Articles de revues sur le sujet « Serfdom – Germany – East Prussia »

In postwar East Germany, dealing with the history of Prussia was problematic. While ‘Prussianism’ or the ‘Spirit of Prussia’ was widely perceived as a central cause of Nazism, it also could not be ignored when developing ‘progressive’ narratives of German history. This article investigates the political, intellectual and symbolic construction of a ‘Prussia-myth’ in the early postwar years. In particular, it investigates how the ‘Prussia-myth’ was adapted to changing political conditions, the theoretical contradictions this engendered, and the manner in which historians and cultural figures dealt with these problems when educating the East German population at large.

This paper deals with the foreign strategy of East Prussia after World War I. Special consideration is given to the ways in which East Prussia tried to overcome the political and economic difficulties that had arisen when it found itself surrounded on all sides by foreign countries during the 1920s. After the World War I, East Prussia aimed to re-establish its previous trade relations with the regions of the former Russian Empire. The intensive struggle for survival in which the local and regional governments of Königsberg and its economic representatives were involved resulted from the fact that the province now formed an exclave – a unique situation not only in the history of Prussia, but also in the history of Germany. Owing to the unsolvable territorial conflicts in Eastern Europe, all attempts to come to terms with the situation and its implications were doomed to have only very limited success.

The article elaborates on the accomplishments of those centered round a magazine “Borussia. Culture. History. Literature” which, while following a constructivist vision of history, seeks an answer to a question about a role of the heritage of East Prussia and Germany in contemporary Poland. Thus, a challenge has been taken to not only examine the region’s past, but also to examine the creation of contemporary civil society which is aware of what was the past of the land on which they live. Elements of multicultural image of East Prussia emerging from “Borussia” articles, create a metaphoric “Atlantis of the North” — idealized multicultural land, dominated by the spirit of tolerance. Such an image, together with the idea of “open regionalism” comprises a preferred image of contemporary regional identity.

AbstractThis article considers the fate of Prussian buildings and memorials in East Germany between 1945 and 1961. Analyzing a number of case studies from Berlin and Potsdam, it places the treatment of these structures within the broader contours of history management practices. Although this era was characterized by a strong anti-Prussian sentiment in the GDR's historical discourse, it also witnessed a complex interaction between the SED and its historical inheritance. This interaction often influenced decisions about the fate of Prussian structures in the GDR as much as any animosity toward Prussia as a historical entity did.

From the moment Poland regained independence, national security was threatened by Germany. This article shows the activity of Branch 3 of Unit II of the General Staff of the Polish Army in Bydgoszcz in the face of the war threat. Branch 3 conducted both military intelligence and counterintelligence activities. Operation “Wózek” carried out by the branch is worth attention. Its objective was to check German parcels, especially military ones, transported from Germany to East Prussia and the Free City of Gdańsk [Polish: Wolne Miasto Gdańsk]. Such a way of obtaining valuable intelligence material was not only important but also inexpensive. Operation “Wózek” contributed to the identification of German preparations for their aggression against Poland in September 1939.

The author of the above quotation, Rudolf Jokiel, was one of over twelve million ethnic Germans expelled from their homes in Germany's eastern provinces (East Prussia, Pomerania, Brandenburg, and Silesia), the Sudetenland, and other pockets of Eastern Europe at the end of World War II and resettled within the country's truncated postwar borders. The expellees bitterly lamented their enforced exile, and many Christians within this population shared Jokiel's sentiments concerning the connection between faith and homeland. Those who settled in the territory of the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) developed an elaborate network of overlapping subcultures dedicated to preserving their memories of lost homelands and advocating for their right to return there. In the process, these lands came to acquire a distinctly religious aura, holy places that were integral to their spiritual well-being.

