PDA

View Full Version : Slavic Ancestry in Germany, Germans With Slavic Surnames, etc.



Triglav
Saturday, December 11th, 2004, 11:00 PM
Y-STR haplotypes from East Germany – differences between carriers of surnames of Germanic and
Slavic origin?

Despite its name, which seems to imply an utterly Germanic origin, Germany has always been a gateway for migration. This includes the arrival of eastern Germanic tribes and Slavs, driven by the pressure of the Huns, which eventually led to the downfall of the Roman empire. As a consequence of these population movements, the area which today forms East Germany was inhabited by Slavic people in the early middle ages. Whilst most Slavic tribes (like the Prussians) completely abandoned their language during the following centuries and turned “typically German”, the Sorb minority in the Lausitz region maintained much of its cultural identity and today represents the only people speaking a Slavic language in Germany. What has been left from the Slavic languages in most parts of East Germany, however, are the names of cities and some family names. In addition, parts of East Germany such as the South of Saxony-Anhalt are traditional mining and industrial areas which experienced significant migration of Slavic workers during the industrial revolution. Both waves of Slavic migration could have had impact on the composition of the local population and are documented by a high percentage of surnames with Slavic origin. The goal of the present study was to investigate whether Y-chromosome haplotype analysis is capable to distinguish groups with surnames of different origin.

To this end, DNA samples were obtained from 400 males born in the south of Saxony-Anhalt. Samples were divided into three groups namely those with a Germanic surname, those with a Slavic surname and those with mixed origin of the surnames. The minimal Y-STR haplotype of these two groups was analysed by AMOVA. A highly significant difference (p < 0.001,FST = 0.0309) between the Germanic and the Slavic groups was observed. When comparing this to other populations using published data, this difference is similar to that between European populations of large geographical and linguistical differences (like e.g. between Cologne and Budapest). On the other hand, the group with surnames of the mixed origin were indistinguishable from the Germanic group (FST = 0.0008). Our results reflect that the Y chromosomal lineages of Germans born in southern Saxony-Anhalt differ depending on the ethnic and linguistic origin of their surname.

Corresponding author: Uta-Dorothee Immel, Institut für Rechtsmedizin, Martin-Luther Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Franzosenweg 1, 06112 Halle/Saale, Email: uta.immel@medizin.uni-halle.de


Source: http://www.yhrd.org/rcms/element/2249.pdf (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.yhrd .org%2Frcms%2Felement%2F2249.pdf)

WestPrussian
Sunday, December 12th, 2004, 12:21 AM
Y-STR haplotypes from East Germany – differences between carriers of surnames of Germanic and
Slavic origin?

UD Immel 1, M Krawczak 2, H Rodig 3, M Kleiber 1, M Klintschar 1
1 Institut für Rechtsmedizin, Martin-Luther Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Franzosenweg 1, 06112 Halle, Germany
2 Institut für Medizinische Informatik uand Statistik, Christian-Albrechts- UniversityUniversität, Kiel, Germany
Brunswiker Strasse 10, 24105 Kiel
3 Biotype AG, Dresden, Germany
Too bad it's just an abstract...

Despite its name, which seems to imply an utterly Germanic origin, Germany has always been a gateway for migration. This includes the arrival of eastern Germanic tribes and Slavs, driven by the pressure of the Huns, which eventually led to the downfall of the Roman empire. ???This is an incredibly stupid and incoherent statement.
As a consequence of these population movements, the area which today forms East GermanyCertainly, East Germany extends to the Oder. between the Oder and the Memel it's Prussia. Saxons are quite happy to renounce their conquests but we will never renounce our homelands
was inhabited by Slavic people in the early middle ages. Whilst most Slavic tribes (like the Prussians) Idiots. Not a bit of truth
completely abandoned their language during the following centuries and turned “typically German”, You can't turn 'typically German' genetically.
the Sorb minority in the Lausitz region maintained much of its cultural identity and today represents the only people speaking a Slavic language in Germany. What has been left from the Slavic languages in most parts of East Germany, however, are the names of cities and some family names. In addition, parts of East Germany such as the South of Saxony-Anhalt are traditional mining and industrial areas which experienced significant migration of Slavic workers during the industrial revolution. Both waves of Slavic migration could have had impact on the composition of the local population and are documented by a high percentage of surnames with Slavic origin. The goal of the present study was to investigate whether Y-chromosome haplotype analysis is capable to distinguish groups with surnames of different origin. To this end, DNA samples were obtained from 400 males born in the south of Saxony-Anhalt. Samples were divided into three groups namely those with a Germanic surname, those with a Slavic surname and those with mixed origin of the surnames. The minimal Y-STR haplotype of these two groups was analysed by AMOVA. A highly significant difference (p < 0.001,FST = 0.0309) between the Germanic and the Slavic groups was observed. When comparing this to other populations using published data, this difference is similar to that between European populations of large geographical and linguistical differences (like e.g. between Cologne and Budapest). On the other hand, the group with surnames of the mixed origin were indistinguishable from the Germanic group (FST = 0.0008). Our results reflect that the Y chromosomal lineages of Germans born in southern Saxony-Anhalt differ depending on the ethnic and linguistic origin of their surname.
Corresponding author:
Uta-Dorothee Immel, Institut für Rechtsmedizin, Martin-Luther Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Franzosenweg 1, 06112
Halle/Saale, Email: uta.immel@medizin.uni-halle.de

http://www.yhrd.org/rcms/element/2249.pdfso who are they talking about? Sorbs? Polish immigrants in the 19th century? it seems the latter. If so it seems like an incredibly stupid study: how on earth would migrant Poles change into Germans just by living in Germany? This is like testing Turks in Berlin in 150 years and coming to the astonishing conclusion that they are, still, Turks.

friedrich braun
Sunday, December 12th, 2004, 01:47 AM
Hmmm...

How about people who've Germanized their surnames? That used to be very common; and is still done. Nietzsche claimed to be a descendant of Polish Protestant nobility: the Nietzkys.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Sunday, December 12th, 2004, 05:19 AM
I think the methodology has something to do with the surprising results. They were using Y chromosome for study. This means it is an all male thing. The study would indicate to me that the mixed group was made up of German fathers and Slavic mothers. Also, Germany extended well East of the Oder in modern times. Some of those former Sileslian Germans could have picked up Slavic genes over the years.

Zyklop
Sunday, December 12th, 2004, 07:38 AM
What does this study proof? That the descendants of Polish immigrants during the industrial revolution differ genetically from the natives?

Dr. Brandt
Sunday, December 12th, 2004, 10:53 AM
What are "Slavs"? Another wishy-washy definition which explains nothing.

Eikþyrnir
Sunday, December 12th, 2004, 12:34 PM
What are "Slavs"? Another wishy-washy definition which explains nothing.

It is unfortunate that people use Slavs as a racial group when it is clearly a cultural/linguistic group within the indoeuropean family. This myth of slavic race is perpetuated by Panslavs and other mislead folks.

Dr. Brandt
Sunday, December 12th, 2004, 02:52 PM
It is unfortunate that people use Slavs as a racial group when it is clearly a cultural/linguistic group within the indoeuropean family. This myth of slavic race is perpetuated by Panslavs and other mislead folks.

Exactly! It is a definition which was invented in the early 19th century. They use this term to claim germanic land, by declaring it populated by "slavs". they never are able to explain what a slav is, but they know for sure that in central Germany and Austria "Slavs" settled". Ask them "How do you know? What evidence do you have?" and they will answer you "From the Names". :rofl:
They will then start playing around with names, drawing the most crazy conclusions. It's like babby-babbling - they chew on a name of a city so long, untill it finaly sounds "slavic". "Brandenburg" and "Graz" are originaly "Slavic" just as much as Bautzen. Any word with a "z" in it, has to be "slavic". Don't ask me why, because I am incapable of explaning the Fantasys of lunatics.
All you have to do is check the Avatar of this "Slav" - "Karentanija" (Kärnten). Deluded Lunatics with dreams of grandeure, holding claims on our land.

beowulf_
Sunday, December 12th, 2004, 03:31 PM
Sounds like some victims of the Pisa-study are responsible for this abstract:
:D :D :D

Apart from the arrival of Slavic tribes and recent gene flow their is no historical
record (which one?) of major change in Germany´s population.

It´s very likely that the eastern Germanic tribes had a genetic composition
similar to their west-Germanic cousins.

Slavic settlement didn´t take place in the whole of East Germany (Middle
Germany) but only up to the Saale and was only 200 years after the downfall
of the Roman empire.

The original Prussians were Baltic not Slavic.
_____________

Concerning the results of the study: What else could have been awaited?
People with a Polish surname are y-chromosome-wise of Polish ancestry.
More interesting would be a deeper look into the gene structure of those
with a German surname in order to quantify the Slavic contribution to the
gene pool of the Neusiedelland before 19th century industrialization.

The mixed surnames are an all paternal item, too. Surnames in Germany were
first introduced in the Rhine towns in the 12th century. Most regions use
surnames since the early modern age. Especially, in more backward rural areas
and northern Germany they appear relatively late, so the German east
colonization and Germanization of Slavic tribes predates the appearance of
surnames in the concerned regions, with a few exceptions like the Wends or
Sorbs.

However, thanks for this peace of information, Triglav. :)

Triglav
Sunday, December 12th, 2004, 03:40 PM
Especially, in more backward rural areas
and northern Germany they appear relatively late, so the German east
colonization and Germanization of Slavic tribes predates the appearance of
surnames in the concerned regions, with a few exceptions like the Wends or
Sorbs.

That´s correct.



However, thanks for this peace of information, Triglav. :)
You´re most welcome. :thumbsup

Nordgau
Sunday, December 12th, 2004, 04:50 PM
Hmmm...

How about people who've Germanized their surnames? That used to be very common; and is still done. Nietzsche claimed to be a descendant of Polish Protestant nobility: the Nietzky.

Extraction from a Polish noble family in the paternal line was indeed what Nietzsche thought and what seemed to be a sort of family legend. Ancestral research however came in this respects only to negative results: http://www.friedrichnietzsche.de/index.php?REM_sessid=&action=21

The surname "Nietzsche" is derived from the first name "Nikolaus", like "Hintzsche" and "Fritzsche" from "Heinrich" and "Friedrich".

Dr. Brandt
Sunday, December 12th, 2004, 06:04 PM
The surname "Nietzsche" is derived from the first name "Nikolaus", like "Hintzsche" and "Fritzsche" from "Heinrich" and "Friedrich".

Hey! In case you didn't know: "Nordgau" is slavic! It comes from "Narwagrad" or "Nowgorod". Oh yes! It is "slavic" like just about everything else on this planet! And the first humans were not "Adam" and "Eve" but actually their names were "Antonow" and "Ekatarina"! So there! :laugh:

:rofl:

Bluterbe
Sunday, December 12th, 2004, 11:03 PM
Slavs, which settled in middle and east germany mixed with germanic tribes. The words like slesia, ranen, mähren, etc. have their roots in the germanic language.
You can say, that the germanes, that settled to middle and east germany, mixed with slaves, that mixed with germanics some houndred years ago:D :P

Triglav
Wednesday, December 15th, 2004, 07:06 PM
LOL, Brandt in his usual mood. ;) Unscientific as always - and it´s not like I haven´t explained this issue to him before either.

Say, do you believe that Germans are Germanic? What would make them Germanic in the first place? Anyone? Just a few thoughts to chew on before I return.

Triglav
Wednesday, December 15th, 2004, 07:08 PM
What does this study proof? That the descendants of Polish immigrants during the industrial revolution differ genetically from the natives?

Yes, most likely. It means that they haven´t been completely assimilated yet. The Slavic tribes in East Germany that were assimilated in the Middle Ages don´t bear Slavic surnames. The test is certainly valuable and might come in handy when coupled with other studies. I hope you´re not so naive as to believe that the the primary focus of "scientific communities" is to investigate "race".

Triglav
Wednesday, December 15th, 2004, 07:19 PM
It is unfortunate that people use Slavs as a racial group when it is clearly a cultural/linguistic group within the indoeuropean family. This myth of slavic race is perpetuated by Panslavs and other mislead folks.

Exactly. Slavic, Romance, Celtic and Germanic are cultural terms. This is really elementary knowledge.

On a side note, however - where has this been implied?

friedrich braun
Wednesday, December 15th, 2004, 07:39 PM
Yes, we all know that everyone in Europe is a Slav without knowing it. :coffee:

Triglav
Wednesday, December 15th, 2004, 07:47 PM
Yes, we all know that everyone in Europe is a Slav without knowing it. :coffee:

Or that every Nordid Slav has Germanic ancestors for that matter. :biggrin:

Eikþyrnir
Wednesday, December 15th, 2004, 08:12 PM
Or that every Nordid Slav has Germanic ancestors for that matter. :biggrin:

Actually, that is more reasonable than the opposite. It is could well have been that the proto-Nordid developed in the same area as proto-germanics, the distribution of Nordids and Germanics would suggest this, infact.

http://www.ship.edu/~cgboeree/europa1sm.gif

Polak
Monday, December 20th, 2004, 05:52 AM
Interesting idea, but the authors of the report discredited themselves in a number of ways, and thus it is difficult to take the work seriously.

For instance, their interpretation of history was wrong and they mistakenly called the Prussians a Slavic tribe.

Moreover, their concept is a logical one, but less informative than they might think. Both surnames and Y-chromosome markers are passed on by males, so it's not surprising that Germans with Slavic names also often carry Slavic markers.

This tells us that Slavic names in Germany were introduced along with Slavic blood, and the process wasn't a cultural phenomenon. But we already knew that from history.

What would be more interesting is to add mtDNA and autosomal data to this report, to really have a stab at figuring out the extent of Slavic admixture in modern Germans.

Even with this data it would still be a difficult thing to quantify, because even umixed Germans share genetic similarities with Slavs. But I suspect that we would get some interesting findings. As I said, Slavic names in Germany were introduced by men, and they're fairly common there...but they don't indicate the contribution by Slavic females to the Germanic gene pool. I suspect that this contribution was at least as great as that by Slavic males.

CrystleMoons
Thursday, December 23rd, 2004, 02:51 AM
Exactly! It is a definition which was invented in the early 19th century. They use this term to claim germanic land, by declaring it populated by "slavs". they never are able to explain what a slav is, but they know for sure that in central Germany and Austria "Slavs" settled". Ask them "How do you know? What evidence do you have?" and they will answer you "From the Names". :rofl:
They will then start playing around with names, drawing the most crazy conclusions. It's like babby-babbling - they chew on a name of a city so long, untill it finaly sounds "slavic". "Brandenburg" and "Graz" are originaly "Slavic" just as much as Bautzen. Any word with a "z" in it, has to be "slavic". Don't ask me why, because I am incapable of explaning the Fantasys of lunatics.
All you have to do is check the Avatar of this "Slav" - "Karentanija" (Kärnten). Deluded Lunatics with dreams of grandeure, holding claims on our land.

And, so Schulze, Schmit(dz), or Schultze, and many others prove what? You know what I suggest?

The older your information is in historical documentation the BETTER and most definite it will be, and become!

Agrippa
Friday, December 24th, 2004, 12:38 AM
Actually, that is more reasonable than the opposite. It is could well have been that the proto-Nordid developed in the same area as proto-germanics, the distribution of Nordids and Germanics would suggest this, infact.


Well, Nordids are a type and Germanics, Slavs etc. an ethnic category. Nordids existed long before the ethnic formation of both and the old Slavs and for a long time the Slavic upper class were as Nordid, or even more Nordid than Germanics, that was recognized even by people like Guenther, Eickstedt etc.

What we see in later times is the rise of more infantile-brachycephalic types both by mixture and as important, or even more important, certain (contra-) selective trends in both groups, though in the Germanic core area not as (North Sea region/Scandinavia) strong as in the wide Slavic areas.

Vitor
Friday, December 24th, 2004, 02:13 PM
from http://gcjm.dyndns.org/sw/inhalt11/d01.htm

piefke said in another forum:


So, in the light of the above evidence, the main factor in germanization of the region east of the Elbe and Saale, was not a Germanic colonisation but long process of assimilation of local Slavic population.Taking into consideration the survival of Lusatian Sorbs, the process is still not completed.Hence, the modern German population has a substantial Slavic component.And in the case of the Lands that once formed East Germany, the population there is a Slavo-Germanic mixture, most likely with the Slavic elements being dominant [174] , a fact that probably many Germans would not wish to admit. Nevertheless, a modern German is not less German regardless of some of his ancestors beingSlavic. Neither would anysane person question the right of Germans to the territory east of Elbe and Saale where 98 percent of population feels they are German.

It has to be admitted, that the precise estimation for Polabian contribution to the emergence of German nation appears to be extremely difficult if not impossible.This is so because to set up precise criteria in such a research is unfeasible.The mixing of population in Central Europe was ongoing process for almost a millennium and genetic criteria are unapplicable. The linguistic and cultural criteria could be applied only at the time of migration, andthe written records are incomplete and often inconclusive.It also should be stressed, that since the Middle Ages, besides the relatively large scale germanization, a process of slavization was also taking place in Central Europe.Numerous Germans settled in Bohemia, Poland and Hungary; and for centuries they all lived and worked peacefully side by side.In the course of time many Germans were assimilated by local populations. Not surprisingly the German surnames are not uncommon among todays Poles, Czechs, Slovaks and Hungarians. [175] Although the whole germanization issue seems to be of no great importance, there are reasons why it should be addressed. For generations, many German historians tried to convince themeselves and everyone else, that the Polabian Slavs vanished from the land entirely soon after the conquest, or better, yet they never existed.To large extent they were successful.For example, while the Celtic heritage of Britain is widely acknowledged, the Polabian Slavs are hardly known outside academic circles.Also, a common understanding of the shared ethnic and cultural heritage in this part of Europe might have a wider implications.If the people of Central Europe had been always aware of that, such terrible things as happened there this century, might not have taken place at all.


Do you agree with piefke?

Deling
Friday, December 24th, 2004, 02:36 PM
It's nothing new, exactly. Germany's historical heartland has been Slavic Böhmen. Germany as a state was based on Prussia, which was an eastern-oriented state with a Baltic language.

Perhaps the problem is language: In English GERMANY makes one think of historical Germania. In continental European languages, "Germany" is Tyskland, Deutschland, Saksa a.s.o. No references to the mythical Germania. And Germany isn't Germania, it's probably the most non-nationstate in Europe's modern history; divided in regions, in ethnics. Only language is rather universal.
But Germany isn't a Slavic nation by any standards. It's, however, not the ethnical anti-thesis of the eastern Slavic lands.

Agrippa
Friday, December 24th, 2004, 03:05 PM
From a racial point of view the Nordic type(s) is common in all German regions, though in different numbers and the most "un-Nordic" regions were in the East, f.e. Silesia.

The other areas formerly inhabited by Slavs are as Nordic as other regions away from the Germanic core area in Germany.
Its difficult to estimate the relation of colonists to assimilated Slavs, because the only type not strongly represented in Germany before the Slavs were Osteuropids, either in their West- and East Baltid form, but those types didnt dominated all Slavic groups that much, especially not the old Slavs and their upper class.

In fact I do agree that it is rather unimportant if someone of an integrable type was 1000 years ago a Slav or Germanic, in fact those two ethnic groups were formed out of different parts by themselves either.
More important is how they took over the customs and traditions, and how integrable they were and are.

But I wouldnt underestimate the destruction of former structures by the colonisation and the influx of Germanic/German settlers.

Just think, in some regions of East Prussia Dinarid types were dominant because of settlers from Salzburg, in other regions French Nordid-Alpinid-Mediterranid dominated because of the Hugenotts, and some regions in the Eastern areas (Ostgebiete) of Germany were dominated by types and names common in Niedersachsen etc...
So the impact was rather strong, though there are huge regional differences. From a racial point of view rather great differences inside the Slavic population before colonisation too...

Zyklop
Sunday, December 26th, 2004, 08:40 AM
Germany's historical heartland has been Slavic Böhmen. What bullshit is this? Good that this is the Trashcan section :P

Nobody denies medieval Slavic assimilation in Eastern Germany. The alleged extent, however, which continously is brought up by Pan-Slavists (basically Poles) to make claims on German territory is so ridiculous that it must be the result of a heavy inferiority complex.
I can understand that many Slavic nations (again, basically Poles) are envious of Germany´s achievements and therefore want a piece of the cake but the old trick of creating disunion to fight Germans with Germans, which was invented by the Romans thousands of years ago, has worn off. After all this constructed clashes of Prussians vs. Bavarians, catholics vs. protestants, or in modern times young vs. old, east vs. west we surely are not so dumb to misunderstand the motivation behind such claims.

Polak
Sunday, December 26th, 2004, 09:25 AM
What bullshit is this? Good that this is the Trashcan section :P

Nobody denies medieval Slavic assimilation in Eastern Germany. The alleged extent, however, which continously is brought up by Pan-Slavists (basically Poles) to make claims on German territory is so ridiculous that it must be the result of a heavy inferiority complex.
I can understand that many Slavic nations (again, basically Poles) are envious of Germany´s achievements and therefore want a piece of the cake but the old trick of creating disunion to fight Germans with Germans, which was invented by the Romans thousands of years ago, has worn off. After all this constructed clashes of Prussians vs. Bavarians, catholics vs. protestants, or in modern times young vs. old, east vs. west we surely are not so dumb to misunderstand the motivation behind such claims.


I'm still laughing at your ridiculous suggestion that Slavic names in Germany do not equate to Slavic lineages (in other words, blood).

Bwahahaha....

Zyklop
Sunday, December 26th, 2004, 09:30 AM
I'm still laughing at your ridiculous suggestion that Slavic names in Germany do not equate to Slavic lineages (in other words, blood).Please provide a source :)


Bwahahaha....Aren´t you the exile-Pole who gets his informations about the social situation in middle-Germany out of tabloid magazines? :D

Bluterbe
Sunday, December 26th, 2004, 06:11 PM
The slaves that were assimilated in the german nation were some hundred years mixt with the rest of the there living germanic population, so the slaves had many words from germanic herritage, like "mähren", "slesia", "ranen" and the celtic word "bohemia".
At the end, this slavic population with partly germanic herritage were assimilated, because their number was lower, than these of the germanic re-settlers.
The only places, where higher numbers of slaves were living was in lusicia. So there lives the slavic sorbs till today. Regions like the lower saxon "wendland" and the pommeranian island "rügen" had about some hundred years partically slavic population, but was still germanic-german dominant.

Polak
Sunday, December 26th, 2004, 11:17 PM
Please provide a source :)

Aren´t you the exile-Pole who gets his informations about the social situation in middle-Germany out of tabloid magazines? :D


Please provide a source stating that Slavic names in Germany are simply a cultural phenomenon.

