Talk:Germanisation
Writing systems Unassessed | ||||||||||
|
Germany Start‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||
|
Germanisation: an historical approach
The only possible approach is historical. By the way, forced germanisation can be well defined as a bad thing. It is the case of the germanisation of the non-German speaking people in South Tyrol (XVII century) promoted by the Austrian Empire and motivated by religious concerns. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.140.0.27 (talk) 14:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Thers a problem here...
You act like Germanisation is a bad thing, like the "vile" and "evil" Germans were persecuting the poor, defenseless eastern Europeans. It would appear to me that this article is a result of the severe amount of anti-German propoganda in America and other former ally countries. I have read the text books that you "educate" your children with, sad is the only word i can think to describe it.
-Helmut Reiker
I'm part German and it annoys the bloody hell out of me whenever people act as though Germany is a horrible country or it's bad to be German. Germany was in need and Hitler abused it, they need to get the hell over it now, it's over. -Blakemore
I'm a German-American. I also have issues with this article and with Helmut's suggestion. Forced Germanization was not always done for racial motivations, sometimes political reasons or ease of administration. There should be a distinction. The article is negatively overtoned almost entirely throughout, exceptions being where it states that the process happened as a by-product or side-effect, but even then it's still pretty shaky. It speaks of people being of mixed Polish descent with an "Oh, what a shame," attitude, as if it were a terrible thing that they are no longer only Polish. As an American of mixed heritage, I am rather irked by things like this. I'm English, Scottish, Irish, Scots-Irish, German, Native American, and Chinese-Indonesian, and proud of it all. Not trying to go off on too many tangents or anything, but take it as a poll from the audience, reader feedback, w/e.
If I might address Helmut directly, I'm reading these textbooks now. I don't see any propaganda being mass produced and distributed in the schoolbooks anymore. Once upon a time, yes, it happened, and it does bother me as well, but that's over now. And what bothers me more is the Allies' treatment of the German people, the Dutch people, the Polish people, and others, the expulsion, the trading around, and the idea that only an ethnically homogeneous state could ever be truly stable. If only they could see the US, Canada, UK, Australia, Singapore, and even Germany now. And keep in mind that a significant portion of the United States population is of German descent. It'd be a special kind of hard to discriminate so much against ourselves. --Reinald Wesner —Preceding unsigned comment added by RCIWesner (talk • contribs) 18:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Polish nationalistic propaganda
result of the severe amount of anti-German propoganda in America
IMHO it's mostly written by Poles. Polish nationalism - especially in schools at communist time - has a long tradition in demonizing German history, e.g. the feudal wars against the Teutonic Order are interpreted as a "national" independence fight, completely blanking out that the local German population supported the Polish lords! In this propaganda the assimilated Slavic or Baltic minorities were all per definition Polish and this "evil" process of assimilation was politically enforced, even long before the concept of a nation state or language dispute was even born. The corresponding processes of Francization, Anglicisation and Polonization where huge linguistic minorities vanished in the last 2 centuries are in comparison very moderately discussed in Wikipedia! -- Popolfi (talk) 13:23, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
- I deleted this paragraph because it's by far no NPOV:
"This was the practice of Prussia, Austria, German Empire, Weimar Republic and German Empire. Non-Germans were often banned from use of their language, the state discriminated their traditions and culture, when those measures were not successful in eradicating non-Germans, colonists and settlers were used to upset the population balance. As even those steps proved insufficient, the orientation turned into policy of ethnic cleansing and later into genocide."
- There are plenty of examples of cultural discrimination of minorities in Europe since French revolution, and not only in German speaking areas. So please show me the difference in France, Britain or Poland - references please! Especially the last phrase is pure anti-German. If the Nazi-era is a natural result of Germanisation, then Stalins policy of ethnic cleansings is the natural result of Russification? --Popolfi (talk) 11:37, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Move back to Germanisation again
- This article was created at 12:41 am GMT on the 8th of March 2004 by User:Cautious using the spelling Germanisation.[1]
- At 9:25 pm on the 2nd of February 2006 User:Darkildor moved it to Germanization without discussion labelling the edit "minor".