Population Transformations in the Klaipeda Region in the 20th CenturyThe Klaipeda Region is now an integral part of Lithuania. This was not, however, always the case; the region has a strong German history. (Its historical German name was Memelland, while in Lithuanian it was called Klaipedos Krastas.) Until 1525, the Klaipeda Region belonged to the Teutonic Order, but later changed hands several times. Initially, it belonged to the Duchy of Prussia (until 1701; and until 1657 was dependent as a fief of Poland), was later controlled by the Kingdom of Prussia (until 1871), and then finally became part of the German Empire (until 1919). For Germans, the province was a historical part of Eastern Prussia until 1945. For Lithuanians, the Klaipeda Region, as well as the area located along the north-eastern part of East Prussia on the south bank of the Neman River, was known as Little Lithuania (Lithuania Minor). The Lithuanians considered this territory to be their own ethnic land, which was wrongfully subjected to gradual Germanization. Before World War II this area was inhabited by Protestants who spoke Lithuanian or German. The 1920 census lists the territory’s population at 150,700, of which 71,000 declared German to be their first language, while 67,000 declared Lithuanian.The article first discusses the historical and political background of events in the Klaipeda Region in the first half of the 20th century. Next the author analyzes in a dynamic approach the demographic and ethnic structure of the population. His attention is later focused on the period of World War II when the province was incorporated into the Lithuanian Soviet Socialist Republic. In the Soviet period, a major part of the local population was expelled to Germany, while the remaining residents were identified as either Lithuanians or Russians such that the province was no longer dominated by the Protestant and German speaking population. The final part of the article deals with the present demographic and ethnic situation. As a result of the postwar political and economic migrations, a majority of the people in the province now identify themselves as Lithuanian and Catholic. Lithuania, owing to the port of Klaipeda, has now an unrestricted access to sea.

Germany was famously a latecomer to colonialism, but it was a hybrid empire, centrally involved in all forms of imperial activity. Germans dominated the early Holy Roman Empire; Germany after 1870 was a Reich, or empire, not a state in the conventional sense; and Germany had a colonial empire between 1884 and 1918. Prussia played the role of continental imperialist in its geopolitics vis-à-vis Poland and the other states to its east. Finally, in its Weltpolitik – its global policies centered on the navy – Germany was an informal global imperialist. Although these diverse scales and practices of empire usually occupied distinct regions in the imaginations of contemporaries, there was one representational space in which the nation-state was woven together with empire in all its different registers: the Berlin trade exhibition of 1896. Because this exhibition started as a local event focused on German industry, it has not attracted much attention among historians of colonial and world fairs. Over the course of its planning, however, the 1896 exhibition emerged as an encompassing display of the multifarious German empire in all its geopolitical aspects. The exhibition attracted the attention of contemporaries as diverse as Georg Simmel and Kaiser Wilhelm. In contrast to Simmel and later theorists, I argue that it represented the empire and the nation-state, and not simply the fragmenting and commodifying force of capitalism. In contrast to Timothy Mitchell, I argue that the exhibit did not communicate a generic imperial modernity, but made visible the unique multi-scaled political formation that was the German empire-state.

Kaliningrad Region (Konigsberg) is a semi-excave of Russia that does not have a common land border with its main territory, but is connected to it by sea. It reached our country as a result of the victory over Germany in 1945. This region bears the imprint of the historical and cultural development of East Prussia, has its own specificity in the development of natural landscapes and causes special professional interest in the development of the landscape and ecological framework (LEC) of the famous German resort city of Krantz (Zelenogradsk). The article gives some historical maps, on the basis of which an analysis of the development of natural landscapes and the formation of the LEK of the city of Krantz was made. It was also analyzed by the case of the element frame: urban planning and transport axes, types of the spatial structure of the city and two large landscape objects. Materials are given historical photographs, which show the promenade, buildings and structures, elements of urban landscaping. Materials is recalled about the reforestation of the dunes, information is given about the Plantage park and its elements, which are the green core of the modern city.