Or better still, just explain to me how it is that there are so many Slavic names in Germany, but, according to you, very little Slavic blood.

I don't get it, and I hazard a guess that many people on this forum are similarly befuddled by your dubious logic.

Oh where did this Slavic blood go to in Germany? Did it evaporate? Why is it that Slavic names don't, at the very least, equate to the amound of Slavic blood in Germany???

Go on, finally explain you theories...I'd love to know how you came to these conclusions.

Did Slavic genes get swamped by Germanic genes, and then somehow evaporated, even though Slavic names were passed on???

Hmmm..not possible, because if a name is passed on, then that indicates reproduction...and genes are not lost if someone reproduces. See, that's biologically impossible.

So please, Zyklop, entertain us some more...

bocian
Monday, December 27th, 2004, 12:55 AM
Please provide a source stating that Slavic names in Germany are simply a cultural phenomenon.

Or better still, just explain to me how it is that there are so many Slavic names in Germany, but, according to you, very little Slavic blood.

I don't get it, and I hazard a guess that many people on this forum are similarly befuddled by your dubious logic.

Oh where did this Slavic blood go to in Germany? Did it evaporate? Why is it that Slavic names don't, at the very least, equate to the amound of Slavic blood in Germany???

Go on, finally explain you theories...I'd love to know how you came to these conclusions.

Did Slavic genes get swamped by Germanic genes, and then somehow evaporated, even though Slavic names were passed on???

Hmmm..not possible, because if a name is passed on, then that indicates reproduction...and genes are not lost if someone reproduces. See, that's biologically impossible.

So please, Zyklop, entertain us some more...

I would also like to add that the surnames themselves aren't even scraping the surface. Many Slavs took German names, surely much more than those that remained Slavic.

Stríbog
Monday, December 27th, 2004, 03:13 AM
It should be remembered that, despite Polish complaints about German intrusions, it was the Poles who invited the Germans into their land in the first place in order to fight the pagan Balts.

Polak
Monday, December 27th, 2004, 04:09 AM
It should be remembered that, despite Polish complaints about German intrusions, it was the Poles who invited the Germans into their land in the first place in order to fight the pagan Balts.


Doesn't mean they had to stay there and take even more land.

The whole idea of a Germanic Prussian state is illegal, because it was created by people who overstayed their welcome.

Polak
Monday, December 27th, 2004, 04:14 AM
I would also like to add that the surnames themselves aren't even scraping the surface. Many Slavs took German names, surely much more than those that remained Slavic.


Of course it is, but it's hard to prove the exent of this, so people like Zyklop can choose to ignore it completely.

But his ignorance in regards to the name issue, which simply can not be denied, is quite pathetic.

Slavic names did not appear out of nothing in Germany, they were there because the people who carried them were Slavs.

These people passed on their names, and their genes, which didn't just evaporate into nothing. They're still there in the modern German gene pool.

I can't even be bothered discussing the issues of Slavic females in Germany, and Slavic males who Germanized their names. It would be a waste of time here.

bocian
Monday, December 27th, 2004, 04:33 AM
It should be remembered that, despite Polish complaints about German intrusions, it was the Poles who invited the Germans into their land in the first place in order to fight the pagan Balts.

You don't know what you're talking about.

An invitation to help 'Christianize' a pagan populous is completely different from, mass colonization, Germanisation, extermination, and lastly, expansion.

How would you treat a guest who acted in such a manner? You'd probably kick them out. Of course, the Poles didn't do this, and never used the victory at Grunwald to do something about the German problem.

Stríbog
Monday, December 27th, 2004, 05:59 AM
Of course, the Poles didn't do this, and never used the victory at Grunwald to do something about the German problem.

Perhaps because their Tatar allies decided to return to the steppes after the battle, and Poland was not strong enough to face the Germans alone?

Stríbog
Monday, December 27th, 2004, 06:08 AM
You don't know what you're talking about.

An invitation to help 'Christianize' a pagan populous is completely different from, mass colonization, Germanisation, extermination, and lastly, expansion.

Christianizing a pagan populace in fact historically has often involved extermination, whether it be Franks against Saxons or Teutonic Knights against Latvians.

You don't seem upset by Polish expansion at the expense of Lithuanians and Ukrainians - what is the difference between that and German expansion at Poland's expense?

You never explained to me how you wanting L'viv back differs from Germans wanting Breslau back.

Zyklop
Monday, December 27th, 2004, 11:05 AM
@Polak
I don´t know what you want. A couple of posts above I even confirmed the Slavic influence in Germany but still it isn´t good enough for you :anieyes

Such discussions between Germans and Poles are a waste of time anyway. It is as if the righteous owner of a car takes time to argue with the thief. There are a lot of revisionist books about this topic available in Germany, for example "Slawenlegende" by Lothar Greil, and even multicultural, pro-immigration Germans nowadays dislike Poles. From a nationalist´s point of view you Pan-Slavs hardly can be considered a threat.

An interesting quote by you:


I decided to “polish” my German some more so that I can feel even more “excellent” while annoying even more blue-blooded perfect Aryans. Say what you want about us Polaks but at least we have bigger attention span than a Kartoffel, do learn languages of our enemies, do read more than one source, do coordinate our propaganda, and would never even consider claiming say, Adolf Hitler, to be a great Polish hero, arrogantly stolen by evil Germans.
http://www.libertyforum.org/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=news_history&Number=292711756&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=21&part=1&vc=1&t=0
Regardless of propaganda about Slavic genes, names or territory, Germans will never feel connected to Poles. We are divided by mentality, language, culture and thousand years of hate.

bocian
Monday, December 27th, 2004, 01:48 PM
Perhaps because their Tatar allies decided to return to the steppes after the battle, and Poland was not strong enough to face the Germans alone?

You mean the 100 or so cowards, who, soon after the battle began, ran for their lives?

After being humiliated, the Germans made up a story that 100,000 Tatars helped the Poles...what a joke. Oh, and once again, you have proven that you enjoy completely missing the point, and really need to brush up on your Polish history, because it's becoming painfully obvious that you don't know much.

bocian
Monday, December 27th, 2004, 02:04 PM
Christianizing a pagan populace in fact historically has often involved extermination, whether it be Franks against Saxons or Teutonic Knights against Latvians.


Sure, these are perfect examples of heavy-handed German 'Christianization'.


You don't seem upset by Polish expansion at the expense of Lithuanians and Ukrainians - what is the difference between that and German expansion at Poland's expense?

Polish expansion? I bet it would surprise you to know that Polish 'expansion' was a direct result of Germanization and colonization in the west (Slask). Galicia had already belonged to Poland in the 11th century, including a tiny settlement which might have been Lwow, therefore, they were simply re-acquiring their lands, in the 14th. As for Lithuania, it wasn't anything even remotely similar or comparable to Germany, since Lithuania was an equal partner in the Commonwealth...Poland-Lithuania ring a bell?


You never explained to me how you wanting L'viv back differs from Germans wanting Breslau back.

1) Wroclaw was Polish first, Lwow was probably Polish first, definitely not Ukrainian.

2)Germany invaded Poland, not the other way around, Germany lost the war, Poland was on the 'winning side'. Ever hear of Debellatio?

3)Lwow and the Eastern territories were stolen by the Soviets, we were 'allies' remember? It was the Soviets who were mainly responsible for what the new map looks like today. Need I remind you who the Soviets were allied with at the outbreak of war?

I don't have to explain anything to you. I also think your memory is failing you. I will repeat myself. I don't want Lwow back, anyone who wants a massive border change and displace millions of people, today, is either a child, or completely insane.

Stríbog
Tuesday, December 28th, 2004, 11:25 PM
Galicia had already belonged to Poland in the 11th century, including a tiny settlement which might have been Lwow, therefore, they were simply re-acquiring their lands, in the 14th.


So, to whom had the lands belonged before the 11th century?



As for Lithuania, it wasn't anything even remotely similar or comparable to Germany, since Lithuania was an equal partner in the Commonwealth...Poland-Lithuania ring a bell?


Prior to the marital union, Poland had been encroaching upon Lithuania militarily and for putatively religious reasons.



2)Germany invaded Poland, not the other way around, Germany lost the war, Poland was on the 'winning side'. Ever hear of Debellatio?


If Poland was a 'winner,' why didn't anyone speak up when the Soviets took the eastern regions? Poland was just a pawn in the hands of the major powers, and had been merely a pretense for Britain's war against Germany from the very beginning.



3)Lwow and the Eastern territories were stolen by the Soviets, we were 'allies' remember?
It was the Soviets who were mainly responsible for what the new map looks like today.


I recapitulate: if all of you were Allies, why did no one protest Soviet-forced border changes?



anyone who wants a massive border change and displace millions of people, today, is either a child, or completely insane.


Will you tell Ross this?

Despite Polish antipathy towards Germans and vice versa, Russia and the USSR have done everything to Poles that the Germans have done, and then some, yet you don't seem to display the same contempt towards Russian irredentism that you do towards the German counterpart. This in spite of the fact that while Russian Poland was Russian in political name only, German 'Poland' was actually majority German in most places.

bocian
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 01:36 AM
So, to whom had the lands belonged before the 11th century?

Definitely to Slavic tribes.


Prior to the marital union, Poland had been encroaching upon Lithuania militarily and for putatively religious reasons.

Nothing compared to what the Germans were doing, and again this was a direct result of colonization and Germanization in the West. We're going in circles. Put it this way, had the Germans succeeded with their attempts at expansion into Lithuania, there probably wouldnt be neither a Lithuania or Lithuanians today, just like with Prussians. Now do you see the difference between Polish and German 'Christianization'?



If Poland was a 'winner,' why didn't anyone speak up when the Soviets took the eastern regions?

You can ask your blood brothers the British, French and Americans.


Poland was just a pawn in the hands of the major powers, and had been merely a pretense for Britain's war against Germany from the very beginning.

Well, it's difficult not to be a pawn, when you have just recovered your freedom after 123 years, have not a single friend on your border, have just successfully defeated the Red Army, and are desperately looking for a 'friend' in the west. Britain and France seemed a lot better than Germany and USSR.

Why is it that the Brits didn't attack right away?



I recapitulate: if all of you were Allies, why did no one protest Soviet-forced border changes?

Cowardice, socialist governments/parties, ummm....because they were allies, and Poland was paralyzed while the USSR was the most powerful military machine in Europe. On whose 'good side' would you want to be on?

If by that question you mean Poland, then you better believe that the millions of expelled citizens protested.


Will you tell Ross this?

Ross is an adult, I am in no position to tell him anything.


Despite Polish antipathy towards Germans and vice versa, Russia and the USSR have done everything to Poles that the Germans have done,

I have never denied this.


, yet you don't seem to display the same contempt towards Russian irredentism that you do towards the German counterpart.

Me personally. Most Poles have basically the same feelings towards both Russians and Germans. However, having met many Russians, talked to them, knowing how much they suffered, seeing the similarities and culture etc. Naturally I identify with my Slavic family more. Russians don't throw around words like 'sub-human' when referring to Poles, unlike Germans.


This in spite of the fact that while Russian Poland was Russian in political name only,

true


German 'Poland' was actually majority German in most places.

So if Detroit is inhabited by a majority of Negroes, should it belong to Africa? If Kosovo is majority Albanian it should belong to Albania?

Germans shouldn't have been there in the first place, the Soviets and her allies decided the new map, Germany lost the war, end of story.

We've discussed this already, and we're going in circles.

Stríbog
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 02:30 AM
Definitely to Slavic tribes.


Obviously. I was asking if it was under Polish rule before the 11th century.



You can ask your blood brothers the British, French and Americans.


?



Why is it that the Brits didn't attack right away?


Attack Germany? Probably because they had bitten off more than they could chew by declaring war on Germany? Note that they once again had to enlist Jewish assistance to sucker the Americans into the war, to bail themselves out.



If by that question you mean Poland, then you better believe that the millions of expelled citizens protested.


No, I was referring to the Allies who in fact showed no concern for Poland's fate. Poland was not really an 'Ally' in any meaningful sense, so I don't see how they were entitled to enjoy the 'victor's spoils' by expelling German civilians.



Ross is an adult, I am in no position to tell him anything.



anyone who wants a massive border change and displace millions of people, today, is either a child, or completely insane.


Am I therefore to conclude that you believe Ross is insane?



Naturally I identify with my Slavic family more. Russians don't throw around words like 'sub-human' when referring to Poles, unlike Germans.


Hey, if eastern Germany is Slavic, then shouldn't you identify with them?

For people who identify with your 'Slavic' family, you guys talk quite a bit, whether serious or not, about partitioning Ukraine.

Polak
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 02:43 AM
No, I was referring to the Allies who in fact showed no concern for Poland's fate. Poland was not really an 'Ally' in any meaningful sense, so I don't see how they were entitled to enjoy the 'victor's spoils' by expelling German civilians.

You're babbling again Stribog.

Here's one instance:

Poles fought all over Europe, in the middle East, north Africa, and the eastern front, in the battle of Britain.

We sure as hell did more than the French.

Why wasn't Poland a meaningful ally? Please explain.

Stríbog
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 02:47 AM
You're babbling again Stribog.

Here's one instance:

Poles fought all over Europe, in the middle East, north Africa, and the eastern front, in the battle of Britain.

We sure as hell did more than the French.

Why wasn't Poland a meaningful ally? Please explain.

Poland was a pawn caught in the middle, like Romania.

My point was that if Poland was really so important, Britain a) would have declared war on the Soviets, who annexed the larger portion of Poland, as well as on the Germans
and b) would have opposed Soviet annexation of eastern Polish regions at the end of the war

Polak
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 02:47 AM
LOL

What a comment...I can't get over it.

Both my grandfathers fought the Germans...one in the east, and the other in the west.

Why weren't they entitled to the victor's spoils??? They were victors, after all. And guess what, they fought on the allies' side. I though I'd mention that just in case you thought there was a third block they could've fought for.

LOL

bocian
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 02:55 AM
Obviously. I was asking if it was under Polish rule before the 11th century.

Probably under Piast rule. Definitely not Ukrainian, there was no such thing.


Attack Germany? Probably because they had bitten off more than they could chew by declaring war on Germany? Note that they once again had to enlist Jewish assistance to sucker the Americans into the war, to bail themselves out.

You say that Britain was desperate for war, do you know when Britain actually began fighting?


No, I was referring to the Allies who in fact showed no concern for Poland's fate. Poland was not really an 'Ally' in any meaningful sense, so I don't see how they were entitled to enjoy the 'victor's spoils' by expelling German civilians.

Poland was an Ally, it simply got fucked up the ass by it's allies. Get it?



Am I therefore to conclude that you believe Ross is insane?

What does Ross have to do with any of this? Are you obsessed with Ross?



Hey, if eastern Germany is Slavic, then shouldn't you identify with them?

Most are no longer culturally Slavic, only by blood. Unfortunately, most have been thoroughly Germanized. Culture is far more important to me.


For people who identify with your 'Slavic' family, you guys talk quite a bit, whether serious or not, about partitioning Ukraine.

I have never suggested anything of the sort. You're confusing me with Ross.

bocian
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 03:11 AM
Poland was a pawn caught in the middle, like Romania.

My point was that if Poland was really so important, Britain a) would have declared war on the Soviets, who annexed the larger portion of Poland, as well as on the Germans
and b) would have opposed Soviet annexation of eastern Polish regions at the end of the war

Pawn or not, Poles fought on every front, and, as Polak pointed out, did more than the French, and helped save Britain. You should read "The Kosciuszko Squadron" written by Brits.

Please explain why they weren't an ally?

yamato
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 05:20 PM
dirk nowtzki, a german draftee of the dallas mavericks (NBA) is most likely a german slav.

http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/j/msnbc/Components/Photos/041202/041202_mavericks_vmed_9p.vlarge.jpg

andreas wisniewski, a german actor born in berlin, is definately another one.http://www.jamesbondmm.co.uk/images/bond-villains/tld/aw004.jpg

to me they all look pretty "extreme nordic" if there was such a thing

Zyklop
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 05:50 PM
dirk nowtzki, a german draftee of the dallas mavericks (NBA) is most likely a german slav.

Actually, all that his family name suggests is that the oldest male ancestor in his paternal line at the time when family names were introduced was Slavic.:anieyes
He can be 15/16 German and still have a Slavic family name.

Zyklop
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 08:13 PM
http://forums.skadi.net/attachment.php?attachmentid=28687&stc=1

http://forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?p=24848

Aistulf
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 10:38 PM
to me they all look pretty "extreme nordic" if there was such a thing
No it doesn't exist, at least, not among any Mongoloid race ;)

Tore
Wednesday, December 29th, 2004, 10:46 PM
I have never suggested anything of the sort. You're confusing me with Ross.

You're lucky Slavanthro is now defunct, otherwise I wouldn't hesitate to provide the quote.

Dr. Solar Wolff
Thursday, December 30th, 2004, 12:45 AM
My limited understanding of Euopean history is that the Baltic coast from Gdansk to Hamburg has been Germanic, Slavic, Germanic, Slavic and now half and half in recorded history. So what is the problem here? Are we talking genes or ethnic issues because no matter what the ethnic group in a certain part of this area calls itself, it is almost certain that it has absorbed some genes of the previous population for one of many reasons. This is nothing new, this is the way humans are.

bocian
Thursday, December 30th, 2004, 12:53 AM
You're lucky Slavanthro is now defunct, otherwise I wouldn't hesitate to provide the quote.

I'm lucky? Have a kit kat.

I might have jokingly said something, but I never suggested Ukraina should be partitioned by Poland and Russia, all I said is that Lwow should be Polish (if we lived in a perfect world), but not that I actually endorse the idea in this day and age.

Either I misread Stribog's post or he changed it after I replied, and did not take into account some passing half-hearted joke of a remark into account.

Relax. I stood up for Ukrainians more than anyone else on SAF did.

bocian
Thursday, December 30th, 2004, 01:05 AM
My limited understanding of Euopean history is that the Baltic coast from Gdansk to Hamburg has been Germanic, Slavic, Germanic, Slavic and now half and half in recorded history.

Then your knowledge is limited. End of story.

Aistulf
Thursday, December 30th, 2004, 01:55 AM
I think there has been more Germanic influence in Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, as relatively prosperous Eastern European, nations than the other way around.

A Russian I know, and very openminded one (in a non-multiculturalist sense), says most Polacks are infact not completely Slavic. Not that it'd make a difference, judging by the participants, way the way and direction this discussion has gone, but 'just saying' though...


I'll get back on this subject later though, maybe tomorrow.

Tore
Thursday, December 30th, 2004, 02:14 AM
I might have jokingly said something,

Fair enough, but why not come clean in the first place?

After all, Stribog's initial post did read:


For people who identify with your 'Slavic' family, you guys talk quite a bit, whether serious or not, about partitioning Ukraine.

Polak
Thursday, December 30th, 2004, 02:27 AM
I think there has been more Germanic influence in Poland, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, as relatively prosperous Eastern European, nations than the other way around.

A Russian I know, and very openminded one (in a non-multiculturalist sense), says most Polacks are infact not completely Slavic. Not that it'd make a difference, judging by the participants, way the way and direction this discussion has gone, but 'just saying' though...


I'll get back on this subject later though, maybe tomorrow.


Wow, some guy you know said so?

Gee, I guess I better change my "meta-ethnicity" in my profile to Germanic.

Man, all these years I thought I was a Slav...damn...I hate how these things just sneak up on you...

Bluterbe
Thursday, December 30th, 2004, 04:19 AM
1) Wroclaw was Polish first, Lwow was probably Polish first, definitely not Ukrainian.

3)Lwow and the Eastern territories were stolen by the Soviets, we were 'allies' remember?
Wroclaw was at first part of the germanic-teutonic settlement. At the germanic movement in the west, the slaves came from the east. The slaves mixt with germanic population and take many words from the germanics like slesia, bohemia (that took the germanics some hundred years ago from the celts :D ), mähren, rügen, rutenen, etc. So the the germans settled in a land, that was germanic land with germanic-slavic mix-population and made it to a part of the germanic world again.

To Lvov. Yes, its true that Lvov was polish, like the other big polish exklave brest-Litowsk, but the rest of the polish east was lithunian, white-russian and ukrainian. The annection from the sovjet-russians was an other thing as the annection from the german east through the poles, because the german east was german and the polish east was not polish!
The east-borders aren't correct painting, because poland should have the region of lvov and of brest, but ukraine should have the region of south of Przesyml, because its a historicaly and ethnical ruthenian-ukrainian region.

We should make new borders in interessting of all white nations, if we will have smashed those fucking governments under judeo-capitalist control to Tel Aviv!

Hail Germany, hail europe!

yamato
Thursday, December 30th, 2004, 05:03 AM
wasn't the orginal name of wroclaw, breslau? before the communists changed it after WWII. and a host of another western polish cities, Stettin (Sczecin nowdays), Danzig, which is Gdansk, to name a few

Bluterbe
Thursday, December 30th, 2004, 06:16 AM
Yes, its right, in german we say "Breslau" :)

Pluspol
Thursday, December 30th, 2004, 06:53 AM
No, the city now known as Wroclaw was originally called Wrocislaw, and later became Wroclaw. It was originally a Slavic settlement. It was Polish before it was ever German, and it was called Wroclaw before it was ever called Breslau.

Gdansk was originally referred to as Gyddanyzc, and later became Gdansk. It was originally a Slavic settlement. It was Polish before it was ever German, and it was called Gdansk before it was ever called Danzig.

Szczecin was originally called what it is now. It was originally a Slavic settlement. It was Polish before it was ever German, and it was called Szczecin before it was ever called Stettin.



In short, Gdansk, Szczecin and Wroclaw were originally Slavic - and Danzig, Stettin and Breslau are/were Germanic corruptions of the original Slavic names. Part of Poland, they only fell into German hands later.

Stríbog
Thursday, December 30th, 2004, 08:52 AM
You say that Britain was desperate for war, do you know when Britain actually began fighting?

Naval combat in the Atlantic commenced immediately upon declaration of war.


What does Ross have to do with any of this? Are you obsessed with Ross?

You said only children or the insane demand population transfers or expulsions in this day and age. Ross repeatedly advocates both. Ross is also someone you respect and apparently admire.

Ross has advocated:

Russian annexation of the Baltic states, and expulsion of the inhabitants
Russian annexation of Ukraine or large portions thereof
The murder of all Germans

to name a few of his positions. Yet you wanted him back at Slavanthro and laughed along with him during the discussion about repartitioning Ukraine.
Why, you even mentioned him yourself!


