Question For Germans and Russian On The Forum

Is the town on the Baltic Kaliningrad or Koenigsberg?

 

It has been Kaliningrad since it was ceded to the USSR post WW2. It was Konigsberg when it was part of German East Prussia which no longer exists and is now a part of Poland. The Kaliningrad enclave today is a separate Russian entity bordering Poland and Lithuania

 

[video=youtube;v9Tf8QUyMRo]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9Tf8QUyMRo[/video]

 

[video=youtube;MKGSKuW6rM0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKGSKuW6rM0[/video]
russian

 

Have the Germans given up on East Prussia?

 

I believe Willie Brandt the then West German chancellor guaranteed the borders with Poland back in the 70s if memory serves. In 1945 Germany also lost the provinces of Pomerania and Silesia as well as East Prussia to Poland to compensate them for the loss of Eastern half of their country to Stalin back in 1939. Stalin was unprepared to give the Poles back their land in 1945. Unfortunately for the Germans who already lived in those provinces they were all shipped out at the time . Its all history now and is pretty much a done deal today

 

Taxcutter says:
Poland held on to their idea from 1763 to 1919. The Argentines have claimed the Falkland (Malvina) islands for two hundred years. Are the Germans less tenacious?


I could see Putin offering Ms. Merkel Pomerania, Silesia, and East Prussia in exchange for a free hand in the Baltic States and southeastern Poland. Thus both nations would (more or less) restore their 1913 boundaries.

 

This would be a good deal to guarantee stability and peace in the future. However, the same should be applied to what is now Ukraine. Why they do not want to negotiate such a deal with Putin and Lavrov?

 

Much less, given the spectre their WW2 history has had on their national conscience

Putin would first have to be in some kind of position to offer it meaning he would have to have invaded Poland. Of course there would have been an all out nuclear war in the interim given Polands NATO membership so nobody would be caring much anymore after that

I suspect that idea appeals far more to the Russian psyche than it does the German

 

Taxcutter says:
Can you visualize Hussein Obama growing mushrooms over Poland? I can't.

Britain and France won't. They've been down the Poland road before.

 

The prize isn't worth the risk and Russia knows this

 

Yes, with 99,99% they have, similar to the now polish areas "Südliches Ostpreussen, Danzig, Hinterpommern und Schlesien" and the now czech areas of "Sudetenland, Egerland und Südmähren".
It were the atrocities of the germans in WW2 combined with the betrayal of the german inhabitants of Czechoslovakia to their home country CZ in 1937-1938 that built a general accept even in the western winner nations of WW2 for the biggest ethnical cleansing ever in Europe. This ethnic cleansing (exept the polish area of Oberschlesien) was so complete, that there had been less than 1% left. So there ist no historical german influence left there.

But as Germany (BRD and DDR) integrated the refugees in their societies instead of holding them in refugee camps like i.E. the arabs do with the palestinians, they soon lost their Prussian or Silesian countryship and got Bavarians or Saxonians or ... With the dying of the surivers of WW2 the problem simply disapeared. Only some extreme national right wingers keep political accounts, for most people it's maximum some sentimental historical facts. These sentiments indeed are mostly even accepted by polish and czech, a fact, that wasn't like up to the 1990's.
Formally Willy Brandt as german chancellor (for me the greatest g.c. of all) could only guarant the czech borders as their territories had not been german to 1938. For Poland/USSR he only could guarantee not to use violence to change borders. The vaiver to these terrtories was formally only possible for an all german parliament. After this existed at 03.10.1990 this vaiver was formally signed and we have an all side accepted border with Poland.
So I have mixed feelings to this. On the one side we have a peaceful neighbourhood and for the first time no open border and population questions in this area. On the other side these events show to every dictator - ethnic cleansing is worth it on the long term. And that is obviously a bad sign.