For a long time before dramatic recent events it has been clear that the German Democratic Republic has been in die position, embarrassing to a Marxist system, of having nothing generally marketable left except (to use the jargon) ‘superstructure’. The Luther celebrations conveniendy bolstered the implicit claim of the GDR to embody Saxony’s long-delayed revenge upon Prussia; still more conveniendy, they paid handsomely. Even the Francke celebrations probably paid their way, ruinous though his Orphan House has been allowed to become. When I was in Halle, a hard-pressed government had removed the statue of Handel (originally paid for in part by English subscriptions) for head-to-foot embellishment in gold leaf, and a Handel Festival office in the town was manned throughout the year. Bach is still more crucial, both to the republic’s need to pay its way and to the competition with the Federal Republic for the possession of the national tradition. There is no counterpart in Britain to the strength of the Passion-music tradition in East Germany. The celebrations which reach their peak in Easter Week at St Thomas’s, Leipzig, are like a cross between Wembley and Wimbledon here, the difference being that the black market in tickets is organized by the State for its own benefit. If Bach research in East Germany, based either on musicology or the Church, has remained an industry of overwhelming amplitude and technical complexity, the State has had its own Bach-research collective located in Leipzig, dedicated among other things to establishing the relation between Bach and the Enlightenment, that first chapter in the Marxist history of human liberation. Now that a good proportion of the population of the GDR seems bent on liberation by leaving the republic or sinking it, the moment seems ripe to take note for non-specialist readers of some of what has been achieved there in recent years.

AbstractIn Germany, mosasaur remains are very rare and only incompletely known. However, the earliest records date back to the 1830s, when tooth crowns were found in the chalk of the Isle of Rügen. A number of prominent figures in German palaeontology and geosciences of the 19th and 20th centuries focused on these remains, including, among others, Friedrich von Hagenow, Hermann von Meyer, Andreas Wagner, Hanns Bruno Geinitz and Josef Pompeckj. Most of these works were only short notes, given the scant material. However, the discovery of fragmentary cranial remains in Westphalia in 1908 led to a more comprehensive discussion, which is also of historical importance, as it illustrates the discussions on the highly controversial and radical universal phylogenetic theory proposed by Gustav Steinmann in 1908. This theory saw the existence of continuous lines of descent, evolving in parallel, and did not regard higher taxonomic units as monophyletic groups but as intermediate paraphyletic stages of evolution. In this idea, nearly all fossil taxa form part of these lineages, which extend into the present time, and natural extinction occurs very rarely, if ever. In Steinmann's concept, mosasaurs were not closely related to squamates but formed an intermediate member in a anagenetic chain from Triassic thalattosaurs to extant baleen whales. The newly found specimen led Josef Pompeckj to write a vehement rebuttal to Steinmann's theory, published in 1910, showing that his conclusions were conjectural and speculative, being based on convergence and not supported by scientific evidence. This particular specimen, housed in Göttingen, later also inspired a piece of palaeoart by Franz Roubal under the instructions of Othenio Abel.With the exception of a vertebra from the Campanian of former East Prussia (now Russian Federation), and a possible vertebra from the Cenomanian of Dresden, Saxony, all datable material – today partly lost – originated from the northern part of present-day Germany and stratigraphically from the Campanian–Maastrichtian. The purported record from the Cenomanian of Bavaria (southeastern Germany) was most probably an error, based on Upper Jurassic crocodilian material.

