Abstract
It was the paradox of German—Polish history that Germans and Poles were at once enemies and lovers, strangers and friends; multiple forms of interaction structured the national relationship, as it existed in the German Empire. The problem at the heart of this paradox was not only a matter of hermeneutics, but also of the sustainability of a particular mode of social existence: the nation. In the German—Polish provinces, this question became ever more critical as the two principal nationalities became increasingly embroiled in conflict during the latter decades of the nineteenth century.
In the close confines of today’s city of Posen, Germans and Poles treat each other like foreigners.
MORITZ JAFFÉ (1909)1
Poles and Germans were divided as two completely inimical peoples; there was no contact between them.
EUGEN KÜHNEMANN (1937)2
Poles and Germans are so mixed together that a political division would harm the one or the other people.
DIETRICH SCHÄFER (1913)3
In the back of Schulze’s farm sheds, they’re kicking up a row, the Polish ox is dancing with the German cow!4
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
M. Jaffé, Die Stadt Posen unter preussischer Herrschaft: ein Beitrag zur Geschichte des deutschen Ostens (Leipzig, 1909), p. 407.
Eugen Kühnemann was the first rector of the Posen Academy, opened in 1903 as part of the government’s Germanization programme of the eastern provinces. E. Kühnemann, Mit unbefangener Stirn: Mein Lebensbuch (Heilbronn, 1937), p. 130.
Deutscher Ostmarkenverein, Die deutsche Ostmark (Lissa, 1913), p. 62.
‘Hinter Schulze’s Schuppen da giht’s lustig zu, tanzt der pul’sche Ochse mit der deutschen Kuh’. Popular rhyme of eighteenth-century origin. Quoted in R. Arnold, Geschichte der deutschen Polenliteratur von den An fängen bis 1800 (Halle, 1900), p. 8.
Conflict is a major paradigm and object of research in sociology (‘conflict theory’) and in political science. While sociologists are interested in the forms and functions of conflict within society, political science considers conflict within the realm of international relations. For an introduction to this field of research, see C. Mitchell, The Structure of International Conflict (London, 1981).
For example, B. Balzer, Die preussische Polenpolitik 1894–1908 und die Haltung der deutschen konservativen und liberalen Partei (Frankfurt am Main, 1990);
S. Baske, Praxis und Prinzipien der preussischen Polenpolitik vom Beginn der Reaktionszeit bis zur Gründung des Deutschen Reiches (Berlin, 1963);
M. Broszat, Zweihundert Jahre deutsche Polenpolitik (Frankfurt am Main, 1978);
K. Zernack (ed.), Polen und die polnische Frage in der Geschichte der Hohenzollernmonarchie 1701–1871 (Berlin, 1982);
C. Pletzing, Vom [rölkerfrühling zum nationalen Konflikt- Deutscher und Polnischer Nationalismus in Ost- und Westpreussen 1830–1871 (Wiesbaden, 2003);
J. Kulczycki, School Strikes in Prussian Poland 1901–1907: The Struggle over Bilingual Education (New York, 1981);
R. Blanke, Prussian Poland in the German Empire (1871–1900) (New York, 1981);
J. Wojciak, Walka polityczna w Wyborach do Parlamentu Rzeszy, Sejmu Pruskiego w Poznafiskiem w latach 1898–1914 (Warszawa, 1981);
L. Trzeciakowski, The Kulturkampf in Prussian Poland (New York, 1990);
W. Hagen, Germans, Poles and Jews; the Nationality Conflict in the Prussian East 1772–1914 (Chicago, 1981);
H. Rosenthal, German and Pole: National Conflict and Modern Myth (Gainesville, 1976);
R. Jaworski, Handel und Gewerbe im Nationalitätenkamp f Studien zur Wirtschaftsgesinnung der Polen in der Provinz Posen (1871–1914) (Göttingen, 1986).
For instance, P. Ther and H. Sundhausen, Nationalitätenkonflikte im 20. Jahrhundert: Ursachen von inter-ethnischer Gewalt im Vergleich (Wiesbaden, 2001); I. Oswald, Nationalitätenkonflikte im östlichen Teil Europas (Berlin, 1993). For a classic study of the national conflict between Germans and
Czechs, see E. Wiskemann, Czechs and Germans: A Study of the Struggle in the Historic Provinces of Bohemia and Moravia (Oxford, 1938).