 

Yes, It is very good explained...Just being punctilious I would like to clarify a sentence

CZ wasn´t their home Country.. CZ was an artificial State born in november 1918.. All german speaking born in Moravia (Mährend) or Bohemia...before november 1918 was not bound to considered loyal to CZ. Why a moravian born in Stemberg in 1902, he was forced to be loyal to CZ when he was born in Moravia, a Habsburg State!... an Habsburg State from 500 years!!!!! If Masaryk wasn´t loyal to Habsburg.... and Habsburg were there from 20 generations... Why would the german speaking from Chleb, Karlstadt, Brünn, Olmütz or Prage, be loyal to an artificial state that had no 20 years of existence?

a Czech (there were millions) who was loyal to the Habsburgs, could demand the same loyalty to the CZ by the "Deutsch", but a Czech nationalist who betrayed the House of Habsburg, fighting the Russians, Italians or French ... had no moral authority to demand loyalty when he had been a traitor.

 

optimally for Russia - returning Koenigsberg to Germany in response to its help of Ukraine splitting

 

There are many arguments in your post, that describe the situation of the german inhabitants of CZ well. I allready argued them with my habsburg-born Egerland and Sudetenland anchestors in former times.
In themes of anti-nationalism the late Habsburg empire was the most advanced country in europe (besides Switzerland to be correct) of that time, maybe it was 50 years to early to be unterstood.
Nevertheless the mayority of a state sees it as betrayal if a minority calls for a (stronger) neighbour nation to separate parts of the country. As I wrote above, that doesn't justify ethnical cleansing.
Minorities have the right to be accepted and well treated by mayority, but the duty to stand for the common state. Otherways it won't work. By the way is this the reason for my point of view to the events in eastern ukraine.

 

+ 1 I think the same. Die Monarchie was the most anti-nationalism political organization in Europe (fortunatly)..Each could speak, study, live in the language wanted, no problem. The Imperial Constitution guaranteed the right to live in the language you want ..In Olmütz: German and Czech (but also a minority from Silesia and Poland). There were people only spoke German, other only Czech, and many people could speak in both languages. Long time before the arrival of the nationalist fanatics, were Germans or Czechs, both the same dogs!

Again you are right, but we can´t forget the traitors that in wartime joined the Russians, Italians or Frenchmen enemies...A very bad example for many people in Moravia and Bohemia ..20 years laters...

Exactly it´s so, I add Ukrainie is an artificial State. the West is "Habsburg"... If you have been in Lemberg or in Tarnopol you can see, not very different than other cities in Galitzia..the East is Russian: if you have been in Kharkov or in Donetsk, they are similar to many russian cities.
Russia should occupy the land that was Russia in 1914-1924. Ukraine could exist on land that belonged to the Hapsburg Empire.It is a reasonable option, I think.

 

Obviously we are at 90% identical assessment of the historical facts.
Only your conclusions are not quite understandable to me. Correctly you praise the Antinationalism of Habsburg. But why do you call other Multiethnical states like the old CZ (by all its faults the last eastern europe democracy in 1938 with complete civil rights to german, czech, slovakian and ukrainian citizens) and nowadays Ukraine "artifical". See the raise of Habsburg. Built on mariage of Noblemen, weakness of duchy of bavaria, unability of Italy to organize itself, a (in the beginning polish sponsored) recapture of osmanian territory and a betrayal of Poland-Lithuania. Wouldn't you call that artifical?
In my opinion, after Prussia (Germany) has left the field of the big players there is jet only one big nation which is completely based on nationalism. And that is Russia which historically destroyed two well balanced Multiethnical states with Poland-Lithuania and Habsburg and is now going to destroy the attemps of Ukraine to get one. They would even try to destroy Switzerland, if the Rätoromanians were russian.
With this reason the EU and Russia are completely incompatible. For me the EU is a modern copy of Habsburg in meanings of antinationalism.
Unfortunately they changed monarchial bureaucracy to brussels officials bureaucracy.

