Why have germanic people always seeked to conquer, assimilate, or genocide slavs throughout history?

Aside from things mentioned, Slavs are in general on the flat East European land which is easier to conquer than the Western Europe with more natural barriers.

Question - Why didn't Germany/Prussia ever go after the lowlands? Were the Dutch too hard to conquer? Flanders/Belgium surely wasn't. The terrain there is easy enough to circumnavigate, and Belgium/Flanders/Wallonians couldn't put up much of a fight (as shown in both world wars). Would taking the lowlands ignite a war from France and Britain against German aggression? Or was it just not worth it? I would think that territory close to the English Channel would be worthwhile.

>Question - Why didn't Germany/Prussia ever go after the lowlands?
You mean in WW1? The Netherlands was pretty pro-German despite being neutral, which meant that their neutrality ensured a trade partner with naval access, meaning a good way to get around the Allied naval blockade.

A bit like now that the EU and US are embargoing Russia, there's suddenly a lot of fish entering Russia from landlocked Belarus: a country that still has access to the global market.

ost of europe was under Germanic ruling class for almost 2000 years
same story throughout most of europe, including eastern europe:
Makhno revolted against the Germanic ruling elite:
>At the age of 11 Makhno began working as an ox drover on the Janzen estate in Silberfeld. Here he began to develop a hatred for the German ruling classes. In his memoirs he writes: "At this time I began to experience anger, envy and even hatred towards the landowner [Janzen] and especially towards his children - those young slackers who often strolled past me sleek and healthy, well-dressed, well-groomed and scented; while I was filthy, dressed in rags, barefoot, and reeked of manure from cleaning the calves' barn."[17] Makhno also worked at the Mennonite owned Kroeger plant in Gulyai-Polye.

>Spain Vandals/Visogoths
>The monarchy and ruling elite in Spain derives from the Visigothic Kingdom
>France ruled by descendants of Franks/Normans
>UK ruled by Anglos/Saxons
>Italy Lombards, Nomans, Ostrogoths Frankish Empire by Charlemagne,
>Poland Piast dynasty derived from several noble lines of Germanic Holy Roman Empire
>Russia, Bulgaria ruled by German tsars (Rurik dynasty + Holstein-Gottorp-Romanov Dynasty)
>most of Europe ruled by Hapsburgs

>Anglosaxon rivalry against Russia

The Anglo-Saxons never had really any contact with Kievan Rus. If you mean Great Britain vs Russia then that was just a typical Victorian Age international rivalry and had nothing to do with conquering or genociding each other.

>sunk the Ottoman, French, Swedish, the Third Reich and the Teutonic Order

Those weren't done by Slavs alone.

>The reason why the Germans have pushed towards the East because at that time,it was socially and culturally acceptable,mostly because the Slavs have been perceived as inferior due to them being mostly of Orthodox faith

Ludicrous, a marxist would call this type of argument idealism. The Germans didn't push into the East because they somehow came up with the idea that Slavs were inferior, there were materialist reasons behind it. The East did indeed have a lower level of development and thus a lower population density. Thus, there was land available for peasants and opportunities for craftsmen and merchants in the still rather small towns of the East. Besides, the Slavs who bordered the Germans were either pagans or Catholics, not Orthodox as you seem to believe.

>Those weren't done by Slavs alone
Predominately they were.

>The Germans didn't push into the East because they somehow came up with the idea that Slavs were inferior

But they have,that's basically one of the core beliefs of the cultural movement known as the Drang Nach Osten ,which mainly sought to justify the much needed expansion into East European lands and the spread of German culture among the "Slavic masses".

> and thus a lower population density
No it didn't,because it was chiefly agriculturally oriented,Eastern Europe was always more populous than it's Western counterpart,but it's population wasn't concentrated equally in all of her parts.

>Thus, there was land available for peasants and opportunities for craftsmen and merchants in the still rather small towns of the East

To which period are you referring to?

>the Slavs who bordered the Germans were either pagans or Catholics, not Orthodox as you seem to believe

Anyone who is remotely educated would've known that my reference to them being considered as inferior by the Germans coincides with a historical period that encompasses the 18th,19th and 20 century,the period in which German foreign policies to the East were mainly molded by the earlier mentioned cultural movement.

>Germanic domination of Velikomoravia

They just made them into a vassal state and Christianized them.