R. Axelrod and R. Keohane, ‘Achieving Cooperation under Anarchy’, in Oye (ed.), Cooperation under Anarchy (Princeton, 1986), pp. 226–54 (p. 226). In respect of theories of ‘cooperation’ between nations, the classical ‘liberal’ paradigm in international relations theory is one that has principles and ideals of international ‘cooperation’ at its core.
For example, J. Sziling and M. Wojciechowski (eds), Neighborhood Dilemmas; the Poles, the Germans and the Jews in Pomerania Along the Vistula River in the 19th and 20th Century (Torun, 2002);
N. Davies, Microcosm: Portrait of a Central European City (London, 2002);
B. Lauer and H. Nogossek (eds), Polen, Deutsche und Kaschuben-Alltag, Brauchtum und Volkskultur au f dem Gut Hochpaleschken in Westpreussen um 1900 (Kassel, 1997);
H. Hecker, Deutsche, Slawen und Balten: Aspekte des Zusammenlebens im Osten des Deutschen Reiches und in Ostmitteleuropa (Bonn, 1989);
R. Blanke, ‘When Germans and Poles Lived Together: from the History of German—Polish Relations’, in Bullivant (ed.), Germany and Eastern Europe: Cultural Identities and Cultural Differences (Amsterdam, 1999), pp. 37–55;
L. Trzeciakowski, ‘Polen und Deutsche im alltäglichen Leben in Posen im 19. Jahrhundert’, Studia Historica Slavo-Germanica, XVIII (1994), 35–49.
For example, R. Breyer, Nachbarn seit Tausend Jahren: Deutsche und Polen in Bildern und Dokumenten (Mainz, 1976);
K. Sauerland (ed.), Kulturtrans fer Polen-Deutschland. Wechselbeziehungen in Sprache, Kultur und Gesellschaft, 2 vols (Bonn, 2001);
M. Lasatowicz (ed.), Assimilation-Abgrenzung-Austausch: Interkulturalität in Sprache und Literatur (Frankfurt am Main, 1999);
M. Schalenberg (ed.), Kulturtransfer im 19. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1998);
S. Szenic, Za Zachodnic Miedzcl. Polacy w zyciu Niemiec XVIII i XIX wieku (Warszawa, 1973). Karol Sauerland has led the study of cultural transfer or ‘exchange’ between nations, particularly in reference to Germany and east European nations. Research of this kind has shown how cultural transfer is not a one-way process, but multi-directional and inconsistent. Transnational relations and imitation are shown to have been long-standing and major features of European culture. Sensitivity to the consequences of ‘exchange’ between nation-states has also been promoted by works of ‘Transfer History’ by scholars such as Michael Werner and Michel Espagne associated with the ‘Paris School’.
The model of assimilation is therefore inherently teleological. B. Nelson and R. Teske, ‘Acculturation and Assimilation: a Clarification’, American Ethnologist, 2 (1974), 351–67;
