Germany and Poland are often depicted as natural enemies, entirely averse to one another’s successes and gleeful in each other’s failures. What is the historical basis for this mutual antagonism?
The Teutonic Knights literally argued for their “God-given” right to exterminate pagans and anyone who defends pagans (including Poles and Lithuanians) at the Council of Constance. Soooo … Catholic, ain’t it?
Only German source, eh? Very sound research, isn't it?
if you have found numerous inaccuracies, please point them out and provide evidence. It should also be clear from the text that I do not consider the Teutonic Knights blameless or even justified in their interactions with the Poles. It is worth mentioning that the Teutonic Knights at the Council of Constance (1414 - 1418) were furious as they had just been soundly defeated by the Poles at Grunwald (1410) during the time of the council.
Also bear in mind that the defender of the Teutonic Knights at the Council of Constance was a Dominican name Johannes Falkenberg. He was condemned at the council for his scandalous writings slandering the Polish king. Furthermore, King Sigismund of Bohemia, who later became Holy Roman Emperor, demanded an end to the Teutonic aggression, and he did this with the support of the Catholic Church.
Concerning my sources: most of them are German because the vast majority of scholarship on the Teutonic Order is written in German. Dismissing the language in which the information was written, is by no means a sound argument against the validity of the article.
It is not the language I dismiss, it is the culture, that justifies and promotes genocide.
As Chesterton noted, a judge should not be impartial, but rather partial to both sides.
Let me note some crucial points:
- The Holy Roman Empire of the year 1000 was not the same, culturally, German state as the German state created after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871. The German state created after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871 had continuity with the Prussian state, which had continuity with the Teutonic Knights state. The German states in the West were effectively conquered by Prussia, and a state model of Prussia was imposed onto them. And it was not the same state as the historic German states in the West. Prussia was a nation effectively founded by refugees from the Middle East. Culturally not European. I suggest study of the French experiences with their, equivalent, refugees from the Middle East at that time. Resolved brutally, and unjustly, but resolved differently.
- The point you yourself restated,, and apparently did not consider it of note, but it is important. You said "Teutonic Knights were furious." Did you seriously consider this an excuse for advocating genocide? Even an excuse, if you do not consider it justification? Because let me note this crucial observation: Were the French furious after the humiliation of the Franco-Prussian War, and after having to pay astronomical reparations (yet paid them before the deadline, well before the deadline, because Germany promised to withdraw the German troops that occupied France once paid, and amazingly Germans did what they promised ... so rare)? But wait, did the French advocate genocide because they were furious? No. Strange, isn't it? Like a normal country, they wanted to recover lost territories and money they felt was stolen -- which they showed in the Versailles Treaty. But did they even think genocide was the answer? Ever? There are very few nations that considered that an answer to anything, historically. It had been a constant policy of Muscovy, since its start in 1471, and it has been consistent policy of Prussia , brought into Germany in 1871.
Recall again, original Prussians were exterminated. Completely. Even though at the time of arrival of Teutonic Knights in Prussia there was already a Catholic bishop of Prussia designated by the Pope. And the name of that bishop was, ironically ... Christian.
And how did the German state created by Prussia behave after the defeat in World War I? Just like 500 years earlier, they were furious and ... advocated genocide.
And a quick question: Did anybody in Poland ever advocate genocide after 1795? A tragic event instigated by Prussia that destabilized Europe and lead to the World Wars? Anybody? Ever? I guess that's why Poland generally loses wars, having two neighbors built on conquest and genocide. Yes, there are always two sides to every issue, but these are two VERY different sides. You speak of "hate". Where is the Polish "hate"? That Polish people live in fear of destruction and extermination by Prussians? You call this "hate"? Because it sure is not the same as the side that advocates extermination, for over 500 years! While proclaiming being Catholic!
Did Germany ever did anything to atone for what they did to Poland during World War II? Anything at all? They murdered over 17% of the country's population, destroyed the entire economy, leveled numerous cities, completely destroyed everything in Warsaw, and ... nothing, absolutely nothing to atone. Not even a basic acknowledgement of what they did.