I have never suggested anything of the sort. You're confusing me with Ross.


Culture is far more important to me.

Obviously... so can Germans become Poles?

Stríbog
Thursday, December 30th, 2004, 08:58 AM
Pawn or not, Poles fought on every front

Hooray for them.


and, as Polak pointed out, did more than the French,

Wow, that's really an accomplishment. Didn't they both fall in a matter of weeks?


and helped save Britain.

Wonderful. The British were an avaricious nation of international financiers, imperialists and philo-Semites. Why was saving them a good thing? For that matter, Poland assisted in the achievement of total Zionist world domination. Slawa!


You should read "The Kosciuszko Squadron" written by Brits.

Naturally. Britain loves to stick up for her gallant ally Poland in words. It's when it comes to actions that they really don't care.

Are you proud of Poland being part of the War on Terror too?

Stríbog
Thursday, December 30th, 2004, 09:04 AM
Relax. I stood up for Ukrainians more than anyone else on SAF did.

Funny, I remember Tore doing this far more than you. At any rate, I at least was willing to clash with Ross over his absurd opinions on Ukraine and the Baltic; you apparently admire him too much to do so. This in spite of the fact that he has expressed his desire to restore the Russian empire and/or USSR, both of which historically included large regions of Polish territory.

Your hypocrisy is evidenced by your exaltation of Ross for the very traits that you despire in Dr. Brandt.

I will also remind you that at Slavanthro Polak made remarks, similar to yours about Lwow, about all of Lithuania rightfully being Polish.

Polak
Thursday, December 30th, 2004, 09:57 AM
Wroclaw was at first part of the germanic-teutonic settlement. At the germanic movement in the west, the slaves came from the east. The slaves mixt with germanic population and take many words from the germanics like slesia, bohemia (that took the germanics some hundred years ago from the celts :D ), mähren, rügen, rutenen, etc. So the the germans settled in a land, that was germanic land with germanic-slavic mix-population and made it to a part of the germanic world again.

To Lvov. Yes, its true that Lvov was polish, like the other big polish exklave brest-Litowsk, but the rest of the polish east was lithunian, white-russian and ukrainian. The annection from the sovjet-russians was an other thing as the annection from the german east through the poles, because the german east was german and the polish east was not polish!
The east-borders aren't correct painting, because poland should have the region of lvov and of brest, but ukraine should have the region of south of Przesyml, because its a historicaly and ethnical ruthenian-ukrainian region.

We should make new borders in interessting of all white nations, if we will have smashed those fucking governments under judeo-capitalist control to Tel Aviv!

Hail Germany, hail europe!


Actually, Wroclaw (Breslau) was founded by Slavs.

Nothing you can say now can change that fact.

Poland was the first state to legally rule over that land too.

Germanic tribes only moved through the area before the Polish Kingdom appeared. Not only that, but they did not have a state, and they certainly had no connection to the German state that was to form from different Germanic tribes.

So, try again.

Btw, most cities in eastern Germany were also founded by Slavs...like Dresden and Berlin. Bwahahaha...

Polak
Thursday, December 30th, 2004, 12:08 PM
wasn't the orginal name of wroclaw, breslau? before the communists changed it after WWII. and a host of another western polish cities, Stettin (Sczecin nowdays), Danzig, which is Gdansk, to name a few


So you think Polish borders stretched to the Oder only after WWII?

Please get a clue, and a basic education, before posting anything else in this thread.

bocian
Thursday, December 30th, 2004, 12:09 PM
Fair enough, but why not come clean in the first place?

After all, Stribog's initial post did read:

I might have misread it.

As I said earlier, I stood up for Ukrainians a lot.

Polak
Thursday, December 30th, 2004, 12:15 PM
Hooray for them.



Wow, that's really an accomplishment. Didn't they both fall in a matter of weeks?



Wonderful. The British were an avaricious nation of international financiers, imperialists and philo-Semites. Why was saving them a good thing? For that matter, Poland assisted in the achievement of total Zionist world domination. Slawa!



Naturally. Britain loves to stick up for her gallant ally Poland in words. It's when it comes to actions that they really don't care.

Are you proud of Poland being part of the War on Terror too?



What is your problem?

Don't you know anything about the Polish war effort. I mean, even someone like you, with little interest in the subject, must've come across some information on the topic? No?

Poles were fighting Germans, and beating them, even after Poland "fell".

Join Yakamato, or whatever his name is, in the library.

Bluterbe
Thursday, December 30th, 2004, 08:14 PM
The difference is, that the germans in their 1000 year ago middle age expansion and re-germanisation assimilated the slaves and that the slaves deported and killed the germans out of the land!
That is the difference, that wrotes the right for the german population on this land for every time in blood!

Hail Victory!

Odin Biggles
Friday, December 31st, 2004, 03:08 AM
Hooray for them. Yes hooray for them, they were a vital asset in the RAF.


Wonderful. The British were an avaricious nation of international financiers, imperialists and philo-Semites. Why was saving them a good thing? For that matter, Poland assisted in the achievement of total Zionist world domination. Slawa!
Because Britain was fighting Nazi Germany, by escaping to Britain the former military personal could carry on the fight using British armaments and fighting with us against Germany.

Britain invaded and defeated = Nazis concentrate on USSR, if USSR defeated, Hellooooo USA !.


Naturally. Britain loves to stick up for her gallant ally Poland in words. It's when it comes to actions that they really don't care. What the hell are you on about ? We entered the war after Poland was invaded ? And what do you mean by actions ? War was obviously the last resort, diplomacy failed Hitler was obviously not one you could stop with words, i think your find any country would rather use diplomacy then war to try and settle something.

Odin Biggles
Friday, December 31st, 2004, 03:15 AM
Pawn or not, Poles fought on every front, and, as Polak pointed out, did more than the French, and helped save Britain. You should read "The Kosciuszko Squadron" written by Brits.

Please explain why they weren't an ally?
They were a good ally, but dont exaggerate their contribution ;).

bocian
Friday, December 31st, 2004, 03:45 AM
They were a good ally, but dont exaggerate their contribution ;).

Just for you Biggles: :)

Invasion:

On September 1st., 1939, 1.8 million German troops invaded Poland on three fronts; East Prussia in the north, Germany in the west and Slovakia in the south. They had 2600 tanks against the Polish 180, and over 2000 aircraft against the Polish 420. Their "Blitzkrieg" tactics, coupled with their bombing of defenceless towns and refugees, had never been seen before and, at first, caught the Poles off-guard. By September 14th. Warsaw was surrounded. At this stage the poles reacted, holding off the Germans at Kutno and regrouping behind the Wisla (Vistula) and Bzura rivers. Although Britain and France declared war on September 3rd. the Poles received no help - yet it had been agreed that the Poles should fight a defensive campaign for only 2 weeks during which time the Allies could get their forces together and attack from the west.
There are many "myths" that surround the September Campaign; the fictional Polish cavalry charges against German tanks (actually reported by the Italian press and used as propaganda by the Germans), the alleged destruction of the Polish Air Force on the ground, or claims that Polish armour failed to achieve any success against the invaders. In reality, and despite the fact that Poland was only just beginning to modernise her armed forces and had been forced (by Britain and France) to delay mobilisation (which they claimed might be interpreted as aggressive behaviour) so that, at the time of invasion, only about one-third of her total potential manpower was mobilised, Polish forces ensured that the September campaign was no "walk-over". The Wehrmacht had so under-rated Polish anti-tank capabilities (the Polish-designed anti-tank gun was one of the best in the world at that time) that they had gone into action with white "balkankreuz", or crosses, prominently displayed in eight locations; these crosses made excellent aiming points for Polish gun-sights and forced the Germans to radically rethink their national insignia, initially overpainting them in yellow and then, for their later campaigns, adopting the modified "balkankreuz" similar to that used by the Luftwaffe. The recently-designed 7TP "czolg lekki", or light tank, the first in the world to be designed with a diesel engine, proved to be superior to German tanks of the same class (the PzKpfw I and II) inflicting serious damage to the German forces, limited only by the fact that they were not used in concentrated groups. They were absorbed by the Germans into their own Panzer divisions at the end of the campaign.
On September 17th. Soviet forces invaded from the east. Warsaw surrendered 2 weeks later, the garrison on the Hel peninsula surrendered on October 2nd., and the Polesie Defence group, after fighting on two fronts against both German and Soviet forces, surrendered on October 5th. The Poles had held on for twice as long as had been expected and had done more damage to the Germans than the combined British and French forces were to do in 1940. The Germans lost 50,000 men, 697 planes and 993 tanks and armoured cars.
Thousands of soldiers and civilians managed to escape to France and Britain whilst many more went "underground" . A government-in-exile was formed with Wladyslaw Raczkiewicz as President and General Wladyslaw Sikorski as Prime Minister.

Fighting on all Fronts:

The Polish Army, Navy and Air Force reorganised abroad and continued to fight the Germans. In fact they have the distinction of being the only nation to fight on every front in the War. In 1940 they fought in France, in the Norwegian campaign they earned a reputation for bravery at Narvik, and in Africa the Carpathian Brigade fought at Tobruk.
Polish Squadrons played an important role in the Battle of Britain, accounting for 12% of all German aircraft destroyed at the cost of 33 lives. By the end of the war they had flown a total of 86,527 sorties, lost 1669 men and shot down 500 German planes and 190 V1 rockets.
The Polish Navy, which had escaped intact, consisted of 60 vessels, including 2 cruisers, 9 destroyers and 5 submarines ( one of which was the famous "Orzel") which were involved in 665 actions at sea. The first German ship sunk in the war was sunk by Polish ships. The Navy also took part in the D-Day landings.
When the Soviet Union was attacked by Germany, in June 1941, Polish POWs were released from prison camps and set up an army headed by General Anders. Many civilians were taken under the protection of this army which was allowed to make its way to Persia (modern-day Iran) and then on to Egypt. This army, the Polish Second Corps, fought with distinction in Italy, their most notable victory being that at Monte Cassino, in May 1944, and which opened up the road to Rome for the Allies as a whole. One of the "heroes" of the Polish Second Corps was Wojtek, a brown bear adopted in Iran as their mascot; at Monte Cassino Wojtek actually helped in the fighting by carrying ammunition for the guns. He died, famous and well-loved, in Edinburgh Zoo in 1964, aged 22.
All the Polish forces took part in the Allied invasion of Europe and liberation of France, playing a particularly crucial role in the significant Battle of the Falaise Gap. The Polish Parachute Brigade took part in the disastrous Battle of Arnhem in Holland. In 1945, the Poles captured the German port of Wilhelmshaven.
In 1943 a division of Polish soldiers was formed in Russia under Soviet control and fought on the Eastern Front. They fought loyally alongside the Soviet troops, despite the suffering they had experienced in Soviet hands, and they distinguished themselves in breaking through the last German lines of defence, the "Pomeranian Rampart", in the fighting in Saxony and in the capture of Berlin.
The "Home Army", under the command of General Stefan Roweki (code-named "Grot"), and after his capture in 1943 (he was later murdered), by General Tadeusz Komorowski (code-named "Bor"), fought a very varied war; at times in open combat in brigade or division strength, at times involved in sabotage, often acting as execution squads eliminating German officials, and often fighting a psychological campaign against German military and civilians. It was a costly war since the Germans always took reprisals.
The Intelligence Service of the Home Army captured and sent parts of the V1 to London for examination, providing information on German military movements (giving advanced warning of the German plan to invade Russia), and gave the RAF full information about Peenemunde, where the Germans were producing V2 rockets.

Betrayal:

The crime of Katyn was discovered in 1943 and created a rift in Polish-Soviet relations. From now on the Home Army was attacked by Soviet propaganda as collaborating with the Germans and being called on to rise against the Germans once the Red Army reached the outskirts of Warsaw.
Secretly, at Teheran, the British and Americans agreed to letting the Russians profit from their invasion of Poland in 1939 and allowing them to keep the lands that had been absorbed. The "accidental" death of General Sikorski at this time helped keep protests at a minimum.
When the Russians crossed into Poland the Home Army cooperated in the fight against the Germans and contributed greatly to the victories at Lwow, Wilno and Lublin only to find themselves surrounded and disarmed by their "comrades-in-arms" and deported to labour camps in Siberia.
On August 1, 1944, with the Russian forces on the right bank of the Vistula, the Home Army rose in Warsaw; the Warsaw Rising. Heroic street-fighting involving the whole population, using the sewers as lines of communication and escape, under heavy bombardment, lasted for 63 days. The city was completely destroyed. Not only did the Russians cease to advance but they also refused to allow Allied planes to land on Russian airfields after dropping supplies. After surrendering many civilians and soldiers were executed or sent to concentration camps to be exterminated and Warsaw was razed to the ground.
The defeat in Warsaw destroyed the political and military institutions of the Polish underground and left the way open for a Soviet take-over.
With the liberation of Lublin in July 1944 a Russian-sponsored Polish Committee for National Liberation (a Communist Government in all but name) had been set up and the British had put great pressure, mostly unsuccessful, on the Government-in-exile to accept this status quo. At Yalta, in February 1945, the Allies put Poland within the Russian zone of influence in a post-war Europe. To most Poles the meaning of these two events was perfectly clear; Poland had been betrayed. At one stage the Polish Army, still fighting in Italy and Germany, was prepared to withdraw from the front lines in protest; after all, they were supposed to be fighting for Polish liberation. It is a reflection on Polish honour that no such withdrawal took place since it could leave large gaps in the front lines and so was considered too dangerous for their Allied comrades-in-arms.
The war ended on May 8th, 1945.

The Cost:

The Poles are the people who really lost the war.
Over half a million fighting men and women, and 6 million civilians (or 22% of the total population) died. About 50% of these were Polish Christians and 50% were Polish Jews. Approximately 5,384,000, or 89.9% of Polish war losses (Jews and Gentiles) were the victims of prisons, death camps, raids, executions, annihilation of ghettos, epidemics, starvation, excessive work and ill treatment. So many Poles were sent to concentration camps that virtually every family had someone close to them who had been tortured or murdered there.
There were one million war orphans and over half a million invalids.
The country lost 38% of its national assets (Britain lost 0.8%, France lost 1.5%). Half the country was swallowed up by the Soviet Union including the two great cultural centres of Lwow and Wilno.
Many Poles could not return to the country for which they has fought because they belonged to the "wrong" political group or came from eastern Poland and had thus become Soviet citizens. Others were arrested, tortured and imprisoned by the Soviet authorities for belonging to the Home Army.
Although "victors" they were not allowed to partake in victory celebrations.
Through fighting "For Our Freedom and Yours" they had exchanged one master for another and were, for many years to come, treated as "the enemy" by the very Allies who had betrayed them at Teheran and Yalta.

Polak
Friday, December 31st, 2004, 03:50 AM
What I think Biggles meant was that Polish pilots did not save Britian as such. They helped a lot, but to say Britain would fall without Polish help is a bit of a stretch. I would agree with that, but then again, who knows, it was a close call.

bocian
Friday, December 31st, 2004, 03:54 AM
What I think Biggles meant was that Polish pilots did not save Britian as such. They helped a lot, but to say Britain would fall without Polish help is a bit of a stretch. I would agree with that, but then again, who knows, it was a close call.

Sure, but what the heck. I did say "helped save"... ;)

Odin Biggles
Friday, December 31st, 2004, 04:26 AM
What I think Biggles meant was that Polish pilots did not save Britian as such. They helped a lot, but to say Britain would fall without Polish help is a bit of a stretch. I would agree with that, but then again, who knows, it was a close call.
That is what i meant.

:)

Utgard-Loki
Saturday, January 1st, 2005, 03:34 PM
Heil

From what i read in The Book "Rassenkunde des Deutschen Volkes"
by Dr. Hans Günther Germans can be divided in 4 greater Racial Types
Fälish, Nordid, Dinaric, Ostisch ( Slavic, Hindenburg Penotype ) and some
Med Influence.

I would guess in Poland the Ostische Typ would be the Majority.
Nonethless i guess the German vs Poland Hatred is not manly based on Racial
but rather on National Reasons.

The Biggest Problems in Germany today are in my Opinion the cultural alien
Turkish Population ( They also violate my aesthetic senses ), and our Gouverment.

-------------------------

"Der Anblick des Negers, besonders des
eleganten Negers, hat für den Weißen immer
etwas Lächerliches."

"Philosophie, überhaupt abstraktes denken war, wie schon gesagt
nicht die Sache der Neger, bei denen die Form Gottes sofort zur
Holzfigur wird..."

Claire Goll

Bluterbe
Saturday, January 1st, 2005, 05:21 PM
Obviously not enough, or you wouldn't be writing stuff like this.

"Wroclaw was at first part of the germanic-teutonic settlement."

I'm just curious, which parallel universe did this happen in?
Do you say, that the teutonics were not on this area?
Want you say, that the east-germanic tribes like burgunds, vandals, scirians, langobards, goths, etc. not exist?
Hahaha, you are a jocker :D

Polak
Sunday, January 2nd, 2005, 07:33 PM
Do you say, that the teutonics were not on this area?
Want you say, that the east-germanic tribes like burgunds, vandals, scirians, langobards, goths, etc. not exist?
Hahaha, you are a jocker :D


Again, I ask you, in which parallel universe did the Germans establish Wroclaw?

Bluterbe
Sunday, January 2nd, 2005, 08:50 PM
Its not matter on the fact, that the area belonged to germanic settlement and that the germans had the right to regermanic it :P

Bluterbe
Monday, January 3rd, 2005, 12:38 AM
They can re-build the infrastructur, that the poles and czechs damaged :D

Polak
Monday, January 3rd, 2005, 10:29 AM
Its not matter on the fact, that the area belonged to germanic settlement and that the germans had the right to regermanic it :P


First of all, learn to write in English before posting anything again.

Also, Wroclaw was established by Slavs, and it was a Polish city before it was a German city.

Moreover, Germanic does not equal German, and Poland was the first state to lay claim to that land.

Finally, the infrastructure in western Poland today, including in Wroclaw, is fine, and is much more developed than it was at the end of WWII.

And let me just mention that the infrastructure in the Czech Republic is as good, if not better, than in much of Germany.

These are all facts that you must come to terms with.

Bluterbe
Monday, January 3rd, 2005, 02:51 PM
I will make my english better, but the know how in english dont grow at woods ;)

Sure, I know that germanic and german is not the same, but I hadnt never wrote it. The Herritage of the germans is (mostly) germanic and the germans are with some other nations the sons and daughters from the ancient germanics.
The othe fact is, that the slavs that lived in the re-germanic territories were assimilated in the german nation. That means that the german nation had all people in their bloodline that ever lived in this areals. They were not deported or killed, like it the slavs did with the germans!
The slavs had no right on this areal, because not their fathers and mothers lived their, but this from the germans did!

The infrastructur at the borders of czechia is like trash. The places in germany that were bombed and never build up again looks better!

Zyklop
Friday, January 7th, 2005, 04:35 PM
Germany's historical heartland has been Slavic Böhmen.
I´m still waiting for an explanation. :anieyes

Iris
Wednesday, February 2nd, 2005, 10:08 PM
It's interesting when you look at the surnames in particular. For example, my mother's family, which came from former Hinterpommern have names that are not fully of German etymology, like Peske, Kressin, Radloff, Gramzow, Duenow, Neitzel.

Then there's my dad's family, that came from the area around Minden in Nordrhien-Westphalia and Schaumburg-Lippe. They're surnames include Roesner, Dehrberg, Steinmeyer, Breuer, and Lange

Todesritter
Wednesday, March 9th, 2005, 09:21 AM
Y-STR haplotypes from East Germany – differences between carriers of surnames of Germanic and
Slavic origin?


... Whilst most Slavic tribes (like the Prussians) ....

Uta-Dorothee Immel, Institut für Rechtsmedizin, Martin-Luther Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Franzosenweg 1, 06112
Halle/Saale, Email: uta.immel@medizin.uni-halle.de[/i]

http://www.yhrd.org/rcms/element/2249.pdf
Prussian = Slavic ? :scratch:

I am surprised no one pounced on the original article classifying Prussians as Slavs. Recent Prussians were a regional North German people along the South East of the Baltic, and formed a cultural area within Germany, and a state that eventually helped defeat Napoleon & became the unifier of the German lands, excluding Austria, Switzerland, and certain other notable areas in 1871; basically helping form modern Germany - less the portions sliced off as punishment for 2 lost World Wars including eventually Prussia itself. The Prussians were an aggregate of mostly North German settlers and it is said Dutch as well, which is why the dialect of German in that area ended up being so wacky. I have heard it spoken, and had a worse time understanding that than understanding my insane drunken Saxon taxi driver.

The Prussian name derives from the aboriginal people who lived there since ancient times, who apparently coexisted with the Goths when they migrated to the South East shore of the Baltic and settled there for a time, but were wiped out and assimilated when the Teutonic Knights were recruited to deal with the heathen Prussians who were making life hell for early medieval Poland. The last speakers of the aboriginal language died out several hundred years ago, but it looks as though it was a member of the Baltic language family, like Lithuanian. So, to make a long story short, it would make sense to classify Prussian as German, or maybe more anciently Baltic, but Slavic is a bizarre qualifier for the name.

I do know that the Tsarists and Stalinists had a desire to classify the Baltic family as merely an archaic form of Slavic, and therefore a Russian cultural & political prerogative, thereby justifying the Baltic states as provinces. These classifications have since been debunked however, Baltic being classified as a separate language family branch from its two closest siblings Germanic and Slavic. European Linguists now regard the Baltic languages as the least evolved/changed from the primordial Indo-Aryan language of any living language, so it is very useful for linguistic anthropology to better understand the movements and probable history of north European peoples through the analysis of linguistic drift in words.

norda
Wednesday, March 9th, 2005, 09:58 AM
Prussian = Slavic ? :scratch:

I am surprised no one pounced on the original article classifying Prussians as Slavs.
Where was it mentioned? :icon12:

Todesritter
Wednesday, March 9th, 2005, 10:12 AM
Where was it mentioned? :icon12:

Midway through the original post at the start of the thread.

"... Whilst most Slavic tribes (like the Prussians) com...."

norda
Wednesday, March 9th, 2005, 10:32 AM
Midway through the original post at the start of the thread.

"... Whilst most Slavic tribes (like the Prussians) com...."
It should be understand as alike.

Deling
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 01:35 AM
"I´m still waiting for an explanation."

Damn, it took me 7 months to react...