The article is devoted to a peculiar episode of the struggle of Lithuanians against the policy of persecution based on nationality which was pursued by Imperial Russia between 1864 and 1904. Its participants were representatives of the parts of the Lithuanian nation separated by the border between Germany and the Russian Empire – Martynas Jankus (1858–1946), a German citizen, a Lithuanian of East Prussia, the owner of a printing office in Tilsit (Lith. Tilžė, currently Sovetsk, a town in Kaliningrad Oblast, the Russian Federation) and a group of Lithuanian young people who were operating illegally, a group of citizens of the Russian Empire. The time under discussion is the 1890s. During that period, the Lithuanian national movement was rapidly developing and strengthening while striving to bring together both parts of the nation and the USA-based Lithuanian diaspora community. One of the most important measures of the common struggle was the distribution of publications printed in Latin characters in the Lithuanian language which were banned to be published in the territory of Russia but were legally printed in East Prussia and smuggled across the border into Lithuania. From there, the publications were sent to Lithuanian communities all over the Russian Empire. This struggle resulted in victory: the ban was lifted by Order of the Cabinet of Ministers of Russia issued in 1904. To strengthen the political opposition, Lithuanian intellectuals printed not only books, brochures and newspapers but also various minor publications – political leaflets. Students of Russian universities and Lithuanian intellectuals graduates of these higher education institutions prepared texts and sent funds intended for their publication to the printing offices of Lithuanians and Germans in East Prussia. The number of such leaflets surviving to the present day is very small. One of these publications was an anonymous card of the size of a standard German postcard (95 x 140 mm). Thus far, three of them have been found in Lithuanian libraries and archives, and one has been discovered in the National Library of Russia in Saint Petersburg. A composition of two illustrations is printed on one side of the card: a Lithuanian countrywoman and a Cossack standing in front of her with a raised whip and a bottle of vodka as a gift for obedience. This symbolised a spread of orthodoxy and the deportation of Lithuanians from their native land. The following exclamation of the Cossack is printed: Are you a Lithuanian? Go to Russia! The explanation of the content of the illustration and the encouragement (first of all, to Catholic believers) to oppose the plans of the authorities are printed in small characters. They are related to the colonisation of Siberia. The statements are well-grounded, the exposition of the subject is logical and written in the correct Lithuanian language. Most probably, it was created by the graduate of the Faculty of Law of the University of Moscow Vladas Mačys (1867–1936). Vaclovas Biržiška, Professor of Law at the University of Lithuania in Kaunas and Director of the University Library, was the first to describe this publication bibliographically. The author regarded this publication as a postcard, attributed it to Martynas Jankus’ printing office and dated it ‘1892’. A more precise description was publicised in the fundamental work of Lithuanian national bibliography Lietuvos TSR bibliografija. Serija A: Knygos lietuvių kalba (Bibliography of the Lithuanian SSR. Series A: Books in the Lithuanian Language; vol. 2: 1862–1904. Book 2 (Vilnius, 1988, p. 401, No. 4065). It was compiled in the Soviet era, and the only available copy stored in Mikhail J. Saltykov-Shchedrin State Public Library (currently renamed the Russian National Library in Sankt Petersburg) served as the basis for it. The present author amended the publication date of the postcard (1891) and specified the circumstances of its distribution, while also ascertaining that the artist of the illustrations was the lithographer of Tilsit Johann Mai.

The article explores contemporary historiography of the history of Königsberg University (Albertina), which had existed in East Prussia since 1544 until 1944. Over the course of four centuries there was an official narrative on the history of the university as a stronghold of German culture in the east of the country. After World War II the university history was mainly investigated by German historians, but after the end of the Cold War the interest in this topic increased not only in Germany, but also in other countries. The researchers are primarily focused on two periods – the early modern one (mid-16th – 17th centuries) and the end of the 19th – the first half of the 20th century. A considerable number of topics on the history of Königsberg University, which earlier were taboo or ignored for other reasons, have become a subject of academic interest in recent decades. Discussions arose about the degree of responsibility of university intellectuals for the Nazis’ crimes. New biographies of historians such as Hans Rothfels or Werner Conze force a reader to form a more realistic image of Albertina in the 1930s. The material ofthe university history makes it possible to reconsider the contradictory relations between the German state and Jewish communities as well as to expand understanding of the circumstances of the Jews’ persecution at the beginning of the National Socialistera. The analysis of contemporary historiography shows that, with all its achievements, it retains some stereotypes dating back to the traditional narrative, primarily a lack of attention to the role of women in the university history and the importance of the university as an institution strengtheninga gender order. The paper introduces a number of examples of women scholars that are not fully represented in the history of the university (Frieda Fromm-Reichmann, Sophie Brutzer, Elise Jenny Baumgartel). Moreover, the article gives a brief description of Russian historiography. Taking into account the development trends of contemporary historiography, the author considers the prospects of the research devoted to Königsberg University history.

