known?

It was the Scots, out of all proportion to the the other nations that contributed the greatest number of soldiers and administrators to run the Empire, why would go back on all that proud history?

Not to mention the fact the a half of all Scots would have an English relative.
jonni 16 | 2,485
9 Jan 2011  #15
I don't understand, in an age when nationalism is supposedly less important why would would you wont separation?

I don't want separation - I am pro UK and as far as I'm concerned Scotland is an independent country anyway, but if they decide to go it alone I'm not going to join the army and fight with them. As Mr Salmond said, after independence Scotland and England would be best friends.

The arguments for and against are complex and sometimes silly, with taproom hotheads on one side wanting a backdated check for oil revenues and their equally hotheaded opponents retorting by suggesting a backdated check to represent the enormous benefits that Scottish commerce got after union when they suddenly had tariff free access to India. All this is spurious history and one argument against Scots independence that I heard recently was that as a member state in the Eurozone (which Scotland would have no choice about) they would in fact have far less autonomy than they do now. And as a state with a weak economy and a huge state sector that would be a very bad idea.

English people who support Scots independence often point out how rich England would be after a split (especially since the Ulstermen would be a Scots rather than an English matter), and England is by far the richest part of the UK, but I only see problems.

Whereas the synergy created by Scotland and England has probably been the most successful alliance in the history of the world.
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
9 Jan 2011  #16
Yes I know, I wasn't referring to you specifically-just a general observation. Those arguments that you brought up in favor of the Union are pretty convincing to me, and i have heard them before. Especially the whole business about the EU, it is just such a pointless and daft exercise.

And yes definitely, it was the most successful alliance in the history of the world.
Ironside 48 | 9,708
9 Jan 2011  #17
so maybe there children could vote?)

If they reside in said province ....
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
9 Jan 2011  #18
is that quite a few politicians, especially in Upper Silesia are keen on the idea of European funding going directly to them,

Name 3 :)))))

I love making you my b*tch, my best friend is the son of the vice secretary of Sillesian authonomous movement, his name is Piotr Gaca, i can discuss the none existent interest in silesian authonomy all day, especially given how you have no idea whats happening:)

Also i enjoy how to cover the fact that you're attempting to discuss a subject you're completely clueless about you bring around UK which is completely different than Poland.

In Poland there's no push towards authonomy of any region, i'll help you out the city councilmen of Katowice are members of the authonomy movement and they (you can search yourself a bit of research will do you good) are the only public spokesmen for the shrinking movement.
jonni 16 | 2,485
9 Jan 2011  #19
I love making you my b*tch,

You may try, but you've never succeeded, fat boy, and you never will.
Nobody's talking about what you amusingly call the "Sillesian authonomous movement" which is more a nineties thing than anything else - we are talking about the regionalisation of EU funding, which you as an American probably wouldn't understand, and the cultural attributes of Slask as a discrete historical Entity. The UK is often mentioned in relation to this - indeed Maciej Giertych (he's an MEP, you know) wrote a very interesting paper on the matter which upset the Scots somewhat.

But once again, you fail to follow the thread and start coming out with obscenities. Won't be long before the next ban, Sokpuppet.
delphiandomine 83 | 17,626
9 Jan 2011  #20
As Mr Salmond said, after independence Scotland and England would be best friends.

Indeed. The Queen would still be Head of State, the currency would more than likely remain Sterling until Scotland moved towards the Euro (which wouldn't be overnight!) - in fact, about the only thing that would change would be that Scotland would have full self determination.

I actually think that Salmond has played a blinder over the last 15 or so years. He's managed to manipulate the UK parties into giving even more autonomy to Scotland without taking anything "back" - and when in 15 years time, people keep calling for more powers to be devolved (perhaps full and complete tax powers?) - you'll see Scotland more or less independent without actually being independent.

The Scotland Act was step 1, Calman is step 2 - and what next? We even saw Scotland having a small amount of control over immigration policy with the Fresh Talent Initative.

The race is on with Catalonia ;)
George8600 10 | 637
9 Jan 2011  #21
The problem with Silesia is much like the Greco-Macedonian problem. Border changes from ages ago are being revived into debate/argument for ethnic cleansing/nationalistic purposes.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
9 Jan 2011  #22
Nobody's talking about what you amusingly call the "Sillesian authonomous movement" which is more a nineties thing than anything else

Have you been talking about Silesia wanting to gain authonomy?

. The Silesians (a distinct group, by the way, with a foot in two countries) aren't interested in independence, but there is a move towards more regional autonomy and Katowice certainly wants this.

Yes you were, nobody in Katowice wants it, there's no move towards such you're not only pulling stuff from your arse but lying when caught selling ignorant bull.

d the cultural attributes of Slask as a discrete historical Entity.

No such thing as a discrete historical entity, Śląsk was never not once in its history a separate entity, whether historical or political, its interwar "authonomy" was never a true authonomy since its foreign policy and business relations were regulated by Warsaw.

Also what would be the benefits of regionalisation in Poland? I can name a number of disadvantages such as incorporation of said regions by neighbours, using the theme of regionalisation to decompose and partition our country.
jonni 16 | 2,485
9 Jan 2011  #23
there's no move towards such

Why not stop pointlessly arguing and actually check out the EU's regional strategy - it isn't as if there's any dearth of material about it. Plenty online, so you don't even have to leave your bedroom.

No such thing as a discrete historical entity, Śląsk was never not once in its history a separate entity, whether historical or political, its interwar "authonomy" was never a true authonomy since its foreign policy and business relations were regulated by Warsaw.

Nobody ever said it was a true autonomy between the wars - we are talking about regionalism, not independence. Slask does however have a very long history, whether you like it or not.
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
9 Jan 2011  #24
indeed Maciej Giertych (he's an MEP, you know) wrote a very interesting paper on the matter which upset the Scots somewhat.

What did that old loon have to say on the matter?
jonni 16 | 2,485
9 Jan 2011  #25
If I remember, it was of his more readable pieces, about the destructiveness of regional identity and the impact on international relations caused by territorial integrity - basically sub-national cultural identity is the start of the slippery slope towards being dominated.

He wrote it around the time of the 'Europe of a thousand flags' movement which has some support among the farthest of the far right, especially in Germany and Italy and among the 'dark green' movement in the UK. It was maybe a rebuttal of their ideas. I think it's still floating round the internet.
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
9 Jan 2011  #26
Well is suppose i would have to agree with him.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
9 Jan 2011  #27
Why not stop pointlessly arguing and actually check out the EU's regional strategy - it isn't as if there's any dearth of material about it. Plenty online, so you don't even have to leave your bedroom

Thats not EU strategy, thats german strategy.

Nobody ever said it was a true autonomy between the wars - we are talking about regionalism, not independence. Slask does however have a very long history, whether you like it or not.

Regionalism in EU/german approach equals authonomy for regions and Śląsk does not have a history as a region, not one you're looking for anyway.
Ironside 48 | 9,708
9 Jan 2011  #28
the EU's regional strategy

Is not a quite the same thing now is it ?

Slask does however have a very long history,

they had a prince now and then leading them - do you suggest they do back to this tradition - if so, I volunteer for that job!

Ah and question for OP - what Silesia do you have in mind lower or upper or both ?
z_darius 14 | 3,969
9 Jan 2011  #29
Is Silesia still under occupation ?

Not any more than all of Canadian territories are.
jonni 16 | 2,485
9 Jan 2011  #30
they had a prince now and then leading them - do you suggest they do back to this tradition - if so, I volunteer for that job!

You'd make a good one. Interesting if anyone is rattling round Germany using a title from Slask.


Home / History / Silesia occupation
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.