>Teutonic invasion of Russia
>implying Battle of the Ice was an "invasion" and not a minor border skirmish that was bloated up to fuck by Russian anti-Catholic propagandists and then reused by nationalists

>Ost of Europe was under Germanic ruling class for almost 2000 years
same story throughout most of Europe, including eastern Europe:

I'm also a great fan of science fiction

>Makhno revolted against the Germanic ruling elite:
Admirable cherry-picking,Frederic the Great plotted against the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth because he hated the idea of constantly being in the shadow of a Polish(Slavic state),so what of it?

>Poland Piast dynasty derived from several noble lines of Germanic Holy Roman Empire
The Piasts were rulers of Poland long before they've accepted Christianity and established contact with the Holy Roman Empire

>Rurik dynasty

Rurik was Finnic and his dynasty was slavicized after only two generations of rule and the Holstein-Gottorp branch has only taken over only because the last male descendant of the original (Slavic) Romanov line,Ivan VI of Russia has died in prison without leaving an heir.

>most of Europe ruled by Hapsburgs

Because they were last surviving dynasty of kingly renown in that part of Europe,everyone else died fighting the Turks,at least that was the case with South Slavic and Hungarian dynasties.

"Drang nach osten" is a nationalist propaganda meme, it mostly refers to ostsiedlung which only happened after the local kings (Bohemia, Hungary etc) invited German settlers to their lands, it wasn't conquest.

The Battle on the Ice (Russian: Лeдoвoe пoбoищe, Ledovoye poboish'ye; German: Schlacht auf dem Eise; Estonian: Jäälahing; German: Schlacht auf dem Peipussee; Russian: битвa нa Чyдcкoм oзepe, bitva na Chudskom ozere) was fought between the Republic of Novgorod led by prince Alexander Nevsky and the crusader army led by the Livonian branch of the Teutonic Knights on April 5, 1242, at Lake Peipus. The battle is notable for having been fought largely on the frozen lake, and this gave the battle its name.

The battle was a significant defeat sustained by the crusaders during the Northern Crusades, which were directed against pagans and Eastern Orthodox Christians rather than Muslims in the Holy Land. The Crusaders' defeat in the battle marked the end of their campaigns against the Orthodox Novgorod Republic and other Slavic territories for the next century.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_on_the_Ice

>implying Battle of the Ice was an "invasion" and not a minor border skirmish that was bloated up to fuck by Russian anti-Catholic propagandists and then reused by nationalists

You have to appreciate how every major defeat that you've suffered at out hands was always just a minor skirmish that was "bloated up to fuck by Russian anti-Catholic propagandists and then reused by nationalist,it's as if you're ashamed of being on the losing side.I guess perception is more important than dignity and maturity?

>you
>our

You have no idea who I am, what the fuck are you talking about?

Drang nach Osten (German for "yearning for the East", "thrust toward the East", "push eastward", "drive toward the East" or "desire to push East") was a term coined in the 19th century to designate German expansion into Slavic lands. The term became a motto of the German nationalist movement in the late nineteenth century.In some historical discourses, "Drang nach Osten" combines historical German settlement in Central and Eastern Europe, medieval (12th-13th centuries)military expeditions like the ones of the Teutonic Knights (see Northern Crusades), and Germanisation policies and warfare of Modern Age German states like the Nazi Lebensraum concept.

As you can see,it's wasn't just "a nationalist meme" and it certainly wasn't mostly referring to the Ostsiedlung,which you've so carefully chosen to use an example because it was mostly conducted in a peaceful manner.

Tell me something,was the acquisition of Wendish cities and towns in central and eastern Germany also done via an invitation?
Was the forceful relocation of Poles from western and northern(from their cities,specifically) which was conducted during the Partition of Poland also conducted via an invitation?

I would sincerely like to know your definition of conquest,I'm more than interested in hearing and reading it.

Instead of responding on the entirety of my argument,you've decided to latch on minor details?

>You have no idea who I am
Quite frankly,I don't care who you are,just stick to the topic.

While we're at pasting shit from wikipedia:

>The first known use of "Drang nach Osten" was by the Polish journalist Julian Klaczko in 1849

And it was certainly referring to ostsiedlung because the meme of le eternal Kraut fighting a fierce war against le eternal Slav is fucking horseshit and this narrative barely existed before 19th century when nationalism and irredentism kicked off.