Well, historically speaking the heartland of the Germanies is located in an area around Prag - Wien. It's the inherited land of the Habsburgs, and thus the historical center of the Germanies.
The nation-state Germany of 1871+ is, of course, nothing else than Greater Prussia. Or was.
To me the Germanies were a diffuse region, with hundreds of smaller states, owned and inheritaged by whatever Habsburg imbecille emerging, with lots of different identities and ethnicites, from Siebenburg and Banat to Tyrolen, from Maas to Memel.
What I mean is that I see a conflict between the ethnical German nation (which demands the destruction of the heritages of the multi-ethnical Germanies) and the historical Germany (with its hundreds of states, sovereignities, ethnicities and identities).
Today Germany is a German NATION, however a vassal state, but German entrance on the European arena, is two-fold:

1) Either bind together the regions of Central-Western Europe, like Prussia did with the other German states (zollverein, a.e); 'Deutschlands Europäische Sendung' in its most ancient form ('First Reich').
2) German ethnical state; protectionist, non-expansionist, non-interventionist.

Either a pan-ethnical European message, or no message at all, is Germany's way now and in the future. Habsburg multi-ethnical 'Mitteleuropa' with Wien and Prag as symbols, or German nation. These are the choices: German nation + expansionism is not an option.

Well, on topic again: Racially I have no idea if Germans 'originate' in Böhmen-Mähren, if that's what you reacted to.

Scholar
Tuesday, July 26th, 2005, 04:07 AM
I agree Deling, very true. I remember that "Germany" or the Holy Roman Empire was comprised of over 300 seperate city states during and up to the mid 1800's. Otto Von bismarck united the city states not only to gain power but to rival France and Great Britian as a world power. Germany could not have stood a chance separated and hence unified. This unification came at a cost however; Germany became a country which was somewhat heterogeneous. This of course explains the proposed "Slavic Germany", even though Slavic is just a name given to the language in eastern europe...

Glenlivet
Thursday, July 28th, 2005, 06:32 PM
Maybe I have misunderstood you. Not all of Eastern Europe is Slavic and I think Slavic is more than just a group of languages.



This of course explains the proposed "Slavic Germany", even though Slavic is just a name given to the language in eastern europe...

Huzar
Thursday, July 28th, 2005, 06:39 PM
Maybe I have misunderstood you. Not all of Eastern Europe is Slavic and I think Slavic is more than just a group of languages.

More than a language ? I've never heard "Slavic" being a race. A dinaric Croatian is as slav as a baltic Russian. Or not ?

Glenlivet
Thursday, July 28th, 2005, 07:06 PM
I was actually thinking of culture and identity. I did not mention race. But if you want to speak of race, the original Slavs have been described as Nordids (to be precise, mainly of higher-skulled East-Nordid variants). Look in Schwidetzky, Ilse, B Chiarelli & Olga Necrasov eds. PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY OF EUROPEAN POPULATIONS, 1980. You may not see the same terminology used in modern works, but they mean the same.

There are also genetic differences between populations (haplogroup frequencies).

Lundman found a low Slavic influence in Germany, also east of Elbe (but more than the west). He based it mainly on higher skull and blood group B. He compared western Germany to eastern Germany and western Poland.

The studies cited by Polak may indicate that the Slavic element was larger than what Lundman thought.



More than a language ? I've never heard "Slavic" being a race. A dinaric Croatian is as slav as a baltic Russian. Or not ?

Huzar
Thursday, July 28th, 2005, 07:36 PM
I was actually thinking of culture and identity. I did not mention race. But if you want to speak of race, the original Slavs have been described as Nordids (to be precise, mainly of higher-skulled East-Nordid variants). Look in Schwidetzky, Ilse, B Chiarelli & Olga Necrasov eds. PHYSICAL ANTHROPOLOGY OF EUROPEAN POPULATIONS, 1980. You may not see the same terminology used in modern works, but they mean the same.

Oh, excuse me,before i've misinterpretood, . If it's so, three of the four european metaethnicity (i mean Germanics, Celtics, and Slavs) were originally nordid. Anyway, i find this kind of reasonments interesting, but , honestly, vaguely dangerous too. Perhaps, you can understand the reason. If ancient slavs and celts were nordid, then, someone could say, all modern, not nordid slavic and celtic , derived population aren't real slavs and celts, rather only slavicized and celtized, therefore "B-series" slavs etc.........

Glenlivet
Thursday, July 28th, 2005, 07:43 PM
I do not claim anything. I only reiterate what I have read. Several authors have actually mentioned that all of the aforementioned groups were predominantly Nordid. Some have included Baltic. Nordenstreng, a Swedish ethnologist (with also knowledge in physical anthropology) believed they were once more similar. He claimed they split up relatively late.

I do see the danger.

There are other credible sources like Denisova that linked populations in Northern Europe that are nowadays differentiated by different political systems, languages and borders.

"That could mean that during the Mesolithic period, an anthropologically similar group of peoples lived from the Netherlands in the West to the Middle Russian highlands to the East. Local residents may have been possessed of the morphological elements of ancient Northern European peoples, whose roots were linked to the late Paleolithic populations of Europe."

http://vip.latnet.lv/hss/denisova.htm

Do you know if Biasutti wrote anything about what we are discussing?



Oh, excuse me, but i've misinterpretood. If it's so, three of the four european metaethnicity (i mean Germanics, Celtics, and Slavs) were originally nordid. Anyway, i find this kind of reasonments interesting, but , honestly, vaguely dangerous too. Perhaps, you can understand the reason. If ancient slavs and celts were nordid, then, someone could say, all modern, not nordid slavic and celtic , derived population aren't real slavs and celts, rather only slavicized and celtized, therefore "B-series" slavs etc.........

Huzar
Thursday, July 28th, 2005, 08:39 PM
I do not claim anything. I only reiterate what I have read. Several authors have actually mentioned that all of the aforementioned groups were predominantly Nordid. Some have included Baltic. Nordenstreng, a Swedish ethnologist (with also knowledge in physical anthropology) believed they were once more similar. He claimed they split up relatively late.
I do see the danger.Do you know if Biasutti wrote anything about what we are discussing?

Of course you don't claim that. I'm not saying this. I'm glad you see the subtle danger. I'll search Bisutti material about the thing

Scholar
Thursday, July 28th, 2005, 09:07 PM
Let me clarify myself. Eastern Europe is not homogeneous (nor is Germany) and the majority speak a slavic language, that's all. ;)

Hagalaz
Thursday, July 28th, 2005, 10:27 PM
This thread has given me a good idea for a political comic.

It would show some Germans and Poles arguing at the German-Polish boarder while from the south a long train of Turk immigrants are coming in behind their backs...

To prove that there are more important issues to put your efforts towards... I cannot tell you how many threads/posts I've seen with topics about Slavs vs Germans. Oh if past Slavic blood in Germany was the only thing we had to worry about...

Northern Paladin
Saturday, August 6th, 2005, 05:52 PM
Germany will forever remain a core Germanic country. A few traces of slavic blood doesn't mean anything. Slavic isn't a race anyways.

Huzar
Monday, August 8th, 2005, 08:34 AM
I agree on the fact that Slavic race isn't a race, rather a cultural group. Again, i agree that some traces of polish blood don't mean nothing.


Altough, i repeat : i brlieve that Germany (like all the western world) has much greater problems than some old polish-Germanic conflict ; i'm speaking of millions of Turks and one day, millions of asians and much worse, Africans.............:thumbdown

Nuke_Dukem
Friday, August 12th, 2005, 04:07 PM
Germany will forever remain a core Germanic country. A few traces of slavic blood doesn't mean anything. Slavic isn't a race anyway.


I don't think the lusatians and Veleti could be considered traces, nor could slavic influence from the time of the lithuanian-polan commonwealth, or even from the commie russians be considered non-substantial. Personally I could care less since Im from abroad and am english in origin, who were already european outcasts to begin with.

Aragorn
Sunday, August 14th, 2005, 07:48 PM
Germany will forever remain German, and the lost terrotories in the east, now occupied by the Slavs, will return one day back to the Reich. Germany will only be complete, alive and fully united when Germany will include Breslau, Posen, Danzig, Koenigsberg, Karlsbad and Memel. Present day Germany is just an joke, nothing more and nothing less. Germany needs the support of her Germanic brother nations. Poland is situaded on ancient Germanic land. In Roman times, Poland, Bohemia-Moravia and western Ukraine was populated by Germanic tribes. So, if anyone can claim these land it will be only the German people, and not the Poles. Poles came from the Pripyet-marshes in Bela-Rus, there is their ancestral homeland, there is where Poland should be exist. Poles should start learn their history. They know very well that they are responsible for the troubles between Germans and Poles, Poles and Lithuanians, Poles and Ukrains, Poles and Russians. Before the Polish participations, Polish imprialism came such far to burn Moscow by the polacks.

Polak
Tuesday, August 16th, 2005, 12:50 PM
Blah, blah, blah....


We therefore conclude that Y-chromosome differences between Eastern and Western Germany might be more likely due to more ancient events in the history of European populations, namely a higher eastern European (i.e. Slavic) influence in Eastern (but less in Western) Germany and the higher western European influence in Western (but less in Eastern) Germany. A strong Slavic influence on todays Eastern German territory is well documented, e.g. by the Slavic names of many villages or towns that are not found in Western Germany or by the higher frequency of surnames with Slavic origin in Eastern Germany compared with Western Germany.

From: Significant genetic differentiation between Poland and Germany follows present-day political borders, as revealed by Y-chromosome analysis

Austrvegr
Thursday, August 18th, 2005, 10:59 AM
Most reputable scholars place the Slavonic Urheimat in the present-day Poland, around the Vistula, where Venedi are mentioned as early as the 1st and 2nd centuries AD by Pliny the Elder, Tacitus and Claudius Ptolemy.
Before the Slavonic colonization began in the 6th century AD, the Pripyet marshes were inhabited by the Balts.

Aragorn
Thursday, August 18th, 2005, 10:49 PM
Ofcourse we Europeans have now greater problems then border-issues. We need to deal with the islam, lefties and darkies, but still, if anyone thinks that the present-day borders in Europe is without problems, he is just an dreamer. The borders of Europe have been created by France, Britain and U.S.A, and these borders must change. Germany has the right to claim her 1914 borders, included Ostmark and Sudetenland, Flanders has the right to leave the Belgian prison and return home in the Dutch house and together we have all the right to claim southern-Flanders, now under French occupation.And so are there much more issues in Europe: Norhern Ireland, Siebenburgen, Trans-Dnestria, Catalunya, Kosovo, Srpska, Karelia, Ruthenia, Istria, Basque, Elsass-Lothringen, Vojvodina, Crimea etc, etc.

Aleksander D. G
Friday, August 19th, 2005, 05:55 AM
I imagine that the Jews used the same exact words when thye were trying to convince them selfs that they somehow own Israel.

All the land that was once lost was lost and Germany will only be able to take it back By force But I doubt the Pol arese going to make it easy.
But they will also have bigger Problem Called Russia pushing them from the other Side.

But its all Irrelevant You folks now have a European Union to worry about.
Its destined to mould all of you together into one big lump and take away your Historical and National Pride and then add Turks into the Mix so you al turn Islamic.

Hagalaz
Saturday, August 20th, 2005, 08:13 PM
Poland is situaded on ancient Germanic land. etc etc etc

Hell, the whole of indo-europeans are invaders themselves. A good part of Germany was once Celtic lands too if you want to go back to ancient times when the germanic tribes came about, so lets get those austrians and the swiss deported so we can re-establish our celtic empire :oanieyes

http://tinypic.com/avhaig.gif


Germany will only be complete, alive and fully united when Germany will include ...Koenigsberg...

The land of Koenigsberg was Prussian land to begin with, not Germany's.

Anyways, good luck with your reich.

Aragorn
Sunday, August 21st, 2005, 11:43 AM
@formyfatherland....

Do you consider yourself as an pan-Germanist?
If so, where is your loyality towards the German people?

East-Prussia was Prussian indeed, not SLAVIC. The Baltic Prussians where mixed with colonists from Netherlands, Flanders and basically all parts of Germany. That, my friend, makes the prussians to an German tribe, it makes them Germanic. The old Prussians where never Slavic to begin with, and poland haS NO right to controll east-Prussia. It is true, that certain part of Germany where celtic from its origin. So, what is the problem? Today, the Celts only inhabited Wales, Scotland, Ireland and Bretagne. Celtic Europe is ancient history, the Celts live isolated on the British Isles, and the Celts in Bretagne soffering great deal of assimilation from France. The Celts will never being able to controll those areas on the European mainland, or even England itself, they are to small and to weak for it. On the other hand, Germany and the Germanic nations are larger, and with the right leadership in these nations, we will be able to change the map of Europe for good. Germany, in brotherhood with France and Russia, can clean Europe of from certain silly nations. Poland is one of these ridicolous nations, aswell, is Belgium, Czech republic etc,... Poland is ancient Germanic land, and this country belongs to Germany and the German people. An strong France in the west, an strong Germany in the middle, and an strong Russia in the east. Poland must stop interfering into European affairs, this nation must disapear from the face of the earth. The Sorbians in the Lausitz dont have an independent state, so why should Poles and Czechs have? There is not an independent Quebec, no independence for the Afrikaners, nor is it for the Padanians. Poles are troublemakers and always considered themselfs as victims of Germans and Russians. But what is the truth? Poles invaded Russia and burned Moscow, Poles idealized an greater Poland, which is from the northsea and Elbe to near Moscow. When Poland disappear the Germanics will have back they rightious land. Germans are no thiefs, they only take back what once belongs to them. Compare it with the Israeli-Palestinian conflicts. Germans are like Palestinians. They fight for their right to exist, they fight for their right, their freedom and their native land against an hostile and foreign population who doesnt own the land, who disturb the natural balance and who only think about taking more and more land. In 1918-1920 they took Upper-Silesia, West-Prussia and Posen. In 1945 they occupided Pommerania, Danzig, East-Prussia, east-Brandenburg and Silezia. What is next? Mecklenburg? Saxony and Thuringia? Berlin? Hamburg? Western Europe already dealing with the Polacken problem. Poles who come to take the jobs away, in eastern Germany they settle down, while Germans moved to the west. How much time will Poland need to Polonize eastern Germany peacefully under the lies of labour?

daskraut
Monday, August 22nd, 2005, 02:02 AM
I have been scanning this thread , I can not believe that some people think that "slavic" is not a race!. Even here in the mixing pot, you can spot a slav a mile away!. The asian type eyes, weak chin and sometimes big nose, these are not german traits. Some of you folks have been buying in to the crap my country has forced upon you. Their goal is to break apart the germanic race and "water down" the bloodline . They would love nothing more than to see more nordic/slavic unions with little pacified kids that vote green!.JUST SAY NO!!.

Hagalaz
Monday, August 22nd, 2005, 05:23 AM
I have been scanning this thread , I can not believe that some people think that "slavic" is not a race!. Even here in the mixing pot, you can spot a slav a mile away!. The asian type eyes, weak chin and sometimes big nose, these are not german traits. Some of you folks have been buying in to the crap my country has forced upon you. Their goal is to break apart the germanic race and "water down" the bloodline . They would love nothing more than to see more nordic/slavic unions with little pacified kids that vote green!.JUST SAY NO!!.

Opposing war/violence in Europe is somehow a bad thing? Just because I oppose war doesn't mean I support 'watering down' the bloodlines of the German folk. I support boarder control / anti-immigration and hope the Germans maintain their unique character both racially and culturally for the rest of time. Also, there are many Slavs who have strong chins, non-asiatic eyes, and straight average sized noses, not to mention there are ethnic Germans who are East-Baltic, Borreby, Dinaric, and Alpine who possess such 'non-desirable' traits, so you want to kick these people out of Germany too even though they're ethnic Germans? "Nordic-Slavic" There are Nordic Slavs and the original Slavs were Nordic. You're not making very much sense here.

ChrisDownUnder
Monday, August 22nd, 2005, 05:40 AM
What is next? Mecklenburg? Saxony and Thuringia? Berlin? Hamburg? Western Europe already dealing with the Polacken problem. Poles who come to take the jobs away, in eastern Germany they settle down, while Germans moved to the west. How much time will Poland need to Polonize eastern Germany peacefully under the lies of labour?It appears as if you are right Agnar.

See Deutsche Welle article: Poles Reverse German Land Grab (http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,1564,1685324,00.html)

Native Germans are moving West in search of jobs, whilst Poles happily grab up the cheap abandoned houses they have left behind in Western Pomerania. :mad

Hagalaz
Monday, August 22nd, 2005, 06:02 AM
I fully support deporting all Poles from current Germany and any other non-Polish nation. However, it is the governments of these nations to blame, not the people themselves. They will work because they want better living standards, that will happen with anyone. I do not blame the nations of China and Japan for overseas labor to the U.S. I blame the government of the U.S. for cheating out its people for profit - same type of situation.

Triglav
Wednesday, August 24th, 2005, 06:52 AM
so lets get those austrians and the swiss deported so we can re-establish our celtic empire

Celtic? You wish! Hail Ofnet! :D

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9259975&dopt=Abstract

Triglav
Wednesday, August 24th, 2005, 07:01 AM
I have been scanning this thread , I can not believe that some people think that "slavic" is not a race!.

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=science


Even here in the mixing pot, you can spot a slav a mile away!. The asian type eyes, weak chin and sometimes big nose, these are not german traits.

Funny, I don't actually see "asian type eyes" among my compatriots.

The other two traits frequently occur in all Europeans.


Some of you folks have been buying in to the crap my country has forced upon you. Their goal is to break apart the germanic race and "water down" the bloodline . They would love nothing more than to see more nordic/slavic unions with little pacified kids that vote green!.JUST SAY NO!!.

Yeah, in my neck of the woods you can also spot a fine Anglo-Saxon specimen like this one (that's at least what they would have you believe):

http://www.sapere.it/tc/img/medicina/2004/Articoli/2004/Nigger.jpg

Todesritter
Wednesday, August 24th, 2005, 07:39 AM
I have been scanning this thread , I can not believe that some people think that "slavic" is not a race!. Even here in the mixing pot, you can spot a slav a mile away!. The asian type eyes, weak chin and sometimes big nose, these are not german traits. Some of you folks have been buying in to the crap my country has forced upon you. Their goal is to break apart the germanic race and "water down" the bloodline . They would love nothing more than to see more nordic/slavic unions with little pacified kids that vote green!.JUST SAY NO!!.I agree....

I support deporting the Czechs from Bohemia and moving the entire Bavarian population there, as this was originally the ethnic heartland to the ancestor tribe of the Bavarians according to recent studies, and any members who have traces of other German ethnicities will be excluded, as we must keep the Bavarian "Race" pure...

Oh, wait, on second thought, even more recent studies have revealed Illyrian toponyms and archaeological evidence in Bohemia, so deport the Bavarians too, and put pure Celtic "Race" specimens in Bavaria, and pure Illyrians in Bohemia... What?! The closest surviving related "race" to the Illyrians are the Albanians, and they are already colonizing both Bavaria and Bohemia, displacing members of the Bavarian and Czech "Races", I guess our work is complete.....:pepper

Hmm... maybe I don't agree, or am confused about where this is going, or perhaps both.;)

Siegfried
Monday, October 24th, 2005, 10:14 AM
the original Slavs have been described as Nordids (to be precise, mainly of higher-skulled East-Nordid variants).


Three of the four european metaethnicity (i mean Germanics, Celtics, and Slavs) were originally nordid.

A bit by Coon:

"The Danish Iron Age crania form a homogeneous group. They belong definiiely in the same class with the other Iron Age Nordics of Lausitz Urnfields inspiration, and more particularly the purely long-headed element in the Keltic blend, for the low vault and cylindrical transverse profile of the Keltic crania are also common here. Except for the lesser breadth of head and face, and greater vault length, they closely resemble the Keltic crania of Gaul and of the British Isles, and those of the Scythians, while they are virtually identical with the Armenian Iron Age skulls discussed in the last section. The Danish Iron Age crania, then, are probably the same as those of the ancestral proto-Kelts before their arrival in southwestern Germany, and of the ancestors of the Scythians and eastern Iranians."

The Races of Europe, Chapter VI 'The Iron Age', section 6 'The Germanic peoples'


I think the early Indo-Europeans in general had a fairly strong Nordoid element.

Nasciturus
Monday, October 24th, 2005, 05:20 PM
"Germany will include Breslau, Posen, Danzig, Koenigsberg, Karlsbad and Memel. Present day Germany is just an joke, nothing more and nothing less. "

I agree that there was more Germans in Danzgi/Gdansk then Poles before WWII. (Although the region of Gdansk, the Kashubian region, was strongly slavic). But nowadays mass deportation of Poles (included me, couse I'm polish/kashubian) is totaly wrong idea. There are no Germans here, now (apart from tourist from Germany:D ). Who is going to colonize Danzig? Turks from Germany? Do not forget, that Danzig/Gdansk was almost completly destroyed during WWII. Just look how the city looked after WWII:

http://sabaoth.infoserve.pl/danzig-online/index2.html

Poles rebuild Danzig/Gdanks. Now it looks like this:

http://www.pieknygdansk.gda.pl/galeria.html

Do you really think, that Poles will give Danzig/Gdansk just for free? I live my whole live in here. My Grandparents were Kashubian. Where should you deport me? At what cost? I really think that people that talk bull**** about mass deportation of Poles from Gdansk simply lost their contact with reality.
Pozdrav!

Jäger
Sunday, October 30th, 2005, 09:59 AM
Poles rebuild Danzig/Gdanks. Now it looks like this:

http://www.pieknygdansk.gda.pl/galeria.html
They just tried to rebuilt it to the once shiny city it was Danzig 1885 (http://www.ilexikon.com/images/0/0b/Danzig_Langen_Markt_und_Rathaus_%281890-1900%29.jpg).

To the original topic, we have many freshly immigrated slavs here in Germany, and indeed it is very easy to spot them, they just look different, and mostly very ugly to me.
I don't have a link right now, but there is a slavic museum in Brandenburg, it states that overall roughly 25% of germans can be seen as of slavic descent.
It is hard to tell how "slavic" they still are or whatever. But what I know is that I don't want anymore "slavic" people here, and Poland should try to get back to her roots in the east and retunr the german parts.
One way or another.

regards,
Karl

p.s.: "Wenn bei Danzig die polen flotte im Meer versinkt ..."

Nasciturus
Monday, October 31st, 2005, 04:59 PM
Gdansk/Danzig after WWII looked like in the picture.
Poles rebuild Gdansk from the ashes... And you expect us to return it to Germany? What for? ***
There are still working on rebuilding Gdansk. But as you can see, they did rather well...

http://www.weddingday.nl/Poland/northwest/Gdansk/images/044Gdansk_Dluga.jpg

http://img.mp.pl/articles/www/tchp/gda-noc.jpg

Nasciturus
Tuesday, November 1st, 2005, 12:08 PM
And apart from this, I do not think that Germany has enough human resourses to colonize those teritories. And what you are gonna do with me and millions of other Poles? My grandparents are Kashubian. They lived in Pomerania region for ages.