It was the Polish Catholic bishops who reached out to the Germans first, in 1966, in order to honor 1000 years of Christianity in Poland, and proposed reconciliation. And now we see what Poland received in return: Another pursuit of conquest by Germany, this time clandestine. Germany learned from World War I that they lost that war because they were too nice, and they never made that mistake again. Germany learned from World War II that they lost that war because they were too honest, and they never made that mistake again.
There is continuity. And I challenge the premise that the Teutonic Knight were ever Catholic. In my humble opinion, they were not.
And the vast majority of Polish scholarship does not exist, as far as Germany is considered, so obviously you did not study it. Did you at least study the list of all art stolen by Germany during World War II, which was published recently by Dr. Magdalena Ogorek? For which she received death threats? None of the art was returned, of course. Just as a reminder that the regalia of Polish kings held in Krakow, were stolen by Prussia in the 18th century, and ... melted for metal. European politics, Taliban style. Historical treasures that would have been over 1050 years old now.
- The Prussian state achieved independence from the Commonwealth in 1655, completely illegally, in return for the promise of helping the Commonwealth in fighting off joint Swedish-Muscovite invasion. Of course the help was never given by Prussia. This was a watershed event in European history, and ... not in your story.
There is no "hatred" of Germany in Poland. There is just a great desire to be left alone, not conquered and/or exterminated. You call this hatred? Seriously?
1. You are right that the HRE of the year 1000 AD is not the same as the German states of the late 19th and 20th centuries. In fact, I made the exact same claim in the article. It is important to be precise and remember that the Kingdom of Prussia was the political evolution of the Duchy of Prussia, which had kicked the Teutonic Knights out because the Grandmaster became Protestant.
2. The statement that they were furious is relevant regarding the inflammatory words of Johannes Falkenberg. I think it is quite obvious that it is not a justification of Teutonic aggression, and the council fathers believed that to be the case as well, considering they sent him to prison for his defense of brutality.
3. Your example of France is shortsighted, because the French absolutely wanted to go to war with Germany again, which is what fueled most of their WWI effort.
4. Your point regarding the original Prussians and the first Christian bishop before the Teutonic Knights is, again, something covered in the article where I explicitly mentioned that the Poles had been actively Christianizing (and sometimes killing the original Prussians) centuries before the Teutonic Knights even existed.
5. The German state after WWI was furious, and had multiple parties advocate for war and mass killings—something that is unjustified and was, again, condemned by the Catholic Church.
6. To equate the 18th century partitions of Poland to genocide is a stretch, to say the least. There were, unfortunately, expulsions, but there was not ethnic cleansing to be mentioned of in the same vein as the atrocities of the Second World War committed by Nazi Germany.
7. The modern German state does not advocate genocide, nor does it wish the end of Poland. However, the leaders of the modern Polish state are more than willing to question Germany’s existence.
8. Extermination of the Poles was a horrific tendency of the 20th century. Partitioning a state is not the same as extermination, otherwise the same claim could be applied to post-WWII Germany.
9. You statements about Germany’s actions during WWII: Germany atoned by being leveled by relentless fire bombing raids and lost not only its reason for being, but about the same percentage of its population. No one here is going to defend Nazi Germany—not even the Teutonic Knights. Also, do you not remember Chancellor Willy Brandt kneeling in Warsaw?
10. I’m not sure what you mean in the paragraph regarding the 1000 year anniversary of relations between Germany and Poland. Perhaps you could kindly explain it?
11. To question the Catholicism of the Teutonic Knights would have to be done on a case-by-case inquiry. The commandries within the HRE were almost entirely charitable organizations supplying hospitals and priests. The commandries along the Baltic, on the other hand, were quite different and there is a case to be made that they were often not at all Christian in their methods. The modern Teutonic Order as of the last few centuries and especially after 1929 follows the tradition of the commandries within Germany and not those that had been along the Baltic.
12. The comment about stolen artwork has nothing to do with this conversation. Though because you mentioned it, it is worthwhile to make a note: anyone who steals artwork and does not repatriate it or at least share it, is a villain.