"yet it is debatable whether he invented the term as he used it in form of a citation.Because the term is used almost exclusively in its German form in English, Polish, Russian, Czech and other languages, it has been concluded that the term is of German origin"

Learn to quote.

>is fucking horseshit and this narrative barely existed before 19th century when nationalism kicked off.

The narrative did exist,but it wasn't cultivated into a full-fledged cultural movement before the 19th century.

>And it was certainly referring to Ostsiedlung because the meme

Do I really need to remind you of Frederic the Great' opinion of Poles and Russians,the actions and policies of the Teutonic Order and Martin Luther' personal and public opinion of the remaining Wends who've been living in the eastern provinces of the Holy Roman Empire?Do I need to specify every single germanisation attempt which was conducted in Bohemia(and the manner in which was conducted) ?

Our mutual hate isn't a recent thing and you're wrong to believe otherwise.

Nope german tried to do the same with France but they were BTFO at Tolbiac and Bouvines.

>They just made them into a vassal state and Christianized them.
No, they were christianized by ERE

>Predominately they were.

None of those states were defeated by Slavs alone.

>Eastern Europe was always more populous than it's Western counterpart,but it's population wasn't concentrated equally in all of her parts.

Even now Eastern Europe has a lower density than the West. That's even more true for the Middle Ages.

>To which period are you referring to?

To the Middle Ages, the era where the German push to the East began and where the Germans managed to expand the domain of their nation the most.

>Anyone who is remotely educated would've known that my reference to them being considered as inferior by the Germans coincides with a historical period that encompasses the 18th,19th and 20 century,the period in which German foreign policies to the East were mainly molded by the earlier mentioned cultural movement.

And that's got to do what with orthodoxy? Nothing, but of course you wouldn't take back your bullshit.

>18th century

Prussia expanded at the cost of Poland and Austria. The reason for this was obviously to enhance the power of their state (aka the same reasons why Russia took a piece of Poland); nothing to do with a "Drang nach Osten" movement, which wasn't even prominent back then. Any cultural chauvinism of the Prussian was merely an epiphenomenon, NOT the cause of their expansion, you bloody idealist.

>19th century

Prussia's/Germany's policies towards the East were certainly not molded by a "Drang nach Osten" movement during that era either. Apart from some nationalistic fringe organizations, this idea played no role during that time.

Only in the 20th century during Hitler "Drang nach Osten" (and to a much lesser extent during WWI) becomes a major factor of German foreign policy. And even then, the reasons for this strategy were material.

So thats why Prussia invaded catholic Poland?

There are actual people who believe that the Moravians were Christianized by the Holy Roman Empire .

>Predominately they were,with the exception of the Ottoman Empire,whom've only forced out of the entire Balkan Peninsula,while the British and the French have delivered the final blow years later.

>Even now Eastern Europe has a lower density than the West
That's because of World War II,the Bolshevik revolution and recent migratory movements

>That's even more true for the Middle Ages
That solely depends on the period.

>Nothing
It has a lot to do with it because non-Protestants and Polish Catholics were generally viewed as humans of lesser worth,because of different religious affiliations and because they've resisted Germanisation more than anyone else has.

>"Drang nach Osten" movement, which wasn't even prominent back then
It didn't exist as a movement all up until the 19th century,as I've said,but it's core elements such as anti-Slavism and anti-Polonism were more than present in the Prussian mindset and ideological doctrine.

> Any cultural chauvinism of the Prussian was merely an epiphenomenon

A country which was created on the foundations of a knightly order that was utterly defeated and humiliated by a Polish(Slavic) country won't have any anti-Slavic and anti-Polish sentiments deeply embedded in it's core beliefs?

>NOT the cause of their expansion
Just because the their material needs were more prominent doesn't mean that they weren't motivated by beliefs that were later incorporated into the earlier mentioned cultural movement.

>the era where the German push to the East began and where the Germans managed to expand the domain of their nation the most

It began in the Middle Ages,but they've gained most of the ground during the Partitions of Poland.

That's why I've said "being mostly of Orthodox faith",some of their targets were Catholics as well.

>Our mutual hate isn't a recent thing and you're wrong to believe otherwise.

What he was talking about is that the characterization of the relations between Germans and Slavs as a 1000 year war is bogus. One example would be the Prussian Confederation, in which Germans allied with the Polish kingdom against the Teutonic order.