- At 8:40 pm on the 6th of March 2006 Darkildor's move was reverted by User:Shii following discussion on the talk page.
- At 5:51 am on the 18th February 2007 User:R9tgokunks moved it to Germanization again with the following to say "moved Germanisation to Germanization over redirect: Reverting from 2006 Move, to stabilize with the consistency of Wikipedia".
R9tgokunks, are you aware that the 2006 move you reverted was itself a reversion of an earlier move? Are you aware of Wikipedia policy regarding spelling? Are you aware that your stabilisation with the consistency of Wikipedia lacks the weight of consensus ... moreover that consensus is quite in opposition to this? Jimp 00:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I have moved the page back. Jimp 05:43, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
- both are acceptable and proper spelling, I prefer the Z though because it is the more common spelling of the word (atleast in Canada it is the more common way of spelling this kind of word)
Absolutely, they are both acceptable & proper. What is not acceptable nor proper is changing from one acceptable & proper spelling to another without justification. Jimp 08:49, 17 April 2007 (UTC)
Jimp, you're moving just because. It's fine as long as the spelling is consistent throughout. I'd be more concerned with the content of the article and other aspects of presentation, like grammar. It's a little spotty. RCIWesner (talk) 18:25, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
... just because this is the spelling it originally had, in accordance with the policy on the matter, which is doing a good job keeping this type of edit warring at a minimum. If you're more concerned with content, that's great, it needs work. JIMp talk·cont 19:05, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Current state and overall quality
The paragraph "Current state" talks in great length about the situation of Poles in Germany, but completely ignores the fact that the Germany of today is a multicultural country with big minorities from Turkey, Italy, Russia, the Balkans etc. The paragraph (1) completely ignores these groups and the article (2) talks almost exclusively about the relationship between Poles and Germans. I miss the situation in Austria- Hungary, in Alsace, Lorraine, Schleswig and the german colonies. Right now this article is one-sided, if not tendentious. 84.181.102.244 08:26, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
- Agreed. The article in its present form has an obvious anti-German slant and makes assertions that do not agree with reality.
- Example:Descendants of Polish migrant workers and miners have intermarried with the local population and are thus culturally mixed.
- It does not take more than superficial knowledge of contemporary Germany to see that the descendants of those Polish miners of the 19th century have by now assimilated. Usually the only sign of their allegedly culturally mixed state are Polish last names.
- The peace treaties after the First World War did contain an obligation for Poland to protect her national minorities (Germans, Ukrainians and other), whereas no such clause was introduced by the victors in the Treaty of Versailles with Germany.
- For obvious reasons: the treaty put German territories and people under foreign domination. Including that of Poland, where they were themselves subject to harsh Polonisation measures, as were other minorities, e.g. the mentioned Ukrainians. Textor (talk) 06:00, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Tendentious language and statements
I would rather call it tendentious. It simply not true that the Polish language was persecuted under Frederick the Great. Frederick just cared for the loyalty of his subjects and did not care about their religion or language. He said: if Turkish Muslims want to settle here there are free to do so as long as they are loyal subjects. It appears symptomatic that only dubious Polish sources are provided for these allegations. The real "Germanisation" period started with the German Empire after 1871. After all, it was not very successful as can be seen from the numbers and rising percentages of Polish population at that time. In the first half of the 19th century Prussian culture minister Karl vom Stein zum Altenstein advocated the education in the respective mother language. In areas with a Polish majority even German-speaking children had to attend the Polish school. Education level was highest among the Poles in Prussia compared to their Russian and Austrian compatriots.
So, this article urgently has to be cleaned from POV language and tendentious statements apparently introduced by Polish nationalists.--87.123.106.71 (talk)