 

I think all states are artificals... but It was more artificial stte CZ than Habsburg... the Habsburg States, like you well said, were created by centuries of marriages (FELIX AUSTRIA) Alii bella gerunt, tu felix Austria nube:...I think It is more artificial a state that seeks a false origins in language, race, history etc, than one that bases its rationale in the monarchical legitimism... Habsburg States lack of "nationalism", "races" or "history"... they were based (as it was always from the Sumerians) in the loyalty to the Emperor and King.
Czechoslovakia was a product of nationalism, Wilson etc etc. It was a product of hatred (Czechs against Germans, Slovaks against Czechs, Slovaks against Hungarians, Poles against Czechs, Poles against Ukrainians, german against Pole, etc etc) ...It is true that between all the evil and artificial countries arising out of the sad end of the Habsburg Empire, Czechoslovakia was the least harmful... but It was more nationalistic than the old Hapsburg empire ... I prefer the old states of Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia, Krakow etc etc ... what next .

.

It is true Russia wanted destroy the Habsburg Empire.. but failt... it was a borderline, Wilson, who became the "destroyer" of the Habsburg Empire. Ukraine is a nationalist and dangerous country... It was created by two coups: 1991 and 2014.. In February 2014, german and american helped, funded and organized a Coup in Kiev to stablish a puppet state. For me, the invasion of Ukraine is a historical necessity .. I don´t ask whether Russia will attack ... I ask When it happens.

If Russia had been nationalist, had simply annexed Poland, Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia etc etc ... no one had stopped ... but Russia did not. US, for exemple, annexed Texas... Russia didn´t annexed Poland... and in 1945 or 1950 had the power, the MILITARY power to do it.

 

Don't confuse Russia with the Soviet Union.
The USSR was a state based on an antihuman ideology that put harm to milllions of people in middle and eastern europe for 70 years, but it was neither russian nor nationalist, even though russians were the largest ethnic group in the socialist bloc. Even though they anexed the three baltic countries, the Ukraine and teritories of finland, germany, poland, czechslovakia and romania. And the rest of the swag of WW2 had to join ideology, which was more importand than beeing under occupation.

But todays russia (even though some old world inhabitants still praise Stalin) does not refer to USSR but the old czarist russia. And sees its true position in the borders of 1914 plus the conquests from Austria and osman empire they wanted to get in WW1, as they took Lemberg. In 1914-1918 the germans destroyed that plan by helping their austrian allies until they got beat themselves in the west by the french/british/US coalition.
Nowadays Austro-Hungaria calls himself Ukraine and stands in the way for restauration the old russian empire.
But - better than 1914 - I guess all russian and western politicians know, that a direct conflict between the countries would be desasterous. For that Putin will not leave his position in which he still can assert not to be party in the conflict, nevertheless his support on the rebells (a position, the US took in Syria, too). With the first official russian army tank in Ukraine he will give this comfortable position away. That won't happen without need. Actually I see no such need, even if the regular ukrainian army will end war soon. The stake in this cruel game is Ukraine, not Russia.

But I think, now we are a little of topic.

 

Yes, we are not very different though

You are right, It is true. I lived in East Europe from 1988 (and in 1985 I was in DDR, I know perfectly what you are talking, and Yes, you are right, when the fall of the wall I was in Resko, not very far from DDR border). Also I must to say that the regime was in Germany before the establishment of the DDR was much worse .. the a thousand years Reich ..

Why not? the Baltic countries also were artificial states.. they belonged to Russia from 1809.. and before, It didn´t exist any Baltic Countries.. .they belonged to Swedish Empire, and before the Poland-Lithuania Commonwealth and before Hansa, Teutonic order etc.. Never It was any Baltic State before the Russian Revolution and Civil War... Baltic State took advantage of Russian weakness for independence ... (they won) ... and when Russia was strengthened ... the Baltic States paid their boldness (1940 and 1944/45).If they did not respect the boundaries of the Russian Empire, the legitimate owner of the land from 1809 ... Why Russia would respect the boundaries of Baltic States? I don´t understand why.

I don´t think so. Russia doesn´t want westerners in their borders, that´s all... And, of course, Russia had right... It has been the westerners, not the russian, who have always attacked: Poles in XVI, XVII Centuries...I am sure you know the Pole Invasion in 1605.. taking advantage in a russian civil war... It was Poland, not Russian who begun the historical conflict...and Poles lost ... "Holy Russia" eliminated his first western invaders ...and Warszawa was conquested... 180 years later...Historical revenge. Then came the Swedes ...1708, a new Wester invasion.. and a new Western dissaster.. the once powerful Sweden disappeared forever from the club of the powers...Then came the French...1812 and the Third Western invasion and the third Western dissaster... Russian took Paris in 1814 and the Russian armies were in France til 1819/1820... Then came the German... 1941 and the Fourth Western invasion, and the Fourth Western dissaster... Russian took Berlin in 1945 and the Russian armies were in Germany til september 1994.
With this background, Russia can not and shouldn´t rely on the Westerners... In fact Westernes have broken the commitment not to expand NATO eastward...in fact, Westerners want a new war from the momment they extended NATO to Baltic States and to the Russian borders.... Westerners want to establish a "sanitaire cordon" like in 1919...Russia showed its commitment to peace ... leaving the conquered countries..but in Ukrainie must be inflexible. Westerners must understand that a Ukrainia in NATO or EU is a Casus Belli and a Total War.

I also argue that Russia was largely responsible for the Great War (and serbian nationalism too and French arrogance, but the main guilty was Russia). Which does not ignore the disastrous German foreign policy since the collapse of Great Bismarck ..The only major politician II German Reich and the best politician in Europe between 1850 to 1950.

If the Austro-Hungarian Empire not been dissolved by Wilson moron ... the history of Europe would have been very different. there hadn´t been Nazism, nor Second War nor communism or Warsaw Pact or NATO ...Not even this issue...

I think as you. It would be a disaster for everyone, the end of civilization. But I think there are westerners want to send soldiers to Ukrainia...and that means Total War. It was Berlin and Washington who organized the Coup in February...

Your though it is intelligent.. I would like to think that.. but I´m afraid It is not right... Russia never accept Ukraine into NATO or Western soldiers in Ukrainie .. if that happens, Russia will be forced to take by force the control of Ukraine.

You are right again, but It is interesting.

 

It's the same town in two languages.

Same of like it's "Rom" in English and "Roma" in Italian, or "Wien" German and "Vienna" in English.
Names of cities do change with a language.

By the way: If you translate "Koenigsberg" (or Königsberg as it was spelled originally) into French, it's "Montréal". A well known town in Canada these days

 

Taxcutter says:
Looks like its a Russian town in what used to be Prussia. Frederick the Great would be appalled.

 

Luckily the beliefs of Frederick the Great are as dead as him. It's 2014, so people (hopefully) lost their nationalistic tendencies or reclaiming "Lebensraum"; to reuse some 1940s German linguistic expression and to make my point...

 

Taxcutters says:
Uh-huh. People have changed. If you believe that...

 

Excuse me, but here I must contradict:
Königsberg (engl. King's Mountain) would be something like "Gornii Korola". German translation of Kaliningrad would be Kalininstadt (Town of Kalinin), in honour to a sowjet Leader (Like Stalin with very bloody hands, supported Katyn).

The situation in northern east prussia was completely different to the former german areas of Poland and Czech. North east prussia was completely swept out of germans (as far as they had not already left in 1944/45). Instead of PL/CZ there was no pre war russian population there to stay and keep traditions, even towns names. The area was complete empty (or got emptied) for sowiet military.
In Poland and Czech it went the way, you described. If there were ancient slavian names usually the germans had let them in the middle ages and written in their spelling (f.e.: Chomutov - Kommotau, Brünn - Brno, Prag - Praha). Those names were reactivated after WW1, when the areas got czech, and stayed after WW2.
German foundations were translated (f.e.: Brüx - Most (bridge), Marienbad - Marianske Lazne (Marie's spa), Falkenau - Sokolov (Falk "-ing"). That also happend after WW1 and stayed after WW2.

But again as I wrote before: North east prussia today isn't more "german" than any town in Siberia ore elsewere in the world and there are no serious claims for it in germany.