B. Dohrenwend and R. Smith, ‘Toward a Theory of Acculturation’, Southwestern Journal of Anthropology, 18 (1962), 30–9;
F. Heckmann, Ethnische Minderheiten, Volk und Nation. Soziologie inter-ethnischer Beziehungen (Stuttgart, 1992);
N. Elias and J. Scotson, Etablierte und Aussenseiter (Frankfurt, 1990).
In Imperial Germany, these terms popularly denoted the processes by which members of one nationality became assimilated by the other, and consequently, each concept held strongly negative connotations for nationalists on the opposing side. The meaning of the terms ‘Germanization’ and ‘Polonization’ in the literature of German—Polish history has rarely been made clear. Witold Molik has written ‘only rarely have historians offered in their considerations clear definitions of this term. The content of much work shows that its author understands the term “Germanization” variously and often does not differentiate Germanization as a process of national-cultural change from the political Germanization of the Prussian government. Rare also are works in which the author defines at the outset the term “Polonization”’. Boleslaw Grzes has, however, suggested that the term ‘Germanization’ was used in Imperial Germany in the following ways: first, to refer to measures directed against the Poles; second, a process of change (of people and institutions); and third, the denationalization of the Polish population. It is also significant that there were different ‘degrees’ of Germanization. It was usual for provincial presidents to make recommendations to central government concerning the policies required in their provinces, and clear differences in sentiment and strategy are discernable between presidents. For instance, Karl von Horn, who had been appointed provincial president of Posen by Bismarck in 1862, rejected in principle the giving of concessions to the Poles, and consequently regarded as dangerous the government’s decision to appoint Mieczyslawa Ledbchowski as archbishop of Gnesen-Posen. He held that the smallest concessions would lead to demands for more. It is demonstrable, however, that in numerous instances the refusal to make concessions did not further the government’s ultimate goal of Germanization, but fuelled the fire of Polish nationalism. A somewhat softer approach was represented by Hugo von Wilamowitz-Moellendorff, appointed president of Posen in 1891. He had advocated a process of gradual Germanization without the use of confrontational policies. W. Molik, ‘Procesy asymilacyjne i akulturacyjne w stosunkach polsko-niemieckich w XIX i na początku XX wieku. Stan i postulaty badanń, in W. Molik and R. Traba (eds), Procesy akulturacji/asymilacji na pograniczu polsko-niemieckim w XIX i XX wieku (Poznań, 1999), pp. 65–96 (p. 69);
B. Grześ, Niemcy w Poznanskiem wobec polityki germanizacyjnej: 1815–1920 (Poznan, 1976), p. 213.
For an assessment of this project, see W. Molik and R. Traba (eds), Procesy akulturacji/asymilacji na pogranicza polsko-niemieckim w XIX i XX wieku (Poznań, 1999). For an overview of the recent historiography in this category, see Witold Molik’s essay in the aforementioned volume: ‘Procesy asymilacyjne i akulturacyjne w stosunkach polsko-niemieckiego w XIX i na początku XX wieku. Stan i postulaty badanń (pp. 65–96). Most studies pertaining specifically to processes of national change in the Prussian East have hitherto been based upon the territories of the Ermland (Warmia), Masuria and Silesia. The research of assimilation in Posen or West Prussia is relatively undeveloped. Research of this kind has focused particularly upon the role of schools, universities and military service as mediators of assimilation, the integration of Poles in the Ruhr district, German Protestants in the Kingdom of Poland and biographical accounts of the assimilation of prominent individuals, an eminent example being the Polish nationalist Wojciech Ketrzynski.
Examples of this kind of research include: W. Molik, ‘Die Assimilation der polnischen Intelligenz im preussischen Teilungsgebiet durch Bildung 1871–1914’, Archiv für Sozialgeschichte, 32 (1992), 81–93;
J. Tazbir, ‘Procesy Polonizacyjne w Szlacheckiej Rzeczypospolitej’, Kultura i Spoteczenstwo, 1 (1987);
K. Korzon, Wojciech Kgtrzynski 1838–1918. Zarys biograficzny (Wrocław, 1993);
M. Heinemann, ‘Die Assimilation fremd-sprachiger Schulkinder durch Volksschule in Preussen seit 1880’, Bildung und Erziehung, 1 (1975), 53–69. Max Bar’s Die Bamberger bei Posen, zugleich ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Polonisierungsbestrebungen in der Provinz Posen (Posen, 1882) is an important period example of the study of assimilatory processes.
In this study, the term nationalism refers to the following national phenomena collectively: (a) ideology, (b) socio-political movements, and (c) symbolism and discourse. This classification follows Anthony D. Smith’s analysis. Ideology is considered here the most fundamental of these, since national-ism is, before all else, an idea. Its goals may, however, vary, as German—Polish history shows. In the period of this study, the goal of Polish nationalism varied. Some Poles wished for the attainment of an independent Polish state, others for increased national rights or a degree of autonomy. In comparison, German nationalism had achieved a nation-state; its goals were invariably the consolidation, defence or expansion of the state. The history of the German—Polish borderlands supports the view that nationalism is essentially a ‘politico-subjective’ condition. Nationalism is an ideology that, upon the basis of any criteria, defines its community as distinct from oth-ers, and affirms its collective wish for some degree of self-determination or sovereignty. These goals have invariably meant the creation of, or aspiration for, a state. Nations and nationalities are defined as the communities that result from the ideology of nationalism. A. Smith, Nationalism (Cambridge, 2001), pp. 1–20. The classical statement of this essentially politico-subjective ‘voluntaristic’ conception of nationalism is Ernest Renan’s essay ‘Qu’estce qu’une nation?’ (‘What is a Nation?’). E. Renan, Qu’estce qu’une nation? (Paris, 1882).