Bioblitzkrieg
Wednesday, November 9th, 2005, 01:00 AM
Its a shame in the face of shrinking populations and real foriegn immigration, that European people so vigorously fight one another over a few cities and border ethnic variations. Why do Slavs and Germanic peoples have such animosity to each other? because there both infused with strong levels of proto germanic stock, and cant stand the notion of the other being as good as themselves. Europeans didnt just pop up as romantic,germanic and slavic, all these peoples came from one mother root "proto celtic indo european", and depending on the proximity to other civilizations, progressed and took thier formation onto the european stage over incremental periods of time in an order following one another, to the early Greek explorers the italic peoples and those north of macedonia were "barbarians" obviously below thier level of civilization. Then when time passed and power shifted to rome, so north of the danube and east of the rhine did the "barbarians" live, with thier primitive and inferior ways, Then during the push east of christianity, it was the German kings who while christianizing and further populating lands east of the elbe saw beneath them inferior and pagan slavs who were ofcourse beneath them, and lets go further in time to the poles "with thier latin alphabet" crushing blows against the Rus of the east "with thier cirilic or maybe not even that yet", obviously a lower people since the better ones won the day, and again from those Rus pushing even further into the lands of the primitive and backwards, mainly very nordic looking Finns, other ugric peoples and into the asiatic borderlands, where they undeniably gained features from thier long history.


All im saying is your picking fights over a variation of near insiginificance while floods of turks and negroes come to our lands via the sympathy of those in denial and the greed of those we should put to death.

Siegfried
Monday, December 5th, 2005, 09:09 AM
Btw, most cities in eastern Germany were also founded by Slavs...like Dresden and Berlin. Bwahahaha...

Doesn't matter, really. Several cities in the Netherlands were founded by the Romans. Does that make their inhabitants Latin? Does it give Italy any right to claim these cities? Obviously not.

Hagalaz
Monday, December 5th, 2005, 10:24 AM
Doesn't matter, really. Several cities in the Netherlands were founded by the Romans. Does that make their inhabitants Latin? Does it give Italy any right to claim these cities? Obviously not.
I agree with Siegfried and I believe this is something quite common in Europe. For example, Ireland's major cities such as Dublin, Cork, Limerick, Waterford, Wexford, Strangford, Leixlip, Carlingford, Youghal, Howth, Dalkey and Fingall, were all founded by the Vikings, however these should forever remain Irish!

Horagalles
Monday, December 5th, 2005, 12:06 PM
Gdansk/Danzig after WWII looked like in the picture.
Poles rebuild Gdansk from the ashes... And you expect us to return it to Germany? What for? ***
There are still working on rebuilding Gdansk. But as you can see, they did rather well....
Since all the German cities are rebuilt by now despite the fact that many looked worse the Danzig, I'd say it was a big mistake to expell or kill the Germans living there.

The slavic myth is a false dilema basing on equivocations. Eastern Germans and Poles alike are for most part the descendants of Vandali only a part of them left for the Roman empire, the rest propably larger part remained.

Maikowski
Monday, December 5th, 2005, 01:20 PM
Danzig is and was a German city so talking about Polish "heroic" deeds rebuilding the city is meaningless. We do not care. You didnt care in 45.

Those Poles are sitting on German soil there and sooner or later this German city will be a part of Germany again.
If we own Danzig again, we have to rebuild most of the town anyway because we dont like Polish architecture.

And do not worry about recources, Germans know how to organize that.
It is only a matter of time and the will to do it.

Nordgau
Monday, December 5th, 2005, 08:45 PM
Btw, most cities in eastern Germany were also founded by Slavs...like Dresden and Berlin. Bwahahaha...

Doesn't matter, really. Several cities in the Netherlands were founded by the Romans. Does that make their inhabitants Latin? Does it give Italy any right to claim these cities? Obviously not.

Dresden as a town is a German foundation of the 12th century. It adopted the name from a pre-existing Wend village which first continued to exist as settlement outside of the town and was later absorbed by it.

Berlin and its sister town Cölln are German foundations also of the 12th century. Despite the popular slogan of Berlin starting its career as a fishing village, serious researchers of local history do not think and have no hint that the two town foundations connected to a pre-existing settlement.

bocian
Friday, December 29th, 2006, 03:55 PM
Interesting report
http://www.biotype.de/files/Immel_EJHG_06.pdf


Surnames vary substantially both between and within
European countries. In Germany, for example, although
the majority of the one million different surnames are
typically German (eg ‘Mu¨ller’, ‘Schmidt’ or ‘Berger’), names
with foreign roots are also abundant. The majority of the
latter are of Slavic origin18 (approximately 20%) and many
of them are easy to recognize by consonant combinations
that are otherwise unfamiliar to the German language.
Examples include the names of the German writer Kurt
Tucholsky and of the second author of this article. In many
cases, however, the foreign origin of a surname may not be
immediately apparent, as is the case, for example, for the
name of the 18th Century play writer Gotthold Ephraim
Lessing.



Surname groups were defined on the basis of
spelling, using certain combinations of consonants and
surname suffixes to categorize the origin of the name in
question. Suffixes ‘-er’, ‘-mann’ and ‘-burg’, for example,
are typically German whereas ‘-ke’, ‘-ka’, ‘-ow’ and ‘-ski’ are
typically Slavic. In addition, the root morphemes of
surnames were also examined. Examples for a Slavic root
comprise ‘Lessing’, which sounds German but was derived
from the Slavic expression for ‘forest settler’, and ‘Kafka’,
which in Czech means ‘jackdaw’. Mixed surnames include
both German and Slavic elements, that is, a German basis
and a Slavic ending, or vice versa (‘Wudtke’ or ‘Kuppke’).
These surnames are the result of a long parallel usage of
both German and Slavic languages in the eastern part of
Germany.


How can the profound stratification observed among East-
German male lineages and their correlation with surnames
be best explained? Although the name ‘Germany’ appears
to imply a homogenous origin of the German people, the
country has always been a gateway for migration, mostly
from east to west. The best documented wave of migration
was that of Eastern Germanic tribes and Slavs, driven by
the Huns, that led to the downfall of the Roman Empire. In
historic times, two major instances of assimilation of Slavic
people into the German nation occurred. Around 950 AD,
the German Empire started to put pressure upon the Slavic
peoples inhabiting large areas of what was to become, in
the mid of the 20th Century, the German Democratic
Republic.26 By 1100 AD, after more than 100 years of wars
and proselytization, the complete area of contemporary
Germany had come under the influence of the German
Empire. During the following centuries, most of the
non-Germanic tribes (like the Baltic Prussians) completely
abandoned their language, and their descendants are today
regarded as ‘typically German’. Only in a small area,
southeast of Berlin, known as the Lausitz, the Slavic speaking
Sorb people maintained their language and
culture, and their descendants today represent the only
recognized, non-immigrant minority in East Germany. In
any case, the names of many cities, including Berlin
(meaning ‘little swamp’), and some surnames, most
notably those of ‘typically Prussian’ nature like ‘von
Clausewitz’ or ‘Virchow’, still reflect the Slavic roots of
this part of Germany. The second major assimilation of
people with Slavic ancestry occurred during the Industrial
Revolution in the 19th Century. Thousands of people from
Eastern Europe migrated to theWest to work in the surging
industrial areas of Germany (Silesia, Ruhr-Area). Although
they brought their surnames with them, they nevertheless
became culturally amalgamated quite rapidly by the
German majority.
The Halle region is located exactly at the intersection
of the Germanic and Slavic spheres of influence of the
10th century, but it is also a traditional mining and
chemical industry area (Halle-Leipzig-Bitterfeld) that has
attracted Slavic workers during the Industrial Revolution.
Both of these factors should have had an impact upon
the male-specific genetic structure of the local population
where surnames of Germanic and Slavic origin are
about equally frequent. In terms of the relative importance
of the two historic instances for the observed correlation
between Y-STR haplotypes and surname characteristics,
it is interesting to note that surnames first
occurred in Europe in Venice during the 9th Century.
From there, the law of name bearing was adopted in France
and Catalonia in the 11th, and in England, and Western
and Southern Germany in the 12th Century. In the North
and East of Germany, the custom was practised no earlier
than the 15th Century and, in some rural regions,
surnames became fashionable only in the 18th century,
nearly 900 years after their first appearance in Europe.27,28
Furthermore, surnames frequently changed or became
modified until the beginning of the 19th century. Therefore,
it appears unlikely that the correlation between
surnames and Y-STR haplotypes observed in our study
dates back to the Middle Ages, but is more likely to be the
result of the immigration of industrial workers in the 19th
Century instead. In this respect, Central Europe appears to
differ from England and Ireland where patrilineally
inherited names are presumed to have a much deeper
rooting.14 – 17
Our results highlight the fact that the Y-chromosomal
genetic structure of modern Central European populations
is heterogeneous and that, particularly in East
Germany, the concomitant strata may be resolvable by
the consideration of surnames. This implies that future
studies targeted at more ancient population movements
inside or outside the region through the use of slowly
evolving Y-chromosomal markers (ie SNPs) may gain
efficiency from allotting the genotyping load according
to surnames.
http://i14.tinypic.com/4chyst3.jpg

Matches between the Y-STR Haplotype Reference Database and core Y-STR haplotypes of males with German or Mixed (top) and Slavic
(bottom) surnames.

Zyklop
Friday, December 29th, 2006, 04:06 PM
The second major assimilation of
people with Slavic ancestry occurred during the Industrial
Revolution in the 19th Century. Thousands of people from
Eastern Europe migrated to theWest to work in the surging
industrial areas of Germany (Silesia, Ruhr-Area). Although
they brought their surnames with them, they nevertheless
became culturally amalgamated quite rapidly by the
German majority.If you have a look at the low quality population of the Ruhr area this almost sounds cynical.

bocian
Friday, December 29th, 2006, 04:53 PM
If you have a look at the low quality population of the Ruhr area this almost sounds cynical.

Interesting.

Irmin
Friday, December 29th, 2006, 05:44 PM
If you have a look at the low quality population of the Ruhr area this almost sounds cynical.

What exactly is so bad with Ruhr population?

bocian
Friday, December 29th, 2006, 09:00 PM
Zyklop, I looked over that list of 140 most popular German surnames and found that there is in fact one that just reeks of Slavicness: Wenzel, #112 :D

I'm quite surprised by that considering that Slavic names were adopted to German in so many varying ways.

Liberator Germaniae
Friday, December 29th, 2006, 09:10 PM
What exactly is so bad with Ruhr population?

The Ruhrgebiet is largely populated by a certain superficial low-class type of Germans who often have Polish surnames and who traditionally used to vote for the Social-Democratic Party of Germany (SPD). Cities like Duisburg, Essen and Mülheim an der Ruhr might have had their day until WW II and even an upper class that owned and ran the industry, but what is left today is a soulless conurbation with mosques sprouting everywhere and which will loose some 800.000 inhabitants within the next few years. Even attempts to maintain the population level with so-called asylum-seekers etc were in vain.

Aptrgangr
Wednesday, June 18th, 2008, 07:45 PM
Even Lukas Podolski and Miroslav Klose are no Slavs, they're Volksdeutsche:

Sowohl Klose als auch Podolksi sind Volksdeutsche. Sprich Angehörige der deutschen Minderheit in Polen.
Die Familien Klose und Podolski sind in den achtziger Jahren als Spätaussiedler in die Bundesrepublik gekommen. Sie hatten Anspruch auf die Aufnahme in die Bundesrepublik, weil die Großeltern vor dem Krieg Reichsbürger waren.

Source: Süddeutsche Zeitung




Gruß,
Boche

Millions of Slavs were Reichsbürger, so I do not see your point. There is no contradiction being a Slav and a German at the same time. If Ballack and Podolski were entirely of Germanic origin, they would not have Slavic family names. BTW: Poland wants Podolski to hand over his Polish passport.

Loyalist
Wednesday, June 18th, 2008, 07:53 PM
Millions of Slavs were Reichsbürger, so I do not see your point. There is no contradiction being a Slav and a German at the same time. If Ballack and Podolski were entirely of Germanic origin, they would not have Slavic family names. BTW: Poland wants Podolski to hand over his Polish passport.

So an Irishman with an Anglicized surname is no longer of Celtic origin for that reason? Ridiculous logic; circumstances in Germany's east may have mandated alterations to the names of the individuals in question (Miroslav Klose was born Mirosław Kloze, for example), but that has no bearing on their genetic identity. Simply possessing a Slavic surname does not equate to like ancestry.

Aptrgangr
Wednesday, June 18th, 2008, 08:10 PM
So an Irishman with an Anglicized surname is no longer of Celtic origin for that reason?
Who said that?


Ridiculous logic; circumstances in Germany's east may have mandated alterations to the names of the individuals in question (Miroslav Klose was born Mirosław Kloze, for example), but that has no bearing on their genetic identity. Simply possessing a Slavic surname does not equate to like ancestry.
Germany's east has many people of Slavic origin, many regions were and are inhabitated by both, Germans of Germanic and Germans of Slavic origin. For me it is not difficult to see who has predomainantly Germanic, and who has predominantly Slavic ancestors - we may not forget both Germanics and Slavs partially share the same subraces though.
Having a Slavic surname is a very strong indicator for having Slavic ancestors, especially when coming from a predominantly Slavic counrty like Poland.

Boche
Wednesday, June 18th, 2008, 08:30 PM
Millions of Slavs were Reichsbürger, so I do not see your point. There is no contradiction being a Slav and a German at the same time. If Ballack and Podolski were entirely of Germanic origin, they would not have Slavic family names. BTW: Poland wants Podolski to hand over his Polish passport.

As written, they are Volksdeutsche. Volksdeutsche are Germans who live in another Country (mostly old-german Territory) - just living in another Country. Germans from Alsace-Lorraine are also Germans, just because France owns this Territory doesn't mean they're French.




Gruß,
Boche

Aptrgangr
Wednesday, June 18th, 2008, 08:36 PM
As written, they are Volksdeutsche. Volksdeutsche are Germans who live in another Country (mostly old-german Territory) - just living in another Country.
Did you read what I wrote? There is no contradiction being German/Volksdeutscher and Slavic at the same time.


Germans from Alsace-Lorraine are also Germans, just because France owns this Territory doesn't mean they're French.

Again you miss the point, it's just about the aformentioned footballers are predominantly of Slavic origin, that all.

Loyalist
Wednesday, June 18th, 2008, 08:51 PM
Did you read what I wrote? There is no contradiction being German/Volksdeutscher and Slavic at the same time.

Again you miss the point, it's just about the aformentioned footballers are predominantly of Slavic origin, that all.

The main point is that a Slav cannot be a German. Is there Slavic input in the populace of eastern Germany? Possibly an extremely minute amount, but not enough to hold any significance, or compromise the Germanic identity of the individual today. Furthermore, your assertion that these footballers are of "predominantly Slavic" origin is completely baseless, and counts solely upon their surnames. All available evidence suggests that Podolski, Klose, and Ballack (:rolleyes:) are ethnic Germans, not Poles or Slavs, and until you can show otherwise, drop it.

Aptrgangr
Wednesday, June 18th, 2008, 09:13 PM
The main point is that a Slav cannot be a German.
Are you serious? Actually millions are.


Is there Slavic input in the populace of eastern Germany? Possibly an extremely minute amount, but not enough to hold any significance, or compromise the Germanic identity of the individual today.
If about 20% of Germany's population is an insignifiant amount...
Millions of Slavs living in Prussia fled the Soviet troops in and after WW2 because they did not fear anything more than being liberated by their eastern cousins BTW.


Furthermore, your assertion that these footballers are of "predominantly Slavic" origin is completely baseless, and counts solely upon their surnames. No, it does not count solely upon their surnames.
http://bundesligawetten.files.wordpress.com/2008/05/michael-ballack-cl-finale.jpg


All available evidence suggests that Podolski, Klose, and Ballack (:rolleyes:) are ethnic Germans, not Poles or Slavs, and until you can show otherwise, drop it.
Slavs are part of the German ethnicity. I never said these guys were Poles, I said they are Slavs, that's what they are (at least predominantly).
I simply do not understand what this hubbub is about...

Bärin
Wednesday, June 18th, 2008, 09:29 PM
Slavs are part of the German ethnicity.
Sorry, but this is one of the most nonsensical things I've ever read on these boards.

Do you even know what ethnicity is?

The classification of a population that shares common characteristics, such as religion, traditions, culture, language, and tribal or national origin.

Slavs and Germans don't share national and tribal origin. Germans are Germanic, not Slavic and Slavs are Slavic, not Germanic. :rolleyes:

Just because Michael Ballack is East German doesn't make him a Slav. There is no universal German look or Slavic look by the way, some Slavs like Dementieva and Vaidisova look Nordic but they aren't part of the German ethnicity. :rolleyes:

Aptrgangr
Wednesday, June 18th, 2008, 09:45 PM
Sorry, but this is one of the most nonsensical things I've ever read on these boards.
The truth hurts, does it?


Do you even know what ethnicity is?

The classification of a population that shares common characteristics, such as religion, traditions, culture, language, and tribal or national origin.

I know what ethnicity is - just check your quote applies to Germans of Slavic origin, or not.


Slavs and Germans don't share national and tribal origin. Germans are Germanic, not Slavic and Slavs are Slavic, not Germanic. :rolleyes:
It is bloody hilarious to claim the German ethnicity only consists of people of Germanic origin.
Millions of native Germans are of Slavic, Celtic, Mediterranean origin - are these no Germans because they have no Germanic (resp. not many) forefathers? What to do with them?


Just because Michael Ballack is East German doesn't make him a Slav.
That alone, of course, not. Even not the fact he was born in a town founded by Slavs and having a Slavic name (Görlitz).


There is no universal German look or Slavic look by the way,
Did I claim there was a universal German look? It is you claiming Germans are of Germanic origin only.


some Slavs like Dementieva and Vaidisova look Nordic but they aren't part of the German ethnicity. :rolleyes:
No wonder since they are Russians.
I already stated Germanics and Slavs share some subraces.

Bärin
Wednesday, June 18th, 2008, 10:00 PM
The truth hurts, does it?
No but nonsense must hurt really bad. :o


I know what ethnicity is - just check your quote applies to Germans of Slavic origin, or not.
There's no such thing as Germans of Slavic origin just as there is no such thing as Germans or Turkish or Neger origin. German is not a political concept like American or Canadian or whatever where any person who gets citizenship is an authentic German. German is an ethnicity.


It is bloody hilarious to claim the German ethnicity only consists of people of Germanic origin.
It's not. Germans can only be Germanic, not Slavic or anything else. It's ridiculous to state otherwise. Only politically correct multiculturalists make room for other ethnicities.


Millions of native Germans are of Slavic, Celtic, Mediterranean origin - are these no Germans because they have no Germanic (resp. not many) forefathers? What to do with them?
If they are Slavic, Celtic or Mediterranean, they aren't native Germans. Simple as that. What's so difficult to understand? If a Turk comes and lives in Germany for 20 years, he turns into a German? No. So neither does a Slav.


That alone, of course, not. Even not the fact he was born in a town founded by Slavs and having a Slavic name (Görlitz).
Founded by Slavs so what? It doesn't mean everyone there is Slavic. Königsberg was founded by Germans, yet not every single inhabitant is a German. :rolleyes: There goes your "logic".


Did I claim there was a universal German look? It is you claiming Germans are of Germanic origin only.
Yes, but Germanic is not a subrace.


No wonder since they are Russians.
I already stated Germanics and Slavs share some subraces.
Germanics share subraces with other people too, from Slavs to Mediterraneans, and even some North Africans, Indians and even a small minority of Turks. I saw a blond haired and blue eyed Turkish girl get classified somewhere. Subrace is no identifier of ethnicity.

Ossi
Wednesday, June 18th, 2008, 10:06 PM
You are confusing ethnicity with nationality and nation with state. There is no such thing as Germans of [insert non-German] origin.

Scear
Wednesday, June 18th, 2008, 10:40 PM
There is a component of Slavic ancestry within the ethnic German population, just as there is an element of Vasconian (Basque) ancestry among the French. This does not mean that Germans are Slavs or Frenchmen are Basques. The important issue here is dominant (exclusively European) ancestry and cultural identity. If Hans Flieglmeister from Jena had 1 Polish Ancestor and 7 Germans among 8 great grand parents, and he has been raised in a German society speaking the German language; what exactly would make Hans identify himself as a Slav?

Dachsunds and Weimaraners have some common ancestors, but Dachshunds and Weimeraners are quite distinct breeds because each breed possesses dominant genes unique to their kind.

Also, can a German be part Turk, Nigerian, or Vietnamese? Only in their State citizenship. An individual with a German father and a Negro mother is not a 'German' in any meaningful sense, anymore than a glass half filled with wine and half filled with prune juice can be called champaign. You cannot be half-German, you are either German or you are not. You can, however, be half Norwegian and half Swedish and yet remain fully Germanic

I sincerely doubt that Slavs were ever even really anything other than a linguistic grouping anyway; as Aryan was never anything other than a linguistic grouping.

A Slav from Southern Russia looks quite distinct from a Slav in the Baltic region; as Slavs in the South are derived from a chaos of peoples: Cimmerians, Sythians, Caucasians, Mongols and the like; whilst Northern Russians are largely of Finno-Ugric, Baltic, and Germanic ancestry, and thus more Northern European in looks as opposed to the darker, Irano-Turkic colouring of their Southern counterparts.

Does anyone really consider these Central Asian ethnic Germans to be actual Germans? These Kazakh refugees? Just because someone has a reasonable command of some archaic German colonial dialect, is named Schmidt, and had an ancestor who registered with his local Soviet as a German ethnic in 1921, does make such an individual German. If your Grandmother's name was Özöglu or Akhmedev; sorry; but you ain't a German.

Bärin, please keep in mind there exist many Germans who are self loathing and enthusiastic apologists for their National group; who never miss an opportunity to debunk the racial basis of their own people in order to soothe their own misplaced guilt and ingratiate themselves to the 'ín' crowd.

.Scear

Ossi
Wednesday, June 18th, 2008, 11:30 PM
Before more nonsense is written in this thread, think of the following situation.
Mr. Podolski is a Polak who moved to Germany. He marries a German woman, who gives birth to a son. The son is raised in German culture and language. His surname is Podolski, like his father's. Yet he's half German. So Podolski Jr. grows up, gets married to a German woman. She makes him a son whose surname will be, that's right, Podolski. He's raised as a German. Now Podolski the IIIrd grows up too, marries a German woman. And the story repeats itself endlessly. Podolski the 100th will have a Slavic surname like his Polak ancestor, but will he be a Polak? Let's be realistic. He will be a German with insignificant Polish ancestry.