13. My comment about scholarship has to do with the Teutonic Knights, not the history of Poland. If you are interested in who precisely I mean (other than the sources that I posted that include British authors), then please check out the works by Matthias Untermann and Christofer Herrmann. In fact, Herrmann taught in Gdańsk for more than 10 years on the topic.
14. Regarding the independence of the Duchy of Prussia from the Commonwealth: I did mention it, but not in detail as there is simply too much to cover and not much space.
15. I used the term ‘hatred’ with reference to the lowest common denominator in both countries. I have personally met Silesian Germans who hate Poland because their families were forcibly expelled after WWII. I have also met Poles who hate the Silesian Germans because they consider them to be invaders.
To summarize: conquest is not the same as extermination, though both can happen concurrently. The point of this article was to examine which aspects of the Teutonic Knights have remained in both the German and Polish ethos. It was also to question the knee-jerk reaction of some individuals who instantly revert to seething with anger anytime the Teutonic Knights are mentioned.
I understand why you harbor such distrust for Germany before 1950, but that does not mean that anyone approaching this topic from a more German perspective is fundamentally flawed. And as a side note, it is a demonstration of bad faith to assume that I somehow advocate, justify, or excuse genocide. As a matter of habit, i would suggest that you consider your words through a more charitable lens, as we are not enemies on the page. This substack is devoted to historical inquiry, not base accusations.
3. My point was not that the French were not furious. They were. I said so. My point was that the French did not want to exterminate the Germans in response. In fact, nobody in history ever wanted to exterminate the Germans.. Nobody in history ever wanted to exterminate the Muscovites either. Yet these two nations repeatedly get in a frenzy in which they proclaim they want to exterminate, and have done so repeatedly. With virtually no consequence.
6. Please reread my statement about the partitions of Poland. No mention of genocide. What I said was that Prussia was the main instigator of it, and it was a catastrophic event, which destabilized Europe. and eventually lead to the World Wars.
When someone openly advocates genocide, as Germans (and Muscovites) repeatedly did, I consider this a very serious matter. When someone commits genocide, as Germans (and Muscovites) repeatedly did, and does not atone for it (and Germans only atoned for one thing: The Holocaust, and only because Americans forced them to), I also consider it a very serious matter. But to call my attitude "hate" is completely unjustified.
As I said, your approach of equating the actual hate by genocidal mass murderers with their victims protesting the deeds is completely unjustified. And as I said, there is no hatred for the Germans in Poland, only fear of their designs for conquest and genocide.
And conquest does not equate genocide, you say? When you are invaded by Prussia or Muscovy, and you dare to resist that conquest, their conquest turns into genocide. That's what their history is.
I am not even remotely your enemy, though. I wish you all the success in the world, because you write about important things.
The Germans paid for committing genocide upon their neighbors by being completely demolished. The consquence was the death of millions of its citizens (including the ethnic cleansing of Germans in the east by the Red Army), partition of its territories, and intense feeling of guilt that Germans have harbored since the end of the war.
Again, the point of my article was that the Teutonic Knights are often misrepresented through the abuse of their Symbols. The knights are not the Nazis. The main person who advocated for the ethnic cleansing at the Council of Constance wasn't even a member of their order.
I agree that the Russians (or Muscovites, as you put it, which I may begin using as well!) have never atoned for their atrocities, but the Germans certainly have.
My approach has not and never will be to equate the victims of slaughter to their Killers. Having said that, modern Poles are not victims of modern Germans.
As far as I know, the only clear
demonstration of genocide was during WWII, not before. Discussions of 18th century Prussia do not include ethnic cleansing.
If you are interested, perhaps we could pen an article together about this. I think it would be very interesting to a lot of people! I am preparing an article on the rise of nations and this topic might make a good follow up. What are your thoughts?
You are very kind to offer writing something together. Very kind. thank you. I am just so busy though. So what I will kindly ask is that you consider my points. Please. And of course, I am very interested in the article you are preparing.
Numerous inaccuracies. Most important one:
The Teutonic Knights literally argued for their “God-given” right to exterminate pagans and anyone who defends pagans (including Poles and Lithuanians) at the Council of Constance. Soooo … Catholic, ain’t it?
Only German source, eh? Very sound research, isn't it?
Dear Krzysztof,
if you have found numerous inaccuracies, please point them out and provide evidence. It should also be clear from the text that I do not consider the Teutonic Knights blameless or even justified in their interactions with the Poles. It is worth mentioning that the Teutonic Knights at the Council of Constance (1414 - 1418) were furious as they had just been soundly defeated by the Poles at Grunwald (1410) during the time of the council.
Also bear in mind that the defender of the Teutonic Knights at the Council of Constance was a Dominican name Johannes Falkenberg. He was condemned at the council for his scandalous writings slandering the Polish king. Furthermore, King Sigismund of Bohemia, who later became Holy Roman Emperor, demanded an end to the Teutonic aggression, and he did this with the support of the Catholic Church.
Concerning my sources: most of them are German because the vast majority of scholarship on the Teutonic Order is written in German. Dismissing the language in which the information was written, is by no means a sound argument against the validity of the article.
It is not the language I dismiss, it is the culture, that justifies and promotes genocide.
As Chesterton noted, a judge should not be impartial, but rather partial to both sides.
Let me note some crucial points:
- The Holy Roman Empire of the year 1000 was not the same, culturally, German state as the German state created after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871. The German state created after the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871 had continuity with the Prussian state, which had continuity with the Teutonic Knights state. The German states in the West were effectively conquered by Prussia, and a state model of Prussia was imposed onto them. And it was not the same state as the historic German states in the West. Prussia was a nation effectively founded by refugees from the Middle East. Culturally not European. I suggest study of the French experiences with their, equivalent, refugees from the Middle East at that time. Resolved brutally, and unjustly, but resolved differently.
- The point you yourself restated,, and apparently did not consider it of note, but it is important. You said "Teutonic Knights were furious." Did you seriously consider this an excuse for advocating genocide? Even an excuse, if you do not consider it justification? Because let me note this crucial observation: Were the French furious after the humiliation of the Franco-Prussian War, and after having to pay astronomical reparations (yet paid them before the deadline, well before the deadline, because Germany promised to withdraw the German troops that occupied France once paid, and amazingly Germans did what they promised ... so rare)? But wait, did the French advocate genocide because they were furious? No. Strange, isn't it? Like a normal country, they wanted to recover lost territories and money they felt was stolen -- which they showed in the Versailles Treaty. But did they even think genocide was the answer? Ever? There are very few nations that considered that an answer to anything, historically. It had been a constant policy of Muscovy, since its start in 1471, and it has been consistent policy of Prussia , brought into Germany in 1871.
Recall again, original Prussians were exterminated. Completely. Even though at the time of arrival of Teutonic Knights in Prussia there was already a Catholic bishop of Prussia designated by the Pope. And the name of that bishop was, ironically ... Christian.
And how did the German state created by Prussia behave after the defeat in World War I? Just like 500 years earlier, they were furious and ... advocated genocide.
And a quick question: Did anybody in Poland ever advocate genocide after 1795? A tragic event instigated by Prussia that destabilized Europe and lead to the World Wars? Anybody? Ever? I guess that's why Poland generally loses wars, having two neighbors built on conquest and genocide. Yes, there are always two sides to every issue, but these are two VERY different sides. You speak of "hate". Where is the Polish "hate"? That Polish people live in fear of destruction and extermination by Prussians? You call this "hate"? Because it sure is not the same as the side that advocates extermination, for over 500 years! While proclaiming being Catholic!
Did Germany ever did anything to atone for what they did to Poland during World War II? Anything at all? They murdered over 17% of the country's population, destroyed the entire economy, leveled numerous cities, completely destroyed everything in Warsaw, and ... nothing, absolutely nothing to atone. Not even a basic acknowledgement of what they did.