The phenomena of synthesis were the function of nationalism and nationalization. This is akin to theories of ‘national indifference’, in which, in general, ‘indifference’ occurs against the background of nationalism, and in particular, processes of nationalization. For a recent assessment of conceptions of ‘national indifference’, see T. Zahra, ‘Imagined Non-Communities: National Indifference as a Category of Analysis’, Slavic Review, 69 (2010), 93–119.
See also P. Judson, Guardians of the Nation: Activists on the Language Frontiers of Imperial Austria (Cambridge, Mass., 2006);
J. Bjork, Neither German Nor Pole: Catholicism and National Difference in a Central European Borderland (Ann Arbor, Mich., 2008).
The concept of ‘synthesis’ (from the Greek syn, i.e. ‘together’, and tithenai, i.e. ‘to set’) is one of the most fundamental concepts in Western thought; it is also one of the most complex, and has had a number of applications in philosophy since the Greeks, as well as in the modern natural and social sciences. Thomas Greenwood has listed the following five cases: (i) in logic, the general method of deduction or deductive reasoning; (ii) the logical composition or combination of separate elements of thought; and also the result of this process; (iii) the logical process of adding some elements to the comprehension of a concept in order to obtain its ‘logical division’ …; (iv) the third phase in the dialectical process, combining the thesis and the antithesis for the emergence of a new level of being; (v) in natural philosophy, the process of combining various material elements into a new substance ‖. Also, the complex substance soformed. Cf. D. Runes (ed.), The Dictionary of Philosophy (New York, 2001).
It is apparent from these cases that ‘synthesis’ may refer to a process or its outcome. As a process it is essentially one in which a qualitatively new condition is produced by interaction or contradiction. Of the five cases given above, the meaning of synthesis in logic (usage (i)) is the oldest and most fundamental. The beginnings of dialectical argumentation are usually associated with Zeno of Elea and Socrates in the Platonic dialogues, but it was left to Aristotle to create the science of formal logic. A highly significant development in the meaning of dialectic occurred in German idealist philosophy at the beginning of the nineteenth century. Accordingly, the notion of contradiction was extended to reality as a whole. For Hegel this meant a continual process involving the resolution of contradictions generated in thought; world history was the objective character of thought (usage (iv)). The famous triadic formulation of ‘thesis’, ‘antithesis’ and ‘synthesis’ was subsequently provided by Fichte. According to the philosophy of Marx and Engels (cf. ‘Historical Materialism’ and ‘Dialectical Materialism’) ‘matter’ is the primary reality, and in Marxian thought the contradiction takes the form of oppositional class interests whose resolution (synthesis) takes the form of a social transformation. It is with Hegel and Marx that the modern usage of dialectic is most closely associated in the social sciences. In particular, the term dialectic represents a key concept in social science, namely the idea that social agents, in pursuing their objectives, can effect social phenomena that are distinct from, even contradictory to, the desired objective. The dual applicability of the concept of synthesis to ‘consciousness’ and to ‘matter’ makes it particularly applicable in the analysis of nationalism, which has both ‘subjective’ and ‘objective’ components. This dual applicability is utilized in this study where the paradigm potentially encompasses forms of consciousness, behaviour and material artefacts. For a general overview of the semantics of ‘dialectic’, see R. Williams, Keywords (London, 1988)
and R. Boudon and F. Bourricaud, A Critical Dictionary of Sociology (London, 1989);