The problem of historical memory and the politics of memory, the formation and evolution of memorial culture has become relevant in the context of the “mnemonic turn” in historiography, which began in the 1980s and continues until now. The events of World War I and its consequences in the interwar period occupied a central place in the communicative memory of the Germans and were the main object of historical politics in the Weimar Republic. For obvious reasons, there could be no place for triumphal memory in Germany. The memory of heroes acquired a special emotional meaning and pushed the grief memory version into the background, which was a natural compensation for the catastrophic defeat. Attempts by the official authorities and parties of the Weimar coalition to create a common memorial space of the last war for national consolidation and their own legitimisation ended in failure. In the conditions of a deep socio-political split in society on the brink of civil war, the opposing groups created and spread their own versions of the memory of war, not only competing, but also directly hostile to each other. At the same time, its main carriers were veteran organisations of various party affiliations. They were characterised by a specific memorial culture of admiration for the idealised image of the front-line soldier and disdain for the ones in the rear. As a result, the most significant places of memory, i.e. the Tannenberg Memorial in East Prussia and the Neue Wache building in Berlin never acquired national significance. In the confrontation between conflicting versions of memory, the advantage remained on the side of the conservative, nationalist, and anti-republican forces.

The review of the XVIII International Scientific Conference "State and Law: evolution, current state, development prospects (to the 300th anniversary of the Russian Empire)" was held on April 29-30, 2021 at the St. Petersburg University of the Ministry of Internal Affairs. The Russian Empire existed on the political map of the world from October 22 (November 2), 1721 until the February Revolution and the overthrow of the Monarchy on March 3, 1917. The Russian Empire was the third largest state that ever existed (after the British and Mongolian Empires): It extended to the Arctic Ocean in the north and the Black Sea in the south, to the Baltic Sea in the west and the Pacific Ocean in the east. The Russian Empire was one of the great powers along with Great Britain, France, Prussia (Germany) and Austria-Hungary, and since the second half of the XIX century – also Italy and the United States. The capital of the Russian Empire was St. Petersburg (1721 - 1728), Moscow (1728 - 1732), then again St. Petersburg (1732 - 1917), renamed Petrograd in 1914. Therefore, it is natural that a conference dedicated to the 300th anniversary of the formation of the Russian Empire was held in St. Petersburg, the former imperial capital. The conference was devoted to problems concerning various aspects of the organization and functioning of the state and law, a retrospective analysis of the activities of state bodies in the Russian Empire. The discussion focused on various issues: the character of the Russian Empire as a socio-legal phenomenon and the subject of the legitimate use of state coercion, the development of political and legal thought, the regulatory and legal foundations of the organization and functioning of the Russian state in the XVIII century – at the beginning of the XX century, the characteristics of state bodies as an element of the mechanism of the imperial state in Russia, the organizational and legal bases of the activities of bodies that manage the internal affairs of the Russian Empire, as well as the image of state authorities and officials-representatives of state power.