Now just replace Podolski with Schmidt and imagine that a German with this name lives in Russia and marries a Russian woman, raises his kids as Russians. In the end, Schmidt the 100th will be Russki and the only German thing about him will be his surname. That's actually how "German" Russians take advantage of the system calling themselves "Aussiedler" just to move to my country and leech off money from Germans. So cut it with the "Germans are Slav" nonsense. A German is a German if the majority of his ethnic background is German and he lives by our language and culture and he is racially compatible, regardless whether a few of his ancestors from centuries ago were Slavs, Celts or Scandinavians. The only pure German is our beer. ;)

Aptrgangr
Thursday, June 19th, 2008, 07:49 PM
No but nonsense must hurt really bad. :o

So you are denying many if not most Germans living in the (now) eastern Germany are germanized Slavs?


There's no such thing as Germans of Slavic origin just as there is no such thing as Germans or Turkish or Neger origin.
Slavs are natives in Germany and part of the German ethnicity, Turks and negroes are not, that's the difference.


German is not a political concept like American or Canadian or whatever where any person who gets citizenship is an authentic German. German is an ethnicity.
Oh really? Did I state otherwise? I just said the German ethnicity consists of several natives such as Germanics, Celtics, Meds and Slavs.


It's not. Germans can only be Germanic, not Slavic or anything else. It's ridiculous to state otherwise. Only politically correct multiculturalists make room for other ethnicities.
So Germans of Slavic origin can't be Germans? What to do with them? Exclude them from our nation?


If they are Slavic, Celtic or Mediterranean, they aren't native Germans.
Simple as that. What's so difficult to understand?
Millions of Germans actually have ancestors of that specific groups you mentioned.
Look at the following pic - I do absolutely not promote Miss... contests or something like that, just have a look at the girl at the left and the one at the right of "Miss Bavaria".
The one on the left could be native in the Czech Republic too, the one on the right is a good example of a German girl of Nordic and Germanic origin.
http://www.gongfm.de/article/images/4898-24.jpg


If a Turk comes and lives in Germany for 20 years, he turns into a German? No. So neither does a Slav.
I agree for the Turk, disagree for the Slav. A Slav can be naturalized under certain circumstances, especially in eastern Germany he will find many of his own.


Founded by Slavs so what? It doesn't mean everyone there is Slavic.
Not everyone of course, but many actually are.
The Sorbs (http://www.sorben.de/) preserved their ethnicity within Germany, most Slavs became integral part of the German ethnicity though.


K&#246;nigsberg was founded by Germans, yet not every single inhabitant is a German. :rolleyes: There goes your "logic".
You are incapable to understand my logic. K&#246;nigsberg was funded by Germans on Slavic/Baltic soil, in the beginnning most inhabitants were Germans of Germanic origin, over the centuries Slavs moved in, now after Germans have been ethnically cleansed away it is a pure Slavic city in Russia.
Berlin (http://www.claritaslux.com/blog/2007/09/16/origin-berlin/), for example, was a Slavic fisher village, later it became a famous German town, there were times 1/3 of her inhabitants were of French (Huguenots), still it is a German town but has many people of Slavic and French origin, an not only Germanic Germans.


Yes, but Germanic is not a subrace.
I know this. It is you telling me people of e.g. Baltid background can not be German.


Germanics share subraces with other people too, from Slavs to Mediterraneans, and even some North Africans, Indians and even a small minority of Turks. I saw a blond haired and blue eyed Turkish girl get classified somewhere. Subrace is no identifier of ethnicity.
The Turks and Indians have blood of some of our ancestors in their vein because millions were brought there as slaves (etc.)
This is not the point here, the point is a certain amount of Germans is of Slavic origin and part of the German ethnicity.



You are confusing ethnicity with nationality and nation with state. There is no such thing as Germans of [insert non-German] origin.
I am not confusing anything, my aunt married a "German" from Bohemia, his family (having a Slavic surname BTW) fled when Czechs tried to kill them, he considers himself as German, still he and my cousins look different from my purely Germanic family. The Slavs in Germany have been Germanized over the centuries, piece for piece of Slavic inhabitated land came under the rule of the German Empire when it expanded eastwards. That's why we can not talk of a Germany of purely Germanic ancestry.



Before more nonsense is written in this thread, think of the following situation.
Mr. Podolski is a Polak who moved to Germany. He marries a German woman, who gives birth to a son. The son is raised in German culture and language. His surname is Podolski, like his father's. Yet he's half German. So Podolski Jr. grows up, gets married to a German woman. She makes him a son whose surname will be, that's right, Podolski. He's raised as a German. Now Podolski the IIIrd grows up too, marries a German woman. And the story repeats itself endlessly. Podolski the 100th will have a Slavic surname like his Polak ancestor, but will he be a Polak? Let's be realistic. He will be a German with insignificant Polish ancestry.
Yes, but the difference is Germans of Slavic origin used to marry women of Slavic origin over the centuries. That's why many people in eastern Germany look different to western Germans.


Now just replace Podolski with Schmidt and imagine that a German with this name lives in Russia and marries a Russian woman, raises his kids as Russians. In the end, Schmidt the 100th will be Russki and the only German thing about him will be his surname. That's actually how "German" Russians take advantage of the system calling themselves "Aussiedler" just to move to my country and leech off money from Germans. So cut it with the "Germans are Slav" nonsense. A German is a German if the majority of his ethnic background is German and he lives by our language and culture and he is racially compatible, regardless whether a few of his ancestors from centuries ago were Slavs, Celts or Scandinavians. The only pure German is our beer.
The debate here is about Slavs that are natives to Germany, and not Slavic colonists that are of Russian, Polish etc. ethnicity that come here as colonists. I am well aware most Germans with Slavic background have no awareness of being Slavs since they are completely assimilated, still I can see they look different from me like German Alpinids and Meds look different to me.
Prince Lichnowski would not have been made abassador to GB by Emperopr Wilhelm II if he have had no loyality towards Germany, Otto Skorzeny would not have become SS-commander if there had been doubts about his loyality towards Germany.

Gefjon
Thursday, June 19th, 2008, 07:56 PM
Aptrgangr, in Europe, ya can't be German and Slav at the same time unless you're 50-50 or somethin and speak both languages and belong to both cultures. Slavo-Germano-Celto-whatever are backgrounds we Americans use. Germans with some Slavic ancestors who integrated in Germany ain't Slavic anymore.

Aptrgangr
Thursday, June 19th, 2008, 08:57 PM
Aptrgangr, in Europe, ya can't be German and Slav at the same time unless you're 50-50 or somethin and speak both languages and belong to both cultures. Slavo-Germano-Celto-whatever are backgrounds we Americans use.
Why can't that be? In Germany we have many descendants of those peple living here before Germanic tribes invaded, they are Germans but look different to people looking like me.


Germans with some Slavic ancestors who integrated in Germany ain't Slavic anymore.
What are they since they neither are Germanics. Germans are an ethnicity of Germanic and other ancestries native to Germany.
Being German does not mean having Germanic ancestors only.

Dagna
Friday, June 20th, 2008, 12:07 PM
I believe everyone is correct but there are misunderstandings. A German who is a descendent of some Slavic people in Germany and who is culturally and linguistically German is no longer a Slav. Slavic, Germanic, Celtic, are largely cultural and linguistic terms, I believe, but they also designate ethnic ities. You cannot say that "Slavs belong to the German ethnicity". Slavs are Russians, Poles, Czechs, Serbs, Croatians and the like. A German who has some Slavic ancestors is not the same as a Russian from Russia, so to call both Slavic is ridiculous. Aptrgangr, how can you be sure all your ancestors are Germanic? How do you know you do not have a Celtic or Slavic ancestor, or even something more exotic like a Jewish or Nubian ancestor from hundreds or thousands of years ago? I see you have Irish ancestry. So why do you call yourself Germanic then, but call Germans with Slavic ancestry Slavic?

Aptrgangr
Friday, June 20th, 2008, 04:27 PM
I believe everyone is correct but there are misunderstandings. A German who is a descendent of some Slavic people in Germany and who is culturally and linguistically German is no longer a Slav.

I count those Germans having descendants that never worshipped Wotan but Svantevit as Slavs, it would be ridiculous to summarize those people to the Germanic meta-ethnicity. Still they are part of the German ethnicity since they are natives.


Slavic, Germanic, Celtic, are largely cultural and linguistic terms, I believe, but they also designate ethnic ities.
The German language has Slavic loanwords, Slavics contribute to the German cuisine too.
The German Hansa League towns at the Baltics were also called the Wendish towns, the Wends were Slavics settling in eastern Germany, in the late Mediaveal area there was made a difference between "real" Germans and them.


You cannot say that "Slavs belong to the German ethnicity".
Why can't I say this?
Can I say Germanics belong to the German ethnicity? Of course I can, it's just Germanics were not the only meta-ethnical group having contributed to German ethnicity.


Slavs are Russians, Poles, Czechs, Serbs, Croatians and the like. A German who has some Slavic ancestors is not the same as a Russian from Russia, so to call both Slavic is ridiculous.
Russians etc. are Slavs, the inhabitants of Russia are predominantly of Slavic origin, Germany has natives of Slavic origin too, and not just some few of them.
It is not ridiculous to call people with characteristical Slavic phenotypes Slavs. Again, it's not about people of Slavic origin of another ethnicity like Russians, it's about native Slavics to Germany like the Wends or Sorbs resp. their descendants.


Aptrgangr, how can you be sure all your ancestors are Germanic?
I am sure not all are.


How do you know you do not have a Celtic or Slavic ancestor,
I do have Celtic ancestors.
But I do not think I have Slavic ancestors, the farer I track my ancestry back, the more north I come geographically.


or even something more exotic like a Jewish or Nubian ancestor from hundreds or thousands of years ago?
There were no Jews and Nubians hundreds of thousands of years ago.
Anyway, this debate is not about having a distant Slavic ancestor, it is about the fact the German push towards the east brough Germany millions of Slavic people, since it happened during the building of the German nation these people of Slavic origin are Germans, and not Poles.


I see you have Irish ancestry. So why do you call yourself Germanic then, but call Germans with Slavic ancestry Slavic?
Anytime I sit in the Irish Pub here in Frankfurt I watch with interest how Irish and Germans look different. The typical Celtic Irish looks different to me, if I had more visible Celtic characteristics I would call myself Celto-Germanic.
If I were a German with Slavic ancestry I had no problem with stating so, again, we do not talk about people that have a Slavic grandpa only, we talk about those Germans that come from vastly Slavic inhabitated or heavily mixed areas.

I suggest you make a tour through Germany and visit German villages, then check out how natives of a village in east Brandenburg, people in a village near Hamburg and people in a village in Swabia look like and differ from each other.

Carl
Friday, June 20th, 2008, 08:13 PM
I suggest you make a tour through Germany and visit German villages, then check out how natives of a village in east Brandenburg, people in a village near Hamburg and people in a village in Swabia look like and differ from each other.

... or even perhaps villages in upper Jutland versus Upper Bayern . Now that would be interesting -- almost like a different world methinks!:rolleyes:

Aptrgangr
Friday, June 20th, 2008, 08:51 PM
... or even perhaps villages in upper Jutland versus Upper Bayern . Now that would be interesting -- almost like a different world methinks!:rolleyes:

The genetic and cultural influence of Slavic people in upper Jutland would be extremly small compared to the one in Upper Bavaria.
Did you mean this?

Bärin
Friday, June 20th, 2008, 09:13 PM
So you are denying many if not most Germans living in the (now) eastern Germany are germanized Slavs?
Yes, absolutely. Slavs in the East have been intebreeding with Germans for centuries. They are Germans with some Slavic ancestors, not germanized Slavs.


Slavs are natives in Germany and part of the German ethnicity, Turks and negroes are not, that's the difference.
Slavs aren't native here, only Germans are native to the German nation.


Oh really? Did I state otherwise? I just said the German ethnicity consists of several natives such as Germanics, Celtics, Meds and Slavs.
LMAO. One more time, these aren't natives, these are alien elements to Germany. if you mix a Russian with a German you don't get a 100 % ethnic German, you get half Russian half German. But in many East Germans the Slavic is negligeable, less than 1/4 in many cases.


So Germans of Slavic origin can't be Germans? What to do with them? Exclude them from our nation?
I didn't say Germans of Slavic origin can't be Germans! I said Germans can only be Germanic, not Slavic. If the Slavic origin is less than the German and if they follow German culture and language, not Slavic, then they are German. Not Slavic.


Millions of Germans actually have ancestors of that specific groups you mentioned.
Like I said, they have ancestors from decades and centuries ago, which is negligeable!


Look at the following pic - I do absolutely not promote Miss... contests or something like that, just have a look at the girl at the left and the one at the right of "Miss Bavaria".
The one on the left could be native in the Czech Republic too, the one on the right is a good example of a German girl of Nordic and Germanic origin.
http://www.gongfm.de/article/images/4898-24.jpg
You're talking about subraces, not ethnicities. There are Nordid Czechs too, not to mention Nordid Russians. It doesn't have to do with Germanic origin, or are you going to say, all Nordids in the world are Germanic? :rolleyes:


I agree for the Turk, disagree for the Slav. A Slav can be naturalized under certain circumstances, especially in eastern Germany he will find many of his own.
Many of his own? Give me a break. You keep speaking of East Germany as if you know it well, you live in Hessen, West Germany, I live here all my life and a Russian or Polak who comes here and tries to naturalise is not like "one of our own". Not even in the DDR was it so!


Not everyone of course, but many actually are.
The Sorbs (http://www.sorben.de/) preserved their ethnicity within Germany, most Slavs became integral part of the German ethnicity though.
Most Slavs intermarried with Germans and the Slavic blood was diluted.


You are incapable to understand my logic. Königsberg was funded by Germans on Slavic/Baltic soil, in the beginnning most inhabitants were Germans of Germanic origin, over the centuries Slavs moved in, now after Germans have been ethnically cleansed away it is a pure Slavic city in Russia.
Berlin (http://www.claritaslux.com/blog/2007/09/16/origin-berlin/), for example, was a Slavic fisher village, later it became a famous German town, there were times 1/3 of her inhabitants were of French (Huguenots), still it is a German town but has many people of Slavic and French origin, an not only Germanic Germans.
You have no logic and LOL now you begin to talk about my city well I think I know it better since I lived here all my life. ;) Most Germans in Berlin are predominantly German, some with negligeable Slavic or French blood, i.e. not from these generations, and they speak German and live by German culture so they can't be called Slavic or French anymore. There are many Polaks and Russians here but they are immigrants and they aren't German.


I know this. It is you telling me people of e.g. Baltid background can not be German.
No, I am not telling you that, I was saying that reaql Slavic people (people who are predominantly Slavic by ethnicity, culture and language are aliens to Germany.

To the rest I won't repeat what I already said.

Aptrgangr
Friday, June 20th, 2008, 09:52 PM
Yes, absolutely. Slavs in the East have been intebreeding with Germans for centuries. They are Germans with some Slavic ancestors, not germanized Slavs. Of course there was and is interbreeding, in some areas Germanic Germans are the majority, in other areas those of Slavic origin are. Actually many Germans of Slavic origin are germanized Slavs since they mostly do not remember their Slavic heritage anymore. We may not forget the German empire expanded her territory at the cost of Slavic people, they lost their independence and became Christians and citizens of Germany.


Slavs aren't native here, only Germans are native to the German nation.
Are you kidding me?
Sorbs and Wends are native in Germany. Enough of your pipe-dreams.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_814.jpg
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bild:Treaty_of_Verdun.sv g&filetimestamp=20070318150737


LMAO. One more time, these aren't natives, these are alien elements to Germany.
According to your logic I am neither native to Germany thanks to my (predominantly) Germanic heritage.


if you mix a Russian with a German you don't get a 100 &#37; ethnic German, you get half Russian half German. But in many East Germans the Slavic is negligeable, less than 1/4 in many cases.
Russian are no indigenous German people, Sorbs, Wends are, that's the difference. The claim Slavs in Germany having been bred out by the Germanic colonists is ignorant and ahistorical.


I didn't say Germans of Slavic origin can't be Germans! I said Germans can only be Germanic, not Slavic. If the Slavic origin is less than the German and if they follow German culture and language, not Slavic, then they are German. Not Slavic.
Wrong. The German ethnicity is not exclusively of Germanic stock. The idea Germans can be Germanic only came up in the 19th century romantic nationalism and had it's biggest time during 3rd Reich.


Like I said, they have ancestors from decades and centuries ago, which is negligeable!
Ancestors that were and are of Slavic stock very often.


You're talking about subraces, not ethnicities. There are Nordid Czechs too, not to mention Nordid Russians. It doesn't have to do with Germanic origin, or are you going to say, all Nordids in the world are Germanic? :rolleyes:
First of all, why do you think Russia is named after Scandianvian people, next I am well aware Slavs and Germanics share some subraces, in this pic you simply can see who is of Slavic, and who is of Germanic origin.


Many of his own? Give me a break. You keep speaking of East Germany as if you know it well, you live in Hessen, West Germany, I live here all my life and a Russian or Polak who comes here and tries to naturalise is not like "one of our own". Not even in the DDR was it so!
I have been in any federal state of FRG, I noticed the visible amount of naives of Slavic origin in e.g. eastern Saxony and Brandenburg. I remind you, these are native Germans and no Poles or Russians.


Most Slavs intermarried with Germans and the Slavic blood was diluted.
Wrong.


You have no logic and LOL now you begin to talk about my city well I think I know it better since I lived here all my life. ;) Most Germans in Berlin are predominantly German, some with negligeable Slavic or French blood, i.e. not from these generations, and they speak German and live by German culture so they can't be called Slavic or French anymore. There are many Polaks and Russians here but they are immigrants and they aren't German.
Berlin once was an all Slavic town, now it became a German town thanks to Germanic colonists. Still there is a certain amount of Slavic influence visible.


No, I am not telling you that, I was saying that reaql Slavic people (people who are predominantly Slavic by ethnicity, culture and language are aliens to Germany.

To the rest I won't repeat what I already said.
Speaking for the very east of Germany Slavics are native to Germany, like Germanic Thuringians and Saxons there are Slavic Wends and Sorbs. During Christianization their typically culture was homogenized so to speak.
Unearthings in Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Western-Pomerania clearly proved the existence of Slavic (Slavonic) people there, you rather find an idol of Svantevit than one of Wotan there.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Svantevit-Statue.jpg

Bärin
Friday, June 20th, 2008, 10:02 PM
Of course there was and is interbreeding, in some areas Germanic Germans are the majority, in other areas those of Slavic origin are. Actually many Germans of Slavic origin are germanized Slavs since they mostly do not remember their Slavic heritage anymore. We may not forget the German empire expanded her territory at the cost of Slavic people, they lost their independence and became Christians and citizens of Germany.
So, if they don't remember their Slavic heritage anymore, they speak German and live by German culture, they aren't Slavic anymore!


Are you kidding me?
Sorbs and Wends are native in Germany. Enough of your pipe-dreams.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_814.jpg (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http&#37;3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FImage%3AEurope_814.jpg )
http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bild:Treaty_of_Verdun.sv g&filetimestamp=20070318150737 (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fde.wikip edia.org%2Fw%2Findex.php%3Ftitle%3DBild% 3ATreaty_of_Verdun.svg%26filetimestamp%3 D20070318150737)I am not kidding you, I am very serious and you and I don't seem to have the same definition of native. If you think native = being born there, then aliens who are born on German soil, like 3rd generation Turks are "native" too. :rolleyes: Native I mean a member of the German nation. A "pure" Slav like a Sorb can't be one, he's a national minority like the Volga Germans are in Russia or Saxons in Romania.


According to your logic I am neither native to Germany thanks to my (predominantly) Germanic heritage.No, Germanics are native to Germany because they belong to the German nation. Only a person who is predominantly ethnically and culturally Germanic can be German.


Russian are no indigenous German people, Sorbs, Wends are, that's the difference. The claim Slavs in Germany having been bred out by the Germanic colonists is ignorant and ahistorical.Sorbs aren't German for the last friggin time, they're a national minority. Are Volga Germans Russian? LOL.


Wrong. The German ethnicity is not exclusively of Germanic stock. The idea Germans can be Germanic only came up in the 19th century romantic nationalism and had it's biggest time during 3rd Reich.

Ancestors that were and are of Slavic stock very often.Not exclusively i.e. pure by blood but by culture they are.


First of all, why do you think Russia is named after Scandianvian people, next I am well aware Slavs and Germanics share some subraces, in this pic you simply can see who is of Slavic, and who is of Germanic origin.So let's say, Elena Dementieva is of Germanic origin? ROFL.


I have been in any federal state of FRG, I noticed the visible amount of naives of Slavic origin in e.g. eastern Saxony and Brandenburg. I remind you, these are native Germans and no Poles or Russians.

Wrong.You once again confuse subrace for tribe.


Berlin once was an all Slavic town, now it became a German town thanks to Germanic colonists. Still there is a certain amount of Slavic influence visible.

Speaking for the very east of Germany Slavics are native to Germany, like Germanic Thuringians and Saxons there are Slavic Wends and Sorbs. During Christianization their typically culture was homogenized so to speak.
Unearthings in Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Western-Pomerania clearly proved the existence of Slavic (Slavonic) people there, you rather find an idol of Svantevit than one of Wotan there.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1d/Svantevit-Statue.jpgSee what I said about Sorbs and Wends, they are NOT German.

Loyalist
Saturday, June 21st, 2008, 04:04 AM
If the German Empire had expanded its borders into Africa and absorbed negroes into the populace, would these people also be part of the greater German ethnic mosaic? Does an individual hailing from an outside ethnic group that has long been present in Germany, such as a Jew or a Hun, eventually become German through some sort of non-existent system of assimilation? Perhaps those Turks and Albanians, which people like Aptrgangr so often voice their distaste for, will also become German somewhere down the line.

The lines between ethnicity and nationality are being intentionally blurred and distorted for a hidden agenda. While a German citizen can hail from any group, be it Slavic or otherwise, an ethnic German cannot; they must belong to the wider Germanic spectrum, and anything else is an alien presence within the ethnic group in question. A Volga German is Russian solely by nationality, not by ethnicity or meta-ethnicity. A Sorb is German solely by nationality, not by ethnicity or meta-ethnicity. Simply put, a German citizen can be part of any meta-ethnicity on the planet; an ethnic German cannot. The notion is contradictory on the most basic of levels.