L. Schieder, ‘Dialectic in Sociologyn’, American Sociological Review, 36 (1971), 667–78.
For an introduction to dialectical theory in the Hegelian and Marxian traditions, see K. Popper, ‘What is Dialectic?’, in Conjectures and Refutations (London, 1965), pp. 312–35; H. Action, The Illusion of the Epoch: Marxism-Leninism as a Philosophical Creed (London, 1955);
H. Selsam and H. Martel (eds), Reader in Marxist Philosophy (New York. 1973).
The terminological family includes ‘transnationalism’, ‘transnational’ and ‘transnationality’. The first use of the term ‘transnational’ is usually identified with Randolph Bourne’s essay ‘Transnational America’, published in the Atlantic Monthly in July 1916. The essay was about multicultural influences in the United States. As well as the research of economic processes, a major area of transnational research has concerned subjects of migration, diasporas and citizenship. For instance, see N. Van Hear, New Diasporas: The Mass Exodus, Dispersal and Regrouping of Migrant Communities (London, 1998);
A. Portes, L. Guarnizo, and P. Landolt, ‘The Study of Transnationalism: Pitfalls and Promise of an Emergent Research Field. Introduction to a Special Issue on Transnational Communities’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 22 (1999), 217–37;
N. Glick Schiller, L. Basch, and C. Szanton Blanc, ‘From Immigrant to Transmigrant: Theorizing Transnational Migration’, Anthropological Quarterly, 68 (1995), 48–63;
N. Glick Schiller, L. Basch, and C. Szanton Blanc, Towards a Transnational Perspective on Migration: Race, Class, Ethnicity, and Nationalism (New York, 1992). ‘Transnational’ approaches are currently found in the disciplines of sociology, economics, political science, geography, international relations, history, business studies, anthropology and cultural studies.
J. Anderson (ed.), Transnational Democracy: Political Spaces and Border Crossings (London, 2002), p. ii.
S. Conrad and J. Osterhammel (eds), Das Kaiserreich transnational: Deutschland in der Welt. 1871–1914 (Göttineen, 2004), p. 14.
The field of ‘transnational history’ has been marked by a significant overlap with other established genres of historical enquiry. These include ‘comparative’, ‘global’, ‘international’ and ‘world’ history. For a discussion of these distinctions and the theory of transnationalism in historical research, see AHR Conversation: On Transnational History’, The American Historical Review, 111 (2006), 1440–64 and G. Horn and P. Kenney (eds), Transnational Moments of Change: Europe 1945, 1968, 1989 (Oxford, 2004);
W. Robinson, ‘Beyond Nation-State Paradigms: Globalization, Sociology, and the Challenge of Transnational Studies’, Sociological Forum, 13 (1998), 561–95;
S. Khagram and P. Levitt (eds), The Transnational Studies Reader: Interdisciplinary Intersections and Innovations (London, 2008);
A. Iriye and P. Saunier, The Palgrave Dictionary of Transnational History (Basingstoke, 2009);
T. Bender (ed.), Rethinking American History in a Global Age (Berkeley, 2002);
D. Thelen (ed.), ‘The Nation and Beyond: Transnational Perspectives on United States History’, Journal of American History, 86 (1999), 965–75.
There is also an important subjective dimension to globalization, namely the expansion of ‘global consciousness’, that is the personal consciousness of globalization and of global spatiality. This subjective feature of globalization is central to the approach of one of the first theorists of globalization in sociology, Roland Robertson. See R. Robertson, Globalization, Social Theory and Global Culture (London, 1992).
Technological advances, such as telecommunications, as well as increasing ecological interdependences, have brought the apparent ‘compression’ of spatial and temporal horizons, involving the shortening of the range of each and increasing immediacy. See D. Harvey, The Condition of Postmodernity (London, 1992), pp. 240–2.