After 25 years with the Australian Journal of Chemistry, our editor, Dr Jan R. Zdysiewicz (known far and wide as John Z.), has recently retired. During his initial ten year period with the journal, John served as assistant editor under Bob Schoenfeld who, like John, was also very widely known throughout the Australian and New Zealand chemistry community. In 1985, John took up the editorship and under his editorial management the journal has continued to prosper. John has been an exceptionally talented editor who, despite increasing pressures over more recent times, has managed to maintain the journal’s very high editorial standard – a task aided by his wide understanding of chemistry and his truly exceptional knowledge of English usage. John had an eventful early life – details of which may be of interest to his many friends and acquaintances. He was born in Laukischken in East Prussia to parents from Mosty in eastern Poland. His parents had been taken to Germany during World War II for forced labour. After the war, the family was transferred, endlessly it seemed, from DP (displaced persons) camp to DP camp in Germany, until final acceptance for migration to Australia. After a long sea voyage on the Skaugum, the family arrived at Port Melbourne in December 1950. Then followed being shuffled between widely spread immigration holding centres in South-East Australia, finally ending up in Adelaide, where the family settled. After some difficulty in gaining enrolment, John attended Adelaide Boys High School. In 1962 at age 19, he lost his alien status and became an Australian citizen. Even during this early period, John Z. made a name for himself. He became somewhat of a celebrity for his virtuosity in playing the accordion. In 1961, he became Grand Australian Accordion Champion. On occasions, he still plays for friends and private audiences. John Z. obtained his tertiary education at the University of Adelaide. His Ph.D. research in the Department of Physical and Inorganic Chemistry was concerned with physical chemical studies on naturally occurring and synthetic polymers. He then held Post Doctoral appointments in England at the University of Lancaster (preparation and e.s.r. characterisation of radical anions), Australia at the Division of Protein Chemistry, CSIRO, Parkville (on the interactions of fluorescent compounds with protein components by photophysical techniques) and Canada at the University of Western Ontario (construction of a microsecond flash photolysis apparatus in connection with photochemical reactions involving radical ions). In 1975 he returned to Australia as the assistant editor of Aust. J. Chem. John Z. has served as the national representative on IUPAC’s Commission III.2 (on Physical Organic Chemistry) and is currently an associate member of this commission. In 1998, the Royal Australian Chemical Institute awarded him a citation for his contributions to the promotion of Australian chemistry nationally and internationally, principally through his role as editor of the journal. Finally, John is of a distinctly independent nature – perhaps a reflection of his Polish antecedents? While his management style might be said to be unique, it has always been characterised by an overriding commitment to quality. Clearly, John Zdysiewicz ranks as an exceptional individual. On behalf of my fellow advisory committee members and, indeed, also for the wider chemistry community, I thank John for a job exceedingly well done. We wish him well in his retirement.

Статья посвящена сооружениям архитектора Карла Густава Ханса Хоппа (1890–1971), активно строившего в 1920-е годы в столице Восточной Пруссии Кенигсберге (совр. Калининград). Х. Хопп принадлежал к числу немногочисленных приверженцев авангарда, работавших в отдаленной консервативной провинции Германии. Созданные им сооружения маркируют центр города, сместившийся от территории бывшего кенигсбергского замка и возведенного на его месте в 1974 году Дома Советов (архитектор Ю. Шварцбрейм) на современную площадь Победы, занявшую место Восточной ярмарки. Как руководитель технического отдела ярмарки, игравшей важную роль в возрождении экономических связей между Германией и Россией, архитектор возвел в трудные годы после окончания Первой мировой войны целый ряд сооружений. Здания в стиле сдержанного экспрессионизма с элементами ар-деко – Торговый двор для фирм-участников ярмарки (современное здание мэрии) и Дом Техники (современный торговый центр «Эпицентр») определяют границы и образный строй центральной части столицы Калининградской области. Мастер придерживался радикальных новаторских взглядов на формальную природу современного ему художественного творчества, организовал в своей квартире-галерее выставку представительницы раннего экспрессионизма П. Модерзон-Беккер, дружил с автором исследования «Абстракция и вчувствование» В. Воррингером, преподававшим в 1928–1944 годах в Кенигсбергском университете. Монументальные строения архитектора украшают экспрессионистические работы скульптора Г. Брахерта (1890–1972). В конце 1920-х годов архитектор увлекся формальными приемами школы Баухаус и украсил Кенигсберг необычными для города зданиями (ремесленная школа для девушек, Парк-отель и другие). The article is devoted to the constructions of the architect Karl Gustav Hans Hopp (1890–1971), who was actively building in the 1920s in the capital of East Prussia Konigsberg (modern Kaliningrad). H. Hopp was one of the few adherents of the avant-garde who worked in the remote conservative province of Germany. The structures created by him mark the center of the city, which has shifted from the territory of the former Koenigsberg castle and built in its place in 1974 by the House of Soviets (architect J. Schwarzbreim) to the modern Victory Square, which took the place of the Eastern Fair. As the head of the Technical Department of the fair, which played an important role in the revival of economic relations between Germany and Russia, the architect erected a number of structures in difficult years after the end of the First World War. Buildings in the style of restrained expressionism with elements of Art Deco – Torgovy Dvor for the companies participating in the fair (modern city hall building) and the Technique House (modern shopping center “Epicenter”) determine the boundaries and the imagery of the central part of the capital of the Kaliningrad region. The master adhered to radical innovative views on the formal nature of contemporary art, organized in his apartment gallery an exhibition of the representative of early expressionism P. Moderson-Becker, was friends with the author of the study “Abstraction and Feeling” V. Warringer, who taught in Koenigsberg from 1928–1944 university. The monumental buildings of the architect are decorated with expressionist works of the sculptor G. Brachert (1890–1972). In the late 1920s, the architect became interested in the formal techniques of the Bauhaus school and decorated Koenigsberg with unusual buildings for the city (Craft School for Girls, Park Hotel and others).