>Predominately they were

Aren't you forgetting the contribution of the HRE and Hungary to the defeat of the Ottomans? Or the contribution of the Western Allies to the defeat of the 3rd Reich? Or the other coalition forces that defeated Napoléon?

>That's because of World War II,the Bolshevik revolution and recent migratory movements

Here you go

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Empire_Census#Population_by_modern_day_countries

Compare to

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_in_1900

European Russia had 62 million inhabitants compared to 56 millions in the German empire. Don't you think the density might have been a tad higher in the latter?

>That solely depends on the period.

In the period were the Ostsiedlung happened it was certainly the case, this is consense among scholars.

>A country which was created on the foundations of a knightly order that was utterly defeated and humiliated by a Polish(Slavic) country won't have any anti-Slavic and anti-Polish sentiments deeply embedded in it's core beliefs?

I honestly have no clue how deeply embedded they were and how much the Prussians really cared about Grunwald - I don't know any quote by Frederick the Great mentioning the battle. There was certainly a sense of superiority, this is what Frederick's most anti-Polish statements were about; Seeing how two other powers who didn't have the same relationship with Poland took part in the partitions I come to the conclusions that anti-Slavic sentiments played no major role, though. The Romans were also chauvinistic towards all kinds of barbarians yet people probably wouldn't argue that this ideology was the reason for the expansion of the empire.

>It began in the Middle Ages,but they've gained most of the ground during the Partitions of Poland.

Not really. Prussia also kept the part of Poland gained in the third partition only for a short time.

>It has a lot to do with it because non-Protestants and Polish Catholics were generally viewed as humans of lesser worth,because of different religious affiliations and because they've resisted Germanisation more than anyone else has.

You were talking about Orthodox', remember? ;)

What about Belgium? I know that they were used to access France, but they were only attacked with the intent of using them to access France. Why didn't Germany annex Belgium during the 1800's? Despite Prussia being split by Bavaria and Hannover, I would think that Prussia would still be able to expand into Belgium. What about the German unification? If Germany managed to take Alsace-Lorraine right after unification, why wouldn't they take Belgium? Was it just not worth it? Thanks for the answer by the way.

>BUT IT'S IN GERMAN SO OBVIOUSLY GERMANS CREATED THAT TERM

No. The word blitzkrieg is also German yet Germans themselves didn't use it.

It's obvious you're a butthurt Slavic nationalist letting your bias cloud your reason. People trot out the Northern Crusades as an example of anti-Slavism without realizing a lot of the crusaders themselves were Slavs and the whole shebang was financed by Ottokar the king of Bohemia whom Koenigsberg was named after. It was a simple landgrab with a religious justification and viewing it in a nationalist context is a 19th century anachronism, then again you're a retarded namefaggot so I shouldn't expect any better.

>revisionist claims The Piasts were rulers of Poland long before they've accepted Christianity and established contact with the Holy Roman Empire

baptism of Poland under first Piast Mieszko I

>Rurik Mongol
yes he was seeking revenge for the funngol empire

/sarcasm

revisionist BTFO

>Poland Piast dynasty derived from several noble lines of Germanic Holy Roman Empire
They were ethnic "Polans", they(as dynasty) survived in Silesia and I believe parts of Pomerania but were completely Germanised somewhere in 1600's or so.

>first Piast Mieszko I
And he was born out of himself.

Literally German autism

Sought, "seeked" isn't a word.

They were,Mieszko is just the first to be baptized.Here are his predecessors:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemomysł

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lestek

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siemowit.Siemowit is basically the first Monarch of the Piast dynasty.Also,do these names sound Germanic to you?

>Rurik Mongol
Anyone who associates Finns with Mongols is severely illiterate.

At least my claims are supported by actual and traceable evidencefamilytreedna.com/public/rurikid/default.aspx?section=news.

>revisionist
That's rich coming from a Nordicist,basically a "we were kings" meme for illiterate Whites of alleged Germanic descent.

>BUT IT'S IN GERMAN SO OBVIOUSLY GERMANS CREATED THAT TERM

It's strongly suggested that they're the ones who've invented it,as it was concluded by professionals who've studied his subject more vigorously than you and I have.

>It's obvious you're a butthurt Slavic nationalist letting your bias cloud your reason

Lacking in arguments,civility and patience,resorts to insults and petty straw-man allegations,how very unexpected.

I'm well aware of who had financed the Northern Crusades and you seem to have confused timelines,Ottokar didn't finance the Wendish Crusade,which predated him for a quite a lot,If I remember.