There is no more Slavic input in the general, recognized German ethnic group of today than there is Hunnic, Turkic, or Semitic, yet certain other people, and fora, continually refuse to accept the aforementioned migrating into their respective European nations. In this blatant act of hypocrisy, we are seeing the erroneous brand of European nationalism peddled in another community clash with the Althing's proper idea of preservation. If a true, ethnic German cannot stem from an ancestry of wholly, mostly, or even partly Turkic origin, then the same can be said for one with Slavic forbears. While all European groups may have an insigificant injection of influence from an alien ethnic group, European and otherwise, it is inconsequential when contrasted to their dominant genetic group. A German is Germanic, and a "German" of Slavic origin is no closer to the people in question than a negro, Jew, or Turk. You cannot defend this ridiculous double-standard; if the latter are not Germans, then neither are Slavs.

SwordOfTheVistula
Saturday, June 21st, 2008, 10:52 AM
If the German Empire had expanded its borders into Africa and absorbed negroes into the populace, would these people also be part of the greater German ethnic mosaic? Does an individual hailing from an outside ethnic group that has long been present in Germany, such as a Jew or a Hun, eventually become German through some sort of non-existent system of assimilation? Perhaps those Turks and Albanians, which people like Aptrgangr so often voice their distaste for, will also become German somewhere down the line.

The lines between ethnicity and nationality are being intentionally blurred and distorted for a hidden agenda. While a German citizen can hail from any group, be it Slavic or otherwise, an ethnic German cannot; they must belong to the wider Germanic spectrum, and anything else is an alien presence within the ethnic group in question. A Volga German is Russian solely by nationality, not by ethnicity or meta-ethnicity. A Sorb is German solely by nationality, not by ethnicity or meta-ethnicity. Simply put, a German citizen can be part of any meta-ethnicity on the planet; an ethnic German cannot. The notion is contradictory on the most basic of levels.

There is no more Slavic input in the general, recognized German ethnic group of today than there is Hunnic, Turkic, or Semitic, yet certain other people, and fora, continually refuse to accept the aforementioned migrating into their respective European nations. In this blatant act of hypocrisy, we are seeing the erroneous brand of European nationalism peddled in another community clash with the Althing's proper idea of preservation. If a true, ethnic German cannot stem from an ancestry of wholly, mostly, or even partly Turkic origin, then the same can be said for one with Slavic forbears. While all European groups may have an insigificant injection of influence from an alien ethnic group, European and otherwise, it is inconsequential when contrasted to their dominant genetic group. A German is Germanic, and a "German" of Slavic origin is no closer to the people in question than a negro, Jew, or Turk. You cannot defend this ridiculous double-standard; if the latter are not Germans, then neither are Slavs.

There's a lot more similarity though, and a more 'bleed over' between celts and north/western Germanics, and eastern Germanics and north/western slavs. I'm not sure on the exact dates, but mutual ancestors of northern Europeans are a lot more recent (thus the much greater similarity) than semites, turks, africans, amoebas, etc.

Last names were assigned in the late middle ages in north/central Europe, so it is entirely possible that many people simply changed last names or even language when a new lord took power.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/90/Pre_Migration_Age_Germanic.png

Aptrgangr
Saturday, June 21st, 2008, 12:37 PM
So, if they don't remember their Slavic heritage anymore, they speak German and live by German culture, they aren't Slavic anymore!
Why are they not Slavic anymore then?
How many German-Americans can be counted as Germans by this standard then?


I am not kidding you, I am very serious and you and I don't seem to have the same definition of native. If you think native = being born there, then aliens who are born on German soil, like 3rd generation Turks are "native" too. :rolleyes:
Why do you always come up with that immigration thing? Turks are no natives to Germany, they are immigrants, Slavic people in eastern Germany are native people since they alredy lived there when Germanics came.
Berlin etc. was not founded by Germanic people, it was conquered.


Native I mean a member of the German nation. A "pure" Slav like a Sorb can't be one, he's a national minority like the Volga Germans are in Russia or Saxons in Romania.
Most Sorbs, Wends and Spree-Slavs were assimilated, there is a term for assimilating Slavs: germanization. Most of them were germanized and no longer remember their Slavic heritage yet they are of Slavic origin and Germans.


No, Germanics are native to Germany because they belong to the German nation.
Germanics are the predominant meta-ethnicty having founded the German nation, but they are not the only ones.


Only a person who is predominantly ethnically and culturally Germanic can be German.
Now I am curious how you want to deal with millions of indigenous people of non-Germanic origin here? How can I tell a person of (predomainantly) non-Germanic ancestry, whose ancestors lived here already before mine came around, he was not native? He surly would kick my blonde ass northwards.


Sorbs aren't German for the last friggin time, they're a national minority.
Those that associate themselves as Sorbs - like I said, most of them weren't interested in preserving their heritage like most Germans of Germanic origin neither care for their heritage these days.


Are Volga Germans Russian? LOL.
It depends on the degree of admixture.


Not exclusively i.e. pure by blood but by culture they are.
Germans of Slavic origin contibuted blood and culture to the German ethnicity, especially in certain areas.


So let's say, Elena Dementieva is of Germanic origin? ROFL.
She is Russian of Russian ethnicity. It is possible she has some Germanic ancestors.


You once again confuse subrace for tribe.
What do I confuse? A certain tribe like the Wends has certain subracial features, so does the tribe of the Thuringians have. It is often very easy to see who predominantly has ancestors of former and who has ancestors of the latter group.


See what I said about Sorbs and Wends, they are NOT German.
Alright, let's build up the wall again and you stop migrating here in masses, this makes Germanic preservation much easier here, thank you...
Sorry, but sometimes the only difference between a person this side of the Oder and one east of it is the language, but not the physical appearance. This simply shows germanized Slavs, that make a good amount of native people in eastern Germany, cuturally, but not racially differ from other western Slavs.

This ideology you have to be of Germanic stock in order to be German is false and based upon an ideology, but not on facts.



If the German Empire had expanded its borders into Africa and absorbed negroes into the populace, would these people also be part of the greater German ethnic mosaic?
What would you say they were? Your Afro-Saxon brothers and sisters if your empire would have done the same...
If Germany was a country like Brazil then coffe-brown people would be part of the native population.
BTW:
http://www.nordisk.nu/showthread.php?t=25059


Does an individual hailing from an outside ethnic group that has long been present in Germany, such as a Jew or a Hun, eventually become German through some sort of non-existent system of assimilation?
Neither of them assimilated - some few Jews did though. Still you miss the point of this debate, it's not about some few individuals, it's about having descendants of whole Slavic tribes in our nation - and they are no outside group in eastern Germany.


Perhaps those Turks and Albanians, which people like Aptrgangr so often voice their distaste for, will also become German somewhere down the line.
If you would know them you likely would like them less, anyway, if the current colonialization continues then Turks will be the dominant ethnicity and surely won't associate themselves with those people they replaced.
Turks in general remain Turks, they loath Germans and only seek econmomic benefits.
http://i25.tinypic.com/493r.jpg


The lines between ethnicity and nationality are being intentionally blurred and distorted for a hidden agenda.
A hidden agenda? I play with open cards at anytime.


While a German citizen can hail from any group, be it Slavic or otherwise, an ethnic German cannot; they must belong to the wider Germanic spectrum, and anything else is an alien presence within the ethnic group in question.

Wrong, a German only can be someone of the German ethnicity. And the German ethnicity does not consist of Germanic people only. Germany is not Denmark. We have descendants of Celts, Roman occupiers, Germanic invaders and Slavic invaders...
The idea nationality can differ from ethnicity is a liberal construct imposed on us (and yourself).


A Volga German is Russian solely by nationality, not by ethnicity or meta-ethnicity.
If he has (predominantly) German forefathers.


A Sorb is German solely by nationality, not by ethnicity or meta-ethnicity.

It depends on what he thinks he is himself. Most think they are Germans and do not preserve their Slavic heritage. Still they are part of the German ethnicity, despite having no [not many] Germanic ancestors.


Simply put, a German citizen can be part of any meta-ethnicity on the planet; an ethnic German cannot. The notion is contradictory on the most basic of levels.
If you come here and expect all ethic Germans to be of Germanic stock you simply will be very disappointed. It's like coming to England and seeing some people of Celtic origin instead of Anglo-Saxons only.


There is no more Slavic input in the general, recognized German ethnic group of today than there is Hunnic, Turkic, or Semitic, yet certain other people, and fora, continually refuse to accept the aforementioned migrating into their respective European nations.
Ha-ha-ha.


In this blatant act of hypocrisy, we are seeing the erroneous brand of European nationalism peddled in another community clash with the Althing's proper idea of preservation.
There is no European nationalism since there is no nation Europe.
Anyway, this is how Althing's preservation currently apears to me:
Yodling is German so it must be Germanic. And that's ridiculous, Germanic people coming to the Alps adopted themselves to native traditions already existing and learned to yodle too. Yodling is typical for some regions in Germany, but it is not of Germanic origin. Saying yodling should be preserved as Germanic culture makes no sense.
The other thing if this thread - millions of native Germans have no [not many] ancestors that worshipped Wotan and Donar, not only do they ancestors with a cultural background other than Germanic, they are racially of another origin. Christianity was the dominant ideology at the time Germany was founded as nation, for the rulers it was not important of what background the subjects are, it was important they pay taxes and obey to the law.


If a true, ethnic German cannot stem from an ancestry of wholly, mostly, or even partly Turkic origin, then the same can be said for one with Slavic forbears.
Yawn.
Turks = immigrants coming here since the 2nd half of the 20th century.
Slavs (descendant sof certain tribes) = inhabitants of their lands since centuries when they became integral part of the German Empire.
Other western Slavs preferred to have independent countries instead of remaining part of the German/Ausrian Empires.


While all European groups may have an insigificant injection of influence from an alien ethnic group, European and otherwise, it is inconsequential when contrasted to their dominant genetic group. A German is Germanic, and a "German" of Slavic origin is no closer to the people in question than a negro, Jew, or Turk. You cannot defend this ridiculous double-standard; if the latter are not Germans, then neither are Slavs.
I do not think you are interested in a serious debate. Too much ideology, and it is especially funny to see thos whose Germanic ancesrty is debateable are thiose who define the things how they would like to have them.

Bärin
Saturday, June 21st, 2008, 01:06 PM
Why are they not Slavic anymore then?
How many German-Americans can be counted as Germans by this standard then?
That's the thing, they aren't counted as Germans, because they lost their heritage, their language and culture. They are Americans, not German. It's your argument that would make people of German heritage in the USA German, because you say Germans are Slavic. Not mine.


Why do you always come up with that immigration thing? Turks are no natives to Germany, they are immigrants, Slavic people in eastern Germany are native people since they alredy lived there when Germanics came.
Berlin etc. was not founded by Germanic people, it was conquered.They aren't native to Germany, Germany is a nation, not the land proper, the land might have been theirs before we arrived, but Germany was created by Germanics.


Most Sorbs, Wends and Spree-Slavs were assimilated, there is a term for assimilating Slavs: germanization. Most of them were germanized and no longer remember their Slavic heritage yet they are of Slavic origin and Germans.They're minorities, totally other different ethnicities from Germany.

In Germany, Upper and Lower Sorbian are officially recognized and protected as minority languages. In the home areas of the Sorbs, both languages are officially equal to German.

The city of Bautzen in Upper Lusatia is the centre of Upper Sorbian culture. Bilingual signs can be seen around the city, including the name of the city, "Bautzen/Budyšin".

The city of Cottbus (Ch&#243;śebuz) is considered the cultural centre of Lower Sorbian; here too bilingual signs are found.

Sorbian is also spoken in the small Sorbian (“Wendish”) settlement of Serbin in Lee County, Texas. Until recently newspapers were published in Sorbian there. The local dialect has been heavily influenced by surrounding

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbian_languages (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http&#37;3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FSorbian_languages)


Germanics are the predominant meta-ethnicty having founded the German nation, but they are not the only ones.

Now I am curious how you want to deal with millions of indigenous people of non-Germanic origin here? How can I tell a person of (predomainantly) non-Germanic ancestry, whose ancestors lived here already before mine came around, he was not native? He surly would kick my blonde ass northwards.I already said that these people who have non-Germanic ancestry can be German, if the ancestry is not big. Me, for example, I have no known Slavic ancestors and I can trace my ancestry until the 1700s. If I have Slavic ancestors before that, it's possible, but it doesn't make me Slavic. It's ridiculous. If I had a Slavic ancestor and called myself Slavic it would be no different than the people in America who have 1/128 Irish or Indian ancestry and call themselves Irish or Indian, just to exemplify with two ethnicities.
Retarded, in other words. Your "logic" gives leeway to foreigners to claim something they aren't culturally and linguistically, because they had ancestors from centuries ago!


Those that associate themselves as Sorbs - like I said, most of them weren't interested in preserving their heritage like most Germans of Germanic origin neither care for their heritage these days.There are Sorbs here who still speak their language and didn't intermarry with Germans. They recognize themselves as a distinct group, like the Transylvanian Saxons or Sudeten Germans. One of the links you posted from Wiki, you should read what it says there:

For over 1000 years the Sorbs were able to maintain and even develop their national culture, despite of escalating Germanization and Polonization, mainly due to the high level of religiousness, cultivating their tradition and strong families (until now a Sorbian family often has 5 children).

Germanization of Sorbs is a very recent process, not enough to call them part of the German ethnicity:

The statistics might prove the progression of Germanization among Sorbs: by the end of the 19th century, about 150,000 people spoke Sorbian languages. In 1920 almost all Sorbs mastered Sorbian and German at the same degree. The last Sorb who very slightly knew German died in Műschen village in 1954. Nowadays, in 2004, the number of people using Sorbian languages has been estimated to no more than 50,000.


It depends on the degree of admixture.That's exactly what Ossi has been saying, people from Russia who had fully German ancestors a century ago, but whose ancestors are now predominantly Russian, aren't German anymore. And the same argument is true for people from Germany who had fully Slavic ancestors a century ago but interbred with Germans. It works both ways, but you don't recognize it.


Germans of Slavic origin contibuted blood and culture to the German ethnicity, especially in certain areas.So who denies this? But Germans of Slavic origin aren't Slavic! They are German. Slavic is only a person whose recent ancestry is predominantly Slavic.


She is Russian of Russian ethnicity. It is possible she has some Germanic ancestors.But she's Nordid. Your arguments have double standards. The German girl who looks like she could fit in the Czech Republic is "Slavic" because of her looks, but Elena Dementieva who looks Nordic and wouldn't be out of place in Germanic countries by her looks, isn't Germanic, but Slavic. :rolleyes:


What do I confuse? A certain tribe like the Wends has certain subracial features, so does the tribe of the Thuringians have. It is often very easy to see who predominantly has ancestors of former and who has ancestors of the latter group.You just blew your argument about this apart earlier about Dementieva when you said she's Russian despite being Nordic. Nordic, Alpine and the like aren't direct indicators of tribe or ethnicity. Sometimes they coincide, sometimes they don't.


Alright, let's build up the wall again and you stop migrating here in masses, this makes Germanic preservation much easier here, thank you...
Sorry, but sometimes the only difference between a person this side of the Oder and one east of it is the language, but not the physical appearance. This simply shows germanized Slavs, that make a good amount of native people in eastern Germany, cuturally, but not racially differ from other western Slavs.Your anti-East German stance is more than obvious here.

And just so you know, I am not even considering to "migrate" to West Germany. Far too many liberals there who accept foreigners as "natives" of the German nation. Maybe you would get along better with the American white nationalists who base everything on subrace and don't care about nation.

Jäger
Saturday, June 21st, 2008, 01:12 PM
Having a Slavic surname is a very strong indicator for having Slavic ancestors, especially when coming from a predominantly Slavic counrty like Poland.
Many Germans took over the Polish -ski in their surnames, and many Germans have lived in what is now Polish territory before surnames were even mandatory.
In earlier times surnames where documented by the church, a Polish priest would have written down a German name in Polish, and thus the name became "officially" Polish.
The name is in such instances not a good indicator, exactly because comming from a predominantly Slavic counrty like Poland.

E.g. Polish names in the Ruhrpott are a better indication of Polish ancestry.

SouthernBoy
Saturday, June 21st, 2008, 01:14 PM
May I add some fuel to the fire? ;)

Significant genetic differentiation between Poland and Germany follows present-day political borders, as revealed by Y-chromosome analysis

Manfred Kayser et al.

http://img222.echo.cx/img222/7452/s0043900513339fhb41wz.jpg

Abstract:

To test for human population substructure and to investigate human population history we have analysed Y-chromosome diversity using seven microsatellites (Y-STRs) and ten binary markers (Y-SNPs) in samples from eight regionally distributed populations from Poland (n=913) and 11 from Germany (n=1,215). Based on data from both Y-chromosome marker systems, which we found to be highly correlated (r=0.96), and using spatial analysis of the molecular variance (SAMOVA), we revealed statistically significant support for two groups of populations: (1) all Polish populations and (2) all German populations. By means of analysis of the molecular variance (AMOVA) we observed a large and statistically significant proportion of 14% (for Y-SNPs) and 15% (for Y-STRs) of the respective total genetic variation being explained between both countries. The same population differentiation was detected using Monmonierrsquos algorithm, with a resulting genetic border between Poland and Germany that closely resembles the course of the political border between both countries. The observed genetic differentiation was mainly, but not exclusively, due to the frequency distribution of two Y-SNP haplogroups and their associated Y-STR haplotypes: R1a1*, most frequent in Poland, and R1*(xR1a1), most frequent in Germany. We suggest here that the pronounced population differentiation between the two geographically neighbouring countries, Poland and Germany, is the consequence of very recent events in human population history, namely the forced human resettlement of many millions of Germans and Poles during and, especially, shortly after World War II. In addition, our findings have consequences for the forensic application of Y-chromosome markers, strongly supporting the implementation of population substructure into forensic Y chromosome databases, and also for genetic association studies.(Source (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2005/06/strong-differentiation-between-germans.html))

Schmetterling
Saturday, June 21st, 2008, 01:37 PM
The lines between ethnicity and nationality are being intentionally blurred and distorted for a hidden agenda. While a German citizen can hail from any group, be it Slavic or otherwise, an ethnic German cannot; they must belong to the wider Germanic spectrum, and anything else is an alien presence within the ethnic group in question. A Volga German is Russian solely by nationality, not by ethnicity or meta-ethnicity. A Sorb is German solely by nationality, not by ethnicity or meta-ethnicity. Simply put, a German citizen can be part of any meta-ethnicity on the planet; an ethnic German cannot. The notion is contradictory on the most basic of levels.

There is no more Slavic input in the general, recognized German ethnic group of today than there is Hunnic, Turkic, or Semitic, yet certain other people, and fora, continually refuse to accept the aforementioned migrating into their respective European nations. In this blatant act of hypocrisy, we are seeing the erroneous brand of European nationalism peddled in another community clash with the Althing's proper idea of preservation. If a true, ethnic German cannot stem from an ancestry of wholly, mostly, or even partly Turkic origin, then the same can be said for one with Slavic forbears. While all European groups may have an insigificant injection of influence from an alien ethnic group, European and otherwise, it is inconsequential when contrasted to their dominant genetic group. A German is Germanic, and a "German" of Slavic origin is no closer to the people in question than a negro, Jew, or Turk. You cannot defend this ridiculous double-standard; if the latter are not Germans, then neither are Slavs.
He comes from Stirpes, a forum with a clear anti-German(ic) agenda. The anti-Germanic founders have made quite a few discipols. It's perfectly acceptable to claim Slavs are part of the German ethnicity, but if you dare try to discuss the Germanic input in France, you'll get a good virtual anti-Germanic slap. Just read their threads over there to see what I mean. Some of them also deny the Germanness of Austrians because it fits their agenda to stir German pots and annoy German nationalists. It's a sport they enjoy. Since the number of Germans on Stirpes is almost nil (not surprsingly!), they come here on the Althing to try to get some entertainment.

Oswiu
Saturday, June 21st, 2008, 04:21 PM
People are going far too far in this thread, one person ridiculously using the term 'Slavic' for people who have known nothing of Slavdom for centuries, and others making absurd statements suggesting that the Germanics came into the world hermetically sealed...

Wends are a significant ingredient in the German genepool. This naturally increases the further east you go, but there were a fair few Wends knocking around even up near Hannover and Lubeck. The former group maintained their language into the modern era even. However, to say that people in the easternmost regions are simply Slavs, Apty, is a little crazy, as huge settlement programmes were enacted in the early days when Albrecht and his line ruled the Mark. Flemings were even brought in. You mention the Slavonic origins of Berlin, but it should also be stated that the town went through a Flemish phase as well! Since the German peasants from the west were brought in, every family must have become hopelessly entwined once the Wends Germanicised in speech and Slavonic heritage fell from living memory. I bet even the Lausitz survivors have a fair bit of German in them too.

And when the Slavs came into the region, they took over lands that had been East-Germanic. Some of the latter are likely to have remained and Slavicised. And even further back, before the separate language families went their ways, there must be a considerable proportion of shared ancestry on the late northern IE level.

Lastly, I don't want to see mudslinging about other fora on here. This is not the place for it. Aptrgangr is as established and respectable a member here as he is on Stirpes or elsewhere. Stirpes has its own special nature, true, but they're welcome to it (and are hardly as monolithic as you suggest anyway), and our time here needn't be wasted on lampooning it.

Jäger
Saturday, June 21st, 2008, 05:55 PM
Wends are a significant ingredient in the German genepool.
And don't forget the country named after them: Wales. ;)

Nah, this is mostly just ethymology. :p

Bärin
Saturday, June 21st, 2008, 07:56 PM
People are going far too far in this thread, one person ridiculously using the term 'Slavic' for people who have known nothing of Slavdom for centuries, and others making absurd statements suggesting that the Germanics came into the world hermetically sealed...
Show me who said this. Because I, at least didn't, I said the Slavs in Germany from centuries ago intebred with Germans and adopted their culture to the point that they can't be called Slavic anymore.

Aptrgangr
Saturday, June 21st, 2008, 09:57 PM
That's the thing, they aren't counted as Germans, because they lost their heritage, their language and culture.
But they count themselves as Americans of German descent often. According to your logic Germans neither are Germans, since they lost their heritage and culture too. Anyway, Americans of German origin contributed much to the USA.


They are Americans, not German. It's your argument that would make people of German heritage in the USA German, because you say Germans are Slavic. Not mine.
If Americans of German origin come back to Germany and assimilate themselves into the society, why not seeing them as German.
I did not say Germans are Slavic, I said some Germans are of Slavic, not Germanic origin.


They aren't native to Germany, Germany is a nation, not the land proper, the land might have been theirs before we arrived, but Germany was created by Germanics.
France was created by Germanics too, yet it is no Germanic nation. Of course Germany is a foundation of Germanics, but not all native inhabitants of Germany are of Germanic origin.


They're minorities, totally other different ethnicities from Germany.
Those associating themselves with an ethnic minority group are an ethnic minority, many Germans of Slavic origin do not see themselves as Slavic people. BTW Most Germans of Germanic origin neither see themselves as Germanic, this does not mean they are none.


In Germany, Upper and Lower Sorbian are officially recognized and protected as minority languages. In the home areas of the Sorbs, both languages are officially equal to German.
see above.


The city of Bautzen in Upper Lusatia is the centre of Upper Sorbian culture. Bilingual signs can be seen around the city, including the name of the city, "Bautzen/Budyšin".
Many towns have Slavic names just because they were founded by Slavs and still inhabitated by descendants of Slavic tribes to a certain degree.


The city of Cottbus (Ch&#243;śebuz) is considered the cultural centre of Lower Sorbian; here too bilingual signs are found.

Sorbian is also spoken in the small Sorbian (“Wendish”) settlement of Serbin in Lee County, Texas. Until recently newspapers were published in Sorbian there. The local dialect has been heavily influenced by surrounding

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sorbian_languages (http://forums.skadi.net/redirector.php?url=http&#37;3A%2F%2Fen.wikip edia.org%2Fwiki%2FSorbian_languages)
I know this, still it is not about those maintaining a status of an ethnic minority, it's about those having been germanized.


I already said that these people who have non-Germanic ancestry can be German, if the ancestry is not big. Me, for example, I have no known Slavic ancestors and I can trace my ancestry until the 1700s. If I have Slavic ancestors before that, it's possible, but it doesn't make me Slavic. It's ridiculous. If I had a Slavic ancestor and called myself Slavic it would be no different than the people in America who have 1/128 Irish or Indian ancestry and call themselves Irish or Indian, just to exemplify with two ethnicities.
Retarded, in other words. Your "logic" gives leeway to foreigners to claim something they aren't culturally and linguistically, because they had ancestors from centuries ago!
There are people that have more Slavic than Germanic ancestors, that's the point.


There are Sorbs here who still speak their language and didn't intermarry with Germans. They recognize themselves as a distinct group, like the Transylvanian Saxons or Sudeten Germans. One of the links you posted from Wiki, you should read what it says there:

For over 1000 years the Sorbs were able to maintain and even develop their national culture, despite of escalating Germanization and Polonization, mainly due to the high level of religiousness, cultivating their tradition and strong families (until now a Sorbian family often has 5 children).
And there are people of Sorbish origin that no longer speak Sorbish for centuries.


Germanization of Sorbs is a very recent process, not enough to call them part of the German ethnicity:
It is not a recent process, it started with the colonialization of the east.


The statistics might prove the progression of Germanization among Sorbs: by the end of the 19th century, about 150,000 people spoke Sorbian languages. In 1920 almost all Sorbs mastered Sorbian and German at the same degree. The last Sorb who very slightly knew German died in Műschen village in 1954. Nowadays, in 2004, the number of people using Sorbian languages has been estimated to no more than 50,000.
These Sorbs remained an ethnic minority, unlike the majority of other Slavics.


That's exactly what Ossi has been saying, people from Russia who had fully German ancestors a century ago, but whose ancestors are now predominantly Russian, aren't German anymore. And the same argument is true for people from Germany who had fully Slavic ancestors a century ago but interbred with Germans. It works both ways, but you don't recognize it.

Of course it works both way - and a German having a name like Grabowski and is looking like a Grabowski is a Slav for me.


So who denies this? But Germans of Slavic origin aren't Slavic! They are German. Slavic is only a person whose recent ancestry is predominantly Slavic.
Yes of course they are Germans. And it's simply fact there are Germans that predominantly have no Germanic ancestors.


But she's Nordid. Your arguments have double standards. The German girl who looks like she could fit in the Czech Republic is "Slavic" because of her looks, but Elena Dementieva who looks Nordic and wouldn't be out of place in Germanic countries by her looks, isn't Germanic, but Slavic. :rolleyes:

There are no double standards, it seems this issue overchallenges you. Elena Dementieva is Russian, no matter of her ancestry, that German girl in the pic is German, and clearly visibly has not so many Germanic ancestors.


You just blew your argument about this apart earlier about Dementieva when you said she's Russian despite being Nordic. Nordic, Alpine and the like aren't direct indicators of tribe or ethnicity. Sometimes they coincide, sometimes they don't.
I said Slavic and Germanic people share some subraces, so what?


Your anti-East German stance is more than obvious here.
LOL - If I were anti-East German I would not see you as part of Germany. I see you as part of Germany and acknowledge there are people of Slavic origin overthere.


And just so you know, I am not even considering to "migrate" to West Germany. Far too many liberals there who accept foreigners as "natives" of the German nation. Maybe you would get along better with the American white nationalists who base everything on subrace and don't care about nation.
Why do I not care about nation? I just see all aspects of my nation, and not a few selective ones. I do not recognize anyone "white" as German, I am in favour of ethnic borders.




He comes from Stirpes, a forum with a clear anti-German(ic) agenda. The anti-Germanic founders have made quite a few discipols.
There is no anti-Germanic agenda at Stirpes, and Germanic mods at Stirpes are even of Germanic origin without doubts.


It's perfectly acceptable to claim Slavs are part of the German ethnicity, but if you dare try to discuss the Germanic input in France, you'll get a good virtual anti-Germanic slap.
That's nonsense, noone denies there are Germans in France.
http://forum.stirpes.net/ethnology/16712-frankish-french.html


Just read their threads over there to see what I mean.
For example?


Some of them also deny the Germanness of Austrians because it fits their agenda to stir German pots and annoy German nationalists. It's a sport they enjoy. Since the number of Germans on Stirpes is almost nil (not surprsingly!), they come here on the Althing to try to get some entertainment.
http://forum.stirpes.net/territorial-identity-issues/16991-austria-germany.html
It's the Austrians themselves denying they were Germans - I have no problem with calling Austrians that deny their German heritage as Balcanics. I recently replied to an Ausria who said he would hate to see Austria conquered by Germany again following: "We do not want the Alps Emirate anyway"...
If you think you have something to contribute something about that issue feel free to comment there.
Indeed, I find it entertaining how some people are caught in strange ideologies. And I find it entertaining some people see themselves as Germanics just because they feel like that. To make it clear: I absolutely have no problem with people having predominantly another meta-ethnic background than the Germanic one, still I wish to make a difference, and when I visit Brandenburg for example, I see a difference.



People are going far too far in this thread, one person ridiculously using the term 'Slavic' for people who have known nothing of Slavdom for centuries, and others making absurd statements suggesting that the Germanics came into the world hermetically sealed...
I generously use the term Slavic for people that do not share ancetors with me, that have no ancestors that chased Roman invaders to hell.


Wends are a significant ingredient in the German genepool. This naturally increases the further east you go, but there were a fair few Wends knocking around even up near Hannover and Lubeck.
Even Denmark...fending off the Slavic storm was a military challenge for the first German kings.


The former group maintained their language into the modern era even. However, to say that people in the easternmost regions are simply Slavs, Apty, is a little crazy, as huge settlement programmes were enacted in the early days when Albrecht and his line ruled the Mark. Flemings were even brought in.
Wait - I never said the Germans of the east per se are Slavics. I said there are areas where Slavic traits dominate.


You mention the Slavonic origins of Berlin, but it should also be stated that the town went through a Flemish phase as well! Since the German peasants from the west were brought in, every family must have become hopelessly entwined once the Wends Germanicised in speech and Slavonic heritage fell from living memory. I bet even the Lausitz survivors have a fair bit of German in them too.
I even mentioned Berlin once had many Huguenonts - 1/3 of the inhabitants at that time. I see Berlin as German town of course, but not as Germanic town, like I see Trier (Augusta Treverorum) as German, but not Germanic town. My mom, for example, hails from G&#246;ppingen - the "-ingen" shows who founded it.


And when the Slavs came into the region, they took over lands that had been East-Germanic.
Had been and no longer was. Most east-Germanics left that area and came to the west. Slavic tribes filled the gap.


Some of the latter are likely to have remained and Slavicised. And even further back, before the separate language families went their ways, there must be a considerable proportion of shared ancestry on the late northern IE level.
Slavicised. And many more Slavics were Germanized.


Lastly, I don't want to see mudslinging about other fora on here. This is not the place for it. Aptrgangr is as established and respectable a member here as he is on Stirpes or elsewhere.
Thanks ;)


Stirpes has its own special nature, true, but they're welcome to it (and are hardly as monolithic as you suggest anyway), and our time here needn't be wasted on lampooning it.
True, anyone having to say anything is welcomed to stand and fight.

Oski
Saturday, June 21st, 2008, 10:16 PM
I have a czech surname because my father was adopted by his stepdad.

I'm English and German by blood with a slavic surname, does that make me a slav? :rolleyes:

Bärin
Saturday, June 21st, 2008, 10:25 PM
@Aptrgangr you just repeat the same nonsense endlessly, you do have an anti East German agenda, you try to say it's less Germanic than the West, ignoring that in the West there was foreign input too. And you call yourself Germanic despite being part Irish, not Celtogermanic, so the same rules don't apply to you, hmm. :rolleyes: It's clear to me 1. you are biased, 2. you don't even understand the word Germanic so my conversation with you ends here.

Aptrgangr
Sunday, June 22nd, 2008, 07:24 PM
@Aptrgangr you just repeat the same nonsense endlessly, you do have an anti East German agenda, you try to say it's less Germanic than the West,
I do not have an anti-East agenda, the very opposite is the case, I enjoy being there any time, and I always buy food from eastern-Germany because it is excellent and I love the idea to support small German companies instead of big international ones.


ignoring that in the West there was foreign input too.
Actually I repeatedly mentiones the Celtic and Romanic influence that is present in the south-west-central of Germany. There is no native Slavic influence there though - like there is no Celtic and Romanic presence in the east.
I grew up at a place that is called "farm of the Welsh" for some years...


And you call yourself Germanic despite being part Irish, not Celtogermanic, so the same rules don't apply to you, hmm. :rolleyes:
I already explained that too, my Celtic ancestry is not much bigger than that of other Germanics too - anyway - being Irish does not mean being entirely of Celtic origin since Vikings once had conquered large parts of Ireland.
Like I said, I clearly look different from an Irishman of predominantly Celtic origin.


It's clear to me 1. you are biased,
I am. So are you.


2. you don't even understand the word Germanic so my conversation with you ends here.
I do understand it very well, I just say there is no need to sumamrize Germans of non-Germanic origin as Germanics.



I have a czech surname because my father was adopted by his stepdad.

I'm English and German by blood with a slavic surname, does that make me a slav?

I have a Germanic surname, the maiden mam eof my mom- does this make me German?

Carl
Sunday, June 22nd, 2008, 07:50 PM
Actually I repeatedly mentiones the Celtic and Romanic influence that is present in the south-west-central of Germany. There is no native Slavic influence there though - like there is no Celtic and Romanic presence in the east.
I grew up at a place that is called "farm of the Welsh" for some years...


Yes - I note too the Suebi root; the original Suebi were from near the Baltic Coast in preRoman times - neighbours of the early Saxons (then) I assume. Swabia is certainly German (!) with, as you say, inevitably strong Celtic roots. We are surely forced to make a distinction between early Northern Germanics and the early Alpine peoples who were seriously Celtic! Obviously these northern Germanics and the early Celtics were related ( at least linguistically ) --- perhaps one might say , more so that the Slavic peoples in the east?:rolleyes:

Was perhaps the Welsh of 'your farm' the same word as the AngloSaxons used for " foreigner"; that's certainly what the Welsh were to the early Saxons ;)

Aptrgangr
Sunday, June 22nd, 2008, 09:13 PM
Yes - I note too the Suebi root; the original Suebi were from near the Baltic Coast in preRoman times - neighbours of the early Saxons (then) I assume.
They landed at the southern Baltic shores, coming from that area that is Sweden now.


Swabia is certainly German (!) with, as you say, inevitably strong Celtic roots.
Yes, when the Suebi made it to today's Swabia the area already was inhabited.
BTW, many of them made it to today's Spain and were absorbed by the native population there.


We are surely forced to make a distinction between early Northern Germanics and the early Alpine peoples who were seriously Celtic!

The Swabians are part of the Alamanni, non-Germanic natives that wanted to join them were allowed to do so. We may not forget, much of today's Germany was conquered by Romans, they brought in settlers too.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limes
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,242045,00.html?sPage=fnc.science/archaeology


Obviously these northern Germanics and the early Celtics were related ( at least linguistically ) --- perhaps one might say , more so that the Slavic peoples in the east?:rolleyes:
There is a big difference between towns having names that origin from the Celtic language, and those that were founded by Germanics. I remember a village named Faurndau, definitely not of Germanic origin but germanized.

Here's a Swabian-English dictionary for the case you are interested:
http://www.schwaebisch-englisch.de/con/voc.html
Swabian is closer to the language of my forfather...better - mothers than today's Standard German.
Wikipedia is available in Alamannic, but unfortunately this language/dialect is more and more lost. (I can speak it, but live in Chatti/Frankish lands...)
http://als.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houptsyte

Standard German has loanwords coming from Latin resp. Romanic languages, Celtic languages and Slavic languages, the bird Swabians call a Dischtelfink is called Stieglitz (http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stieglitz) in Standard German, for example.



Was perhaps the Welsh of 'your farm' the same word as the AngloSaxons used for " foreigner"; that's certainly what the Welsh were to the early Saxons ;)
Yes, it is the same word; Germanics called Romanic and Celtic people (and those having been romanized) Welsh.


Many Germans took over the Polish -ski in their surnames,
Why did they do this? What German name of Germanic origin ending with
"-ski" does exist?


and many Germans have lived in what is now Polish territory before surnames were even mandatory.
Yes of course they did, and there are enough Slavs that have German surnames too.


In earlier times surnames where documented by the church, a Polish priest would have written down a German name in Polish, and thus the name became "officially" Polish.
Why should Polish priests write down names of Germans in order to make them Polish?
Polonization started in the 20th century, it was politically motivated, not religiously.
BTW - the Wends and Sorbs were Slavics different from Poles.


The name is in such instances not a good indicator, exactly because comming from a predominantly Slavic counrty like Poland.
Names ending with -ny, - ski, - ic´, -ow, -czek, etc.pp are not exclusively Polish.


E.g. Polish names in the Ruhrpott are a better indication of Polish ancestry.
Yes, but most Germans of Slavic origin have no Polish ancestors as far as I know. There is a difference between Germans that have Polish immigrants in their ancestry, and those having Oder-Spree-Elbe-Slavic ancestors. Latter were never attracted by the idea belonging to a greater Poland, nor by pan-Slawism.



BTW: I am still waiting for evidence Stirpes has an anti-Germanic agenda, I want to write a complaint to the Swedish admin.

Oswiu
Sunday, June 22nd, 2008, 10:58 PM
There is a difference between Germans that have Polish immigrants in their ancestry, and those having Oder-Spree-Elbe-Slavic ancestors. Latter were never attracted by the idea belonging to a greater Poland, nor by pan-Slawism.[
There was a small section of opinion among the Sorbs advocating union with Czechoslovakia immediately after the War, but it wasn't successful. Mind you, I only read abou tit in Russian sources...


BTW: I am still waiting for evidence Stirpes has an anti-Germanic agenda, I want to write a complaint to the Swedish admin.
Now then, I ALREADY said that this wasn't the place for such discussions, so drop it!

SwordOfTheVistula
Monday, June 23rd, 2008, 09:34 AM
If we're going back that far, to who had 'Germanic' or 'Slavic' ancestors centuries or more ago, wouldn't it make more sense to just consider by subrace? If you've got 2 people who look like eachother, it stands to reason they were at some point in history more closely related than those who look differently

Aptrgangr
Monday, June 23rd, 2008, 07:26 PM
There was a small section of opinion among the Sorbs advocating union with Czechoslovakia immediately after the War, but it wasn't successful. Mind you, I only read abou tit in Russian sources...

Yes, a very small section.
Like there were some FRG politicans that wanted to evacuate Western Berlin and build a new on in the Lübeburger Heide...
In general most having Slavic ancestors are ashamed of it, in the west you have Germanic being ashamed of their Germanic heritage, and do their best to make it forgotten, I, for example, was not given a German(ic) foreame, actually noone of my cousins/close relatives has a non-Roman/Biblical name.
I noticed those having some Slavic ancestors are exta keen to appear German.


Now then, I ALREADY said that this wasn't the place for such discussions, so drop it!
Aye Captain - sorry.

[now, where is that smiley with that saluting Private...]

Carl
Saturday, January 3rd, 2009, 05:59 PM
We do all know which are the predominantly Germanic countries in Europe; Ireland and Wales are not featured on the lsiting because they are thought to be primarily Celtic still; Scotland is a complex mix but the Angle settlements in the southern regions were considerable and signifcant. The German lands in the east is clearly complex with its extensive Slavic contact over many centuries - but it appears to me to be the language and custom which primarily determines the resultant cultural identity. Many people living in the 'Slavic' north could easily be misidentified were it not for their language - the Nazis were in no doubt about that for at least some of the population at the time. We need to read the history correctly.

TheGreatest
Saturday, January 3rd, 2009, 07:36 PM
The German lands in the east is clearly complex with its extensive Slavic contact over many centuries - but it appears to me to be the language and custom which primarily determines the resultant cultural identity. Many people living in the 'Slavic' north could easily be misidentified were it not for their language - the Nazis were in no doubt about that for at least some of the population at the time. We need to read the history correctly.


It shouldn't be that complicated and it wasn't.
You think anyone would had ever mistaken my Grandfather, a Keltic Nordid of Swabian extraction, and my Grandmother, a Corded Nordid (or a Hallsatt. I don't have a young photo of her), to be ethnic Poles or Ukrainians? Heck no!


The real complication was trying to identify the descendants of the Medieval Germans who colonized the region. Most of them had been fully Slavocized, and forgotten their German heritage and language.
It was thought by the Germans, that the Nordids of the region, were in fact the descendants of these Medieval Colonists, or the Teutonic, thus making it perfectly acceptable to ''Germanize" them.


We do all know which are the predominantly Germanic countries in Europe; Ireland and Wales are not featured on the lsiting because they are thought to be primarily Celtic still; Scotland is a complex mix but the Angle settlements in the southern regions were considerable and signifcant. The German lands in the east is clearly complex with its extensive Slavic contact over many centuries - but it appears to me to be the language and custom which primarily determines the resultant cultural identity. Many people living in the 'Slavic' north could easily be misidentified were it not for their language - the Nazis were in no doubt about that for at least some of the population at the time. We need to read the history correctly.



This is true. If I spoke some French and Spanish, I imagine some whacko would be under the assumption that I'm a blue-eyed Spaniard. ;) :D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNt20kHy3Hg

Language is a bit tied to identity. It's like the above video, were an German-American actress plays a Russian Mail Order Bride. Everyone thought she was an ethnic Russian! :-O

(Even though anyone who knows a little bit about phenotypes is that her look is incredibly rare in Russia. Nevertheless, all it took was a fake accent to persuade most people. I don't think the National Socialists were wrong to assume that appearance is tied to race. Though the truth be known, most people tend to identify race through culture and language. If you think that's bad, there are a few people who even dismiss Taxonomy as being pseduo science...)


If we're going back that far, to who had 'Germanic' or 'Slavic' ancestors centuries or more ago, wouldn't it make more sense to just consider by subrace? If you've got 2 people who look like eachother, it stands to reason they were at some point in history more closely related than those who look differently



Because there's no such thing as harmonious mixing? Back then, when a German man married a Polish women, their offspring would had married Germans, Germans and more Germans, the Alpinid-Slavic look ultimately would be suppressed or complement the German phenotype.

But than again, you're more than welcomed to find those Polish coal miners in the Rhineland ;)


Before more nonsense is written in this thread, think of the following situation.
Mr. Podolski is a Polak who moved to Germany. He marries a German woman, who gives birth to a son. The son is raised in German culture and language. His surname is Podolski, like his father's. Yet he's half German. So Podolski Jr. grows up, gets married to a German woman. She makes him a son whose surname will be, that's right, Podolski. He's raised as a German. Now Podolski the IIIrd grows up too, marries a German woman. And the story repeats itself endlessly. Podolski the 100th will have a Slavic surname like his Polak ancestor, but will he be a Polak? Let's be realistic. He will be a German with insignificant Polish ancestry.

Now just replace Podolski with Schmidt and imagine that a German with this name lives in Russia and marries a Russian woman, raises his kids as Russians. In the end, Schmidt the 100th will be Russki and the only German thing about him will be his surname. That's actually how "German" Russians take advantage of the system calling themselves "Aussiedler" just to move to my country and leech off money from Germans. So cut it with the "Germans are Slav" nonsense. A German is a German if the majority of his ethnic background is German and he lives by our language and culture and he is racially compatible, regardless whether a few of his ancestors from centuries ago were Slavs, Celts or Scandinavians. The only pure German is our beer. ;)


That's not true! I think some of your beer factories are owned by non-Germans ;)

Hagogoth
Tuesday, June 8th, 2010, 11:07 PM
Just I read that 25% of the Germans had Slavic ancestry. But this seems
rather exaggerated. In a lot of German regions (before 1800) never Slavic
immigrants had entered: East-Frisia, Oldenburg, Schleswick-Holstein,
Westphalen, Harz, Rhenia, Thuringha and Baden-Wuertenberg. Those areas
are typically Germanic.

Syfon
Saturday, June 19th, 2010, 07:40 PM
Many of the millions of Germans expelled from Central and Eastern Europe will have a Slavic ancestors.

Hagogoth
Saturday, June 19th, 2010, 09:34 PM
But I should like to know before 1940! In those days there were no people
with Slavic ancestry in East-Frisia, Oldenborough, Westphalen, Rhenia and Baden-Wuertenberg

Erik

Horagalles
Sunday, June 20th, 2010, 08:13 PM
But I should like to know before 1940! In those days there were no people
with Slavic ancestry in East-Frisia, Oldenborough, Westphalen, Rhenia and Baden-Wuertenberg

ErikAt least at the Ruhr there were already people with some Polish ancestry. There were also migrant workers from Eastern Europe in other parts.

Hagogoth
Sunday, June 20th, 2010, 10:58 PM
But there were no people of Slavic ancestry before 1800
in Rhenia, East-Frisia and Oldenburg.