It was the Polish Catholic bishops who reached out to the Germans first, in 1966, in order to honor 1000 years of Christianity in Poland, and proposed reconciliation. And now we see what Poland received in return: Another pursuit of conquest by Germany, this time clandestine. Germany learned from World War I that they lost that war because they were too nice, and they never made that mistake again. Germany learned from World War II that they lost that war because they were too honest, and they never made that mistake again.
There is continuity. And I challenge the premise that the Teutonic Knight were ever Catholic. In my humble opinion, they were not.
And the vast majority of Polish scholarship does not exist, as far as Germany is considered, so obviously you did not study it. Did you at least study the list of all art stolen by Germany during World War II, which was published recently by Dr. Magdalena Ogorek? For which she received death threats? None of the art was returned, of course. Just as a reminder that the regalia of Polish kings held in Krakow, were stolen by Prussia in the 18th century, and ... melted for metal. European politics, Taliban style. Historical treasures that would have been over 1050 years old now.
- The Prussian state achieved independence from the Commonwealth in 1655, completely illegally, in return for the promise of helping the Commonwealth in fighting off joint Swedish-Muscovite invasion. Of course the help was never given by Prussia. This was a watershed event in European history, and ... not in your story.
There is no "hatred" of Germany in Poland. There is just a great desire to be left alone, not conquered and/or exterminated. You call this hatred? Seriously?
Allow me to respond to your points:
1. You are right that the HRE of the year 1000 AD is not the same as the German states of the late 19th and 20th centuries. In fact, I made the exact same claim in the article. It is important to be precise and remember that the Kingdom of Prussia was the political evolution of the Duchy of Prussia, which had kicked the Teutonic Knights out because the Grandmaster became Protestant.
2. The statement that they were furious is relevant regarding the inflammatory words of Johannes Falkenberg. I think it is quite obvious that it is not a justification of Teutonic aggression, and the council fathers believed that to be the case as well, considering they sent him to prison for his defense of brutality.
3. Your example of France is shortsighted, because the French absolutely wanted to go to war with Germany again, which is what fueled most of their WWI effort.
4. Your point regarding the original Prussians and the first Christian bishop before the Teutonic Knights is, again, something covered in the article where I explicitly mentioned that the Poles had been actively Christianizing (and sometimes killing the original Prussians) centuries before the Teutonic Knights even existed.
5. The German state after WWI was furious, and had multiple parties advocate for war and mass killings—something that is unjustified and was, again, condemned by the Catholic Church.
6. To equate the 18th century partitions of Poland to genocide is a stretch, to say the least. There were, unfortunately, expulsions, but there was not ethnic cleansing to be mentioned of in the same vein as the atrocities of the Second World War committed by Nazi Germany.
7. The modern German state does not advocate genocide, nor does it wish the end of Poland. However, the leaders of the modern Polish state are more than willing to question Germany’s existence.
8. Extermination of the Poles was a horrific tendency of the 20th century. Partitioning a state is not the same as extermination, otherwise the same claim could be applied to post-WWII Germany.
9. You statements about Germany’s actions during WWII: Germany atoned by being leveled by relentless fire bombing raids and lost not only its reason for being, but about the same percentage of its population. No one here is going to defend Nazi Germany—not even the Teutonic Knights. Also, do you not remember Chancellor Willy Brandt kneeling in Warsaw?
10. I’m not sure what you mean in the paragraph regarding the 1000 year anniversary of relations between Germany and Poland. Perhaps you could kindly explain it?
11. To question the Catholicism of the Teutonic Knights would have to be done on a case-by-case inquiry. The commandries within the HRE were almost entirely charitable organizations supplying hospitals and priests. The commandries along the Baltic, on the other hand, were quite different and there is a case to be made that they were often not at all Christian in their methods. The modern Teutonic Order as of the last few centuries and especially after 1929 follows the tradition of the commandries within Germany and not those that had been along the Baltic.
12. The comment about stolen artwork has nothing to do with this conversation. Though because you mentioned it, it is worthwhile to make a note: anyone who steals artwork and does not repatriate it or at least share it, is a villain.
13. My comment about scholarship has to do with the Teutonic Knights, not the history of Poland. If you are interested in who precisely I mean (other than the sources that I posted that include British authors), then please check out the works by Matthias Untermann and Christofer Herrmann. In fact, Herrmann taught in Gdańsk for more than 10 years on the topic.
14. Regarding the independence of the Duchy of Prussia from the Commonwealth: I did mention it, but not in detail as there is simply too much to cover and not much space.
15. I used the term ‘hatred’ with reference to the lowest common denominator in both countries. I have personally met Silesian Germans who hate Poland because their families were forcibly expelled after WWII. I have also met Poles who hate the Silesian Germans because they consider them to be invaders.
To summarize: conquest is not the same as extermination, though both can happen concurrently. The point of this article was to examine which aspects of the Teutonic Knights have remained in both the German and Polish ethos. It was also to question the knee-jerk reaction of some individuals who instantly revert to seething with anger anytime the Teutonic Knights are mentioned.
I understand why you harbor such distrust for Germany before 1950, but that does not mean that anyone approaching this topic from a more German perspective is fundamentally flawed. And as a side note, it is a demonstration of bad faith to assume that I somehow advocate, justify, or excuse genocide. As a matter of habit, i would suggest that you consider your words through a more charitable lens, as we are not enemies on the page. This substack is devoted to historical inquiry, not base accusations.
3. My point was not that the French were not furious. They were. I said so. My point was that the French did not want to exterminate the Germans in response. In fact, nobody in history ever wanted to exterminate the Germans.. Nobody in history ever wanted to exterminate the Muscovites either. Yet these two nations repeatedly get in a frenzy in which they proclaim they want to exterminate, and have done so repeatedly. With virtually no consequence.
6. Please reread my statement about the partitions of Poland. No mention of genocide. What I said was that Prussia was the main instigator of it, and it was a catastrophic event, which destabilized Europe. and eventually lead to the World Wars.
When someone openly advocates genocide, as Germans (and Muscovites) repeatedly did, I consider this a very serious matter. When someone commits genocide, as Germans (and Muscovites) repeatedly did, and does not atone for it (and Germans only atoned for one thing: The Holocaust, and only because Americans forced them to), I also consider it a very serious matter. But to call my attitude "hate" is completely unjustified.
As I said, your approach of equating the actual hate by genocidal mass murderers with their victims protesting the deeds is completely unjustified. And as I said, there is no hatred for the Germans in Poland, only fear of their designs for conquest and genocide.
And conquest does not equate genocide, you say? When you are invaded by Prussia or Muscovy, and you dare to resist that conquest, their conquest turns into genocide. That's what their history is.
I am not even remotely your enemy, though. I wish you all the success in the world, because you write about important things.
Dear Krzysztof,
The Germans paid for committing genocide upon their neighbors by being completely demolished. The consquence was the death of millions of its citizens (including the ethnic cleansing of Germans in the east by the Red Army), partition of its territories, and intense feeling of guilt that Germans have harbored since the end of the war.
Again, the point of my article was that the Teutonic Knights are often misrepresented through the abuse of their Symbols. The knights are not the Nazis. The main person who advocated for the ethnic cleansing at the Council of Constance wasn't even a member of their order.
I agree that the Russians (or Muscovites, as you put it, which I may begin using as well!) have never atoned for their atrocities, but the Germans certainly have.
My approach has not and never will be to equate the victims of slaughter to their Killers. Having said that, modern Poles are not victims of modern Germans.
As far as I know, the only clear
demonstration of genocide was during WWII, not before. Discussions of 18th century Prussia do not include ethnic cleansing.
If you are interested, perhaps we could pen an article together about this. I think it would be very interesting to a lot of people! I am preparing an article on the rise of nations and this topic might make a good follow up. What are your thoughts?
You are very kind to offer writing something together. Very kind. thank you. I am just so busy though. So what I will kindly ask is that you consider my points. Please. And of course, I am very interested in the article you are preparing.