>as an example of anti-Slavism
The Wendish Crusade is an example of anti-Slavism because it has employed forced germanisation,the wholesome destruction of Slavic culture and the expulsion of Wends out of almost every city and town which they've founded in northern and eastern Germany.

The campaigns started with the 1147 Wendish Crusade against the Polabian Slavs (or "Wends") of what is now northern and eastern Germany. The crusade occurred parallel to the Second Crusade to the Holy Land, and continued irregularly until the 16th century.

France is already Germanic, Italy is a natural fortress from that side, and that didn't stop them from raiding every now and then.

because slavs are weak and easy to conquer

"Non-Protestants" include the Orthodox Christians.

>Aren't you forgetting the contribution of the HRE and Hungary to the defeat of the Ottomans

It was mostly the Croatian part of Hungary which fought relentlessly against the Ottoman Empire,while Hungary proper was subsequently conquered after the battle of Mohács.Also,the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is responsible for causing the gradual downfall of the Ottoman Empire,not the Holy Roman Empire.

> Or the contribution of the Western Allies to the defeat of the 3rd Reich

80% of the German army was defeated on the Eastern Front.

> Or the other coalition forces that defeated Napoléon

The bulk of his army was defeated in Russia,plus the Russians were the ones who've entered Paris,not the Prussians or the British.

>Don't you think the density might have been a tad higher in the latter?
You've proven me wrong,I congratulate you on correcting me on this particular subject.

>I honestly have no clue how deeply embedded they were and how much the Prussians really cared about Grunwald

Very much so,because most of their original nobility has descended from the disgruntled knights and Komturs of the Teutonic Order.

>Seeing how two other powers who didn't have the same relationship with Poland took part in the partitions

We're talking about Prussia and their motivations,not them and theirs.

> Prussia also kept the part of Poland gained in the third partition only for a short time

Gaining and keeping are not one and the same

>The Romans were also chauvinistic towards
Are we going to compare Romans to Prussians for the sake of the argument?

I know very well what he's talking about it and no,a convenient,part-time alliance against the Teutonic Order can't disprove more than a thousand years of historically documented animosity.

Is that why we've controlling more than half of Europe's territory?

Geography and closeness genetically that they can be assimilated.

are you refering to the worthless, uninhabited taiga that stretches out to ural?

Also to ensure the future of your nation and descendants you have to fuck up your neighbors.

Slavs were a threat that needed to be contained as well.

Is Poland and Balkan taiga?
Is Moscow tundra?

Have you ever left your city?

Half of Poland was conquered by Prussia

And half of Prussia is now in Poland. Whats your point?
Are you going all WE WUZ? If thats the case, I can just post a map of the Cold War era.

what?
I am just arguing why Germanic used to counquer slavic land.
Because slavs were weak and their land could be easily taken

Re-read the chain of replies and call me back to say if you got confused or are just dumb.

slavs controlled much land but most of it was worthless
and most of slavic land got conquered by germanics, ottomans and mongols, because slavs were so weak

Germans were just barbarians through most of known history. Slavs wrote some the greatest masterpieces of literature: So maybe jealousy.

This is /pol/ tier history reading. You ignore every single battle or war that doesn't suit you, and quite every one that does.
Are you aware that Poland had Prussia as its vassal?
Are you aware that the Russian army has been to Paris and Berlin?
Are you aware that if we look at some old tribal distribution map and then at modern ones, its the salvs that have taken over germanic lands, and not the other way around?

You are basically posting the opposite of how it went, and are acting as if its stupid to even consider anything else.

Well, OPs question was why Germanics conquered slavic times for most of the history.
And the answere is, of course, that for the most of the history, slavs were weak as shit.
Only exception is obiviously soviet union.

Or Imperial Russia and modern Russia. Or the Polish Commonwealth. Or Medieval Bulgaria, twice. Or Serbia, under Dusan.

Looking at recorded history, from its earliest to today, slavs have pushed germans west and have taken over their land. Your claim is false.

No I'm referring to most of central,southeastern and eastern Europe,a.k.a most of it.

Imperial and modern Russia only controlled and controls other, even weaker slavic shithole.
Polish Commonwealth had Germanic vassals, but they invited the Germanics to their territory in the first place, to christianize the old Prussians.
And of course, later the said vassal partitioned Poland

"Conquered" you mean illegally partitioned,but only because Austria and Russia had their backs?