The homage of Mściwoj I made in 1210 to Waldemar II, the king of Denmark, is still one of the unexplained episodes of the history of medieval Pomerania. In the current scientific literature historians almost unanimously accepted that the inclusion of Eastern Pomerania by the influence of Denmark resulted from the armed expansion of the Danes, who forced Mściwoj I to pay them homage. However, the analysis of sources gives us reasons to suppose that events could actually follow a completely different path. The manner of recording the events in „Annales Waldemariani”, as well as political relations between the papacy, Denmark and Germany at the beginning of XIII century, seem to indicate that the feudal homage of the Eastern Pomeranian ruler was made voluntarily. Moreover, we can suppose that the initiative of such a political union came from Mściwoj I himself. At the turn of XII and XIII century Eastern Pomerania was being in immediate danger of Danish expansion. The possessive intent of Waldemar II toward the Sobiesławice estate became apparent with the occupation of Słupsk by Denmark between 1202 and 1206. Couldn’t counting on support of the Polish princes, involved in conflicts with each other for supremacy, Sobiesławice probably decided to enter into agreement with Denmark. In exchange for recognition of the princes rights in Eastern Pomerania (Sobiesławice didn’t have a position equal to the rest of the Polish or even West Pomeranian rulers) Mściwoj I voluntarily accepted Danish supremacy in 1210. It is possible that it was also connected with his willingness to participate in the Danish conquest of the Prussian lands. Against this background, however, it came to some friction, because the head of the Prussian mission, Christian, probably cooperating with Denmark, blocked the actions of Mściwoj I aimed at subordinating Prussian neophytes to him, witch chilled the Danish‑Pomeranian relations. Christian’s monopol on actions among Prussians was also against the will of Polish princes, witch is why there was rapprochement between them and the ruler of East Pomerania. At the rally in Mąkolno in 1212 Mściwoj I involved himself into Polish plans of taking actions in Prussia ted by Denmark in 1210. Because of the source shortages, we are unable to determine whether after 1212 Mściwoj returned under authority of Poland. It is impossible to explicitly exclude such course of events. However, it is possible thet the Eastern Pomeranian ruler after 1212 could still remaind in a fief relation with Denmark, which was broken just after his death by imposing the Polish superiority on Świętopełk by Leszek the White. In such arrangement likely moment of the breakdown of Danish‑Eastern Pomeranian partnership is year 1220, when Mściwoj I died and Waldemar II was in Estonia on crusade.

Abstract From its very conception some thirty years ago, Berlin's Humboldt Forum has been one of contemporary Germany's most controversial cultural initiatives. One aspect of this controversy has been the role of the Prussian past in reunified Germany. Housed in a reconstruction of the Prussian Royal Palace destroyed by the East German communist government in 1950, the visual symbolism of the project spurred a long struggle over the appropriate urban aesthetic for the country's capital city. In the view of many critics, the structure symbolizes the triumph of a particular conservative narrative of national memory that excludes the GDR, downplays National Socialism, and uncritically celebrates the Prussian past. This article traces how public debates about the structure of the Humboldt Forum have served as a vehicle for reflection on Prussian history and its relevance (or irrelevance) for reunified Germany.

The dissolution and subsequent fate