For an overview of research on globalization, see I. Clark, Globalization and International Relations Theory (Oxford, 1999);
D. Held and A. McGrew (eds), The Global Transformations Reader: An Introduction to the Globalization Debate (Cambridge, 2000);
F. Lechner and J. Boli (eds), The Globalization Reader (Malden, Mass., 2008);
J. Scholte, Globalization: A Critical Introduction (Basinestoke, 2005).
In this regard, there are two important points of contention. First, there is the question of whether ‘globalization’ should be understood as a value-free development, or as being the product of ideology — a subsidiary question being of whether the scholar need adopt a normative position in relation to it. Second, there is a schism between those who perceive globalization positively, for instance, as the rational endpoint of human development, and on the other hand, its critics, who point to its supposedly deleterious economic and political effects, the result of anarchic and unforeseen forces that defy attempts at constraint. I. Clark, Globalization and International Relations Theory (Oxford, 1999), pp. 40–4;
A. Scott (ed.), The Limits of Globalization: Cases and Arguments (London, 1997), pp. 1–22;
R. Cox, ‘A Perspective on Globalization’, in J.H. Mittelman (ed.), Globalization: Critical Reflections (Colorado, 1997), pp. 21–30 (pp. 23–4).
Analyses that tend to view globalization with a degree of pessimism or scepticism include R. Falk, Predatory Globalization: A Critique (Cambridge, 1999),
and A. Giddens, Runaway World (Cambridge, 1999).
More optimistic accounts include T. Friedman, The Lexus and the Olive Tree (New York, 2000);
K. Ohmae, The Next Global Stage: Challenges and Obvartunities in our Borderless World (Philadelnhia, 2005).
The terms ‘world’, ‘global’ and ‘international’ history designate similar approaches. For an overview of recent examples of research in the field of transnational history, see S. Conrad and J. Osterhammel (eds), Das Kaiserreich transnational: Deutschland in der Welt, 1871–1914 (Göttingen, 2004);
G. Budde et al. (eds), Transnationale Geschichte: Themen, Tendenzen und Theorien (Göttingen, 2006). There have also been attempts at writing specifically ‘European’ histories.
For example, see M. Fulbrook (ed.), National Histories and European History (London, 1993);
S. Woolf, Europe and the Nation-State (Florence, 1991);
N. Davies, Europe: A History (Oxford, 1996).
D. Blackbourn, ‘Das Kaiserreich transnational. Eine Skizze’, in S. Conrad and J. Osterhammel (eds), Das Kaiserreich transnational: Deutschland in der Welt, 1871–1914 (Göttingen, 2004), pp. 302–24 (pp. 302–3).
C. Applegate, ‘A Europe of Regions’, American Historical Review, 104 (1999), 1157–82;
C. Applegate, ‘A Europe of Regions’, American Historical Review, 104 (1999), 1157–82;
C. Applegate, ‘A Europe of Regions’, American Historical Review, 104 (1999), 1157–82;
S. Berger, The Search for Normality: National Identity and Historical Consciousness in Germany Since 1800 (Oxford, 1997). Significantly, the notion of progress could also be connected to ethnic distinctions. As Stefan Berger has argued, most nineteenth-century liberals believed in progress ‘and this was linked fatally to the idea of ethnicity in that it allowed [Theodor] Mommsen and others to create a hierarchy of peoples and nations according to the degree of progress they had already achieved. There were higher cultures and higher peoples (to whom Germany, of course, belonged) and there were primitive nations (like the Slav, and in particular the Russian ones) who were mentally and physically inferior’ (pp. 24–5).
P. Ther and H. Sundhaussen (eds), Regionale Bewegungen und Regionalismus in europäischen Zwischenräumen seit der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts (Marburg, 2003), pp. XIVXV;
P. Ther, ‘Die Grenzen des Nationalismus: Der Wandel von Identitäten in Oberschliesen von der Mitte des 19. Jahrhunderts bis 1939’, in U. von Hirschhausen and J. Leonhard (eds), Nationalismen in Europa: West-und Osteuropa im Vergleich (Göttingen, 2001), pp. 322–46. In Posen and West Prussia, substantive political movements for regional autonomy, or of cultural particularism, were absent in the period under consideration. In this respect, the provinces of Posen and West Prussia differed from Upper Silesia where an autonomous regional movement did develop. Nevertheless, the ideas of ‘Wielkopolska’ (Great Poland) and ‘Altpreussen’ (East Prussia) are identifiable as cases of regional identities anolicable during this period.
K. Hannan, Borders of Language and Identity in Teschen Silesia (New York, 1996). Other works of sociodialectology have investigated how political borders can influence the formation and reformation of dialects and their interrelationships.
See, for example, J. Kallen (ed.), Dialect Convergence and Divergence across European Borders (Berlin, 2000).
M. Müller and R. Petri (eds), Die Nationalisierung von Grenzen: zur Konstruktion nationaler Identität in sprachlich gemischten Grenzregionen (Marburg, 2002);
R. Schattkowsky and M. Müller (eds), Identitätenwandel und nationale Mobilisierung in Regionen ethnischer Diversität: ein regionaler Vergleich zwischen Westpreussen und Galizien am Ende des 19. und Anfang des 20. Jahrhunderts (Marburg, 2004);
L. Cole, Für Gott, Kaiser, und Vaterland. Nationale Identität der deutsch sprachigen Bevölkerung Tirols 1860–1914 (Frankfurt, 2000);
R. Schattkowsky, ‘Nationalismus und Konfliktgestaltung. Westpreussen zwischen Reichsgründung und Erstem Weltkrieg’, in M.G. Müller and R. Petri (eds), Die Nationalisierung von Grenzen (Marburg, 2002), pp. 35–79;
S. Wierzchosławski, Polski ruch narodowy w Prusach Zachodnich w latach 1860–1914 (Wrocław, 1980);
T. Serrier, Provinz Posen, Ostmark, Wielkopolska: Eine Grenzregion zwischen Deutschen und Polen, 1848–1914 (Marburg, 2005).
Ara and E. Kolb (eds), Grenzregionen im Zeitalter der Nationalismen: Elsass-Lothringen/Trient-Triest, 1870–1914 (Berlin, 1998);
E-D. Grimm (ed.), Regionen an deutschen Grenzen: Strukturwandel an der ehemaligen innerdeutschen Grenze und an der deutschen Ostgrenze (Leipzig, 1995);
H. Knippenberg and J. Marcusse (eds), Nationalising and Denationalising European Border Regions 1800–2000. Views from Geography and History (Dordrecht, 1999). These works are part of a broader field concerning the relationship between regional and national identities.
For instance, M. Klein, Zwischen Reich und Region: Identitätsstrukturen im Deutschen Kaiserreich (1871–1918) (Stuttgart, 2005);
C. Applegate, A Nation of Provincials: the German Idea of Heimat (Oxford, 1990);
A. Green, Fatherlands: State-building and Nationhood in Nineteenth-century Germany (Cambridge, 2001);
A. Confino, The Nation as a Local Metaphor: Württemberg, Imperial Germany, and National Memory, 1871–1918 (London, 1997);
H.-G. Haupt, M. Müller and S. Woolf (eds), Regional and National Identities in the XIXth and XXth Centuries (The Hague, 1998).
M. Niendorf, Minderheiten an der Grenze. Deutsche und Polen in den Kreisen Flatow und Zempelburg 1900–1939 (Wiesbaden, 1997);
R. Blanke, Prussian Poland in the German Empire (1871–1900) (New York, 1981);
J. Kulczycki, School Strikes in Prussian Poland, 1901–1907: The Struggle over Bilingual Education (New York, 1981);
R. Marti (ed.), Sprachenpolitik in Grenzregionen (Saarbrücken, 1996);
M. Wojciechowski and R. Schattkowsky (eds), Historische Grenzlandscha ften Ostmitteleuropas im 16. —20. Jh: Gesellschaft, Wirtschaft, Politik (Torun, 1996);
H. Henning Hahn and P. Kunze (eds), Nationale Minderheiten und staatliche Minderheitenpolitik in Deutschland im 19. Jahrhundert (Berlin, 1999);
R. Stauber, Der Zentralstaat an seinen Grenzen: Administrative Integration, Herrschaftswechsel und politische Kultur im südlichen alpenraum 1750–1820 (Göttingen, 2001).
Copyright information
© 2011 Mark Tilse
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Tilse, M. (2011). Introduction. In: Transnationalism in the Prussian East. The Palgrave Macmillan Transnational History Series. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230307506_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230307506_1
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-32930-4
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-30750-6
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)