>slavs invited germanics to christinise them

they fought a war against the christians to keep them away holy fuck

You mean the lands conquered by Ottomans and Habsburgers?

Lombardy, England, Northern France all German realms.

what do you mean by illegal?
Are you implying there were some rules in place against the partition of a country?

Are you denying that the Teutonic Knights were invited by the Polish King in the first place?

Over 200 million Europeans (some 30%) speak a Germanic language natively.

You are speaking a German language right now.

It took the Ottomans 229 years to conquer most of southeastern Europe and the Hapsburgs haven't conquered anything,they've made alliances with other kingdoms who in return,have accepted them as their ruling dynasty.

No,I'm saying that the entire act was an underhanded act which caused a massive uproar in 18th century,and rightfully so.

>Are you denying that the Teutonic Knights were invited by the Polish King in the first place?

And are you denying the fact that they've turned against their greatest benefactor,the Kingdom of Poland,even though they were the ones who've given them lands,towns and lodgings to sustain themselves?

And you're using inventions such as AC electricity,digital electronic computing,transistors,wireless transmission,color television,long-range telephones,electric trams,light-emitting diodes,which just so happen to be invented by Slavic inventors in your everyday life,so what's the point of that statement of yours?

>No,I'm saying that the entire act was an underhanded act which caused a massive uproar in 18th century,and rightfully so.
Really? It seems to me like most people didnt really care about Poland. This is shown very clearly when Poland was partitioned yet again after Napoleon.

>And are you denying the fact that they've turned against their greatest benefactor,the Kingdom of Poland,even though they were the ones who've given them lands,towns and lodgings to sustain themselves?
I wasn't there at that time, but I am sure Teutonic Knights and later Prussia had good reasons to turn against Poland

germs constantly lost territory to the slavs

what used to be magna germania and ostrogoth including crimea and black sea became ukraine, poland, czechia, slovakia, romania etc...

the germs slav conflict is eons old and ethnic cleansing was practiced by both, with germs constantly loosing to booming slav population

but germs still managed to usurp the slavs and rule over them through kings, tsars and their eastern empires

So you are saying that Germans and Slavs conquered each other equally and OPs point is wrong?

>It seems to me like most people didn't really care about Poland

It's not about caring about Poland,it's about upsetting the balance of power and committing an act of aggression on a sovereign state.

>I wasn't there at that time, but I am sure Teutonic Knights and later Prussia had good reasons to turn against Poland

It's not enough that you're trying to avoid answering on my question, but you're also completely uninitiated in the topic.

The Teutonic Order has no good reasons to turn against their greatest regional benefactor,they're purely motivated by greed,which they've payed for dearly in the end.

Prussia on other hand,had some reason to turn against Poland,mostly because they were their vassals and the direct property of the Polish kings,as a result of the second peace of Thorn.

>It's not about caring about Poland,it's about upsetting the balance of power and committing an act of aggression on a sovereign state.
yeah, shit like this happend all the times during that age.

>It's not enough that you're trying to avoid answering on my question, but you're also completely uninitiated in the topic.
Well, seeing how you are a biased Polack, I am not really sure I can take your opinion for a fact

>rule over them through kings, tsars and their eastern empires
The Holstein Gottorp branch of the Romanov dynasty and the Hapsburgs were basically the only German dynasties that have ruled over Slavic countries.

How have they've conquered each other equally if the Germanic tribes are the ones who've constantly losing ground?

So the thread should rather be asking
>Why have slavic people always seeked to conquer, assimilate, or genocide germanics throughout history?
is that right?

The French have vividly protested against it,calling it,even the Ottomans have refused to consider the Partition of Poland as just another act of "annexation".

>Well, seeing how you are a biased Polack
Being historically literate makes me "biased"? Also, I didn't know that presenting intentionally overlooked facts would somehow make me Polish.

> I am not really sure I can take your opinion for a fact

I take it you're simply incapable of answering on a simple question of mine?Good,that just proves whose opinion should be taken for a fact and whose shouldn't.You should also drop that condescending attitude of yours,you haven't done anything remotely relevant in order to gain the right to assume it.

>The French have vividly protested against it,calling it,even the Ottomans have refused to consider the Partition of Poland as just another act of "annexation".
Of course, since it was not in their best interest seeing their rivals poland and russia getting more powerful.

>Being historically literate makes me "biased"?
No. Claiming "poland dindu nuffin" makes you biased.

Yes,at least to some extent.

well, slavs are simply not as cultured as germanics, they have very little regard for human life

>Of course, since it was not in their best interest seeing their rivals Poland and Russia getting more powerful.

You've ignored the fact the Ottomans,who've been nothing but open enemies to the Poles since the 15th century have vehemently protested against it,which further proves that this partition was nothing more but a covertly organised theft of land.We're not talking of some disputed landmass,but a country which was on the verge of completing it's much needed reforms.

This should be interesting,where exactly have I claimed that Poland "didn't do anything" ?

>You've ignored the fact the Ottomans,who've been nothing but open enemies to the Poles since the 15th century have vehemently protested against it,which further proves that this partition was nothing more but a covertly organised theft of land.
Werent Poland and Ottomans allied at some point? Also, even if Poland and Ottomans were enemies, I am sure the Turks didnt want even stronger Germany and Russia.

>This should be interesting,where exactly have I claimed that Poland "didn't do anything" ?
Good innocent Poland gives the teutonic order land, and then the evil Germans backstab poor Poland

> are simply not as cultured as germanics

Forcefully relocating Poles from most cities in western and northern Poland,Operation Barbarossa,Lebensraum Project and the deed of financing the Bolshevik revolution which caused the death of 48-66 million Christians in Russia all beg to differ.

We might be coarse,but at least we're not malicious enough to assume the moral high ground and refuse to take responsibility for our past transgressions,unlike some.

Hitler was an one time thing, you can't pretend Germanics were always so evil.
Also, I think Germanizing Poles was a good thing. Poles can be decent people, if you remove their toxic Polish culture

This is why being a Slav sucked

>bloodthirsty germaniggers on the west
>steppeniggers on the east

and it still sucks someone pls end my fucking life

wtf, Germans are not bloodthirsty anymore and no more stepniggers.
Your life is good, slavfriend

Germanics still try to fuck us over.

> they have very little regard for human life
>utter germanic genocide of polabia
>King henry VIII murdered 5% of the english population in peacetime Ivan Grozny's kill count is barely 150000
>Constant massacres of entire cities during the counterreformation, while russians let the tatars live in peace after they conquered them
>anglosaxon total genocide of natives, while russians peacefully coexisted with siberian tribes.
>generalplan ost

Gee those germanics sure are humanists.

wtf no, we are your friends now

Why do Slavs have such a persecution complex? Germanics destroyed the Roman empire, nearly wiped out Celtic languages in Britain, Germany and France were bitter rivals until 1945? Does that mean Germans have some eternal holy war against Romans and Celts?

well, Germans were deeply involved in inventing the ideas of humanisms, while slavs still treated their peasants as slaves/serfs

>Good innocent Poland gives the Teutonic order land, and then the evil Germans back-stab poor Poland
??
Konrad I,the duke of Masovia signed the Treaty of Kruszwica in 1230, according to which he granted Chełmno Land to the Teutonic Knights and the Order of Dobrzyń. By this donation disclaiming any enfeoffment, Konrad established the nucleus of the State of the Teutonic Order.
Source: www.imperialteutonicorder.com,the official page of the order.

>I am sure the Turks didn't want even stronger Germany and Russia

True,but it still doesn't change the fact that it was a shady undertaking.

It's not my problem if you can't accept

t. slav diaspora in Germany

>giving a fuck about peasants

surely you are not this blue pilled?

h-how did you know?

I didn't deny that the land was granted to Teutons by Polish King
I only said that maybe they had good reasons to rebel after him later on.

I'm not talking of Hitler you illiterate degenerate,I'm talking of a period which encompasses the 18th,19th and 20th century.

The forceful relocation of Poles happened during the Partitions and the financing of the Bolsheviks was the enterprise of Imperial Germany,in case you didn't know.

> if you remove their toxic Polish culture
Where are you from,If I may ask?

> destroyed the Roman empire
Infighting has destroyed the Western Roman Empire,the Huns have delivered the killing blow,the Germanics have only raped the remnants of it's desiccated corpse.

>Slavs have such a persecution complex
Points out intentionally overlooked facts,is accused of suffering from a persecution complex. Your reasoning is top-notch,you studying psychology per chance?

>Where are you from,If I may ask?
Germany. And we have a history of very successfully integrating Poles.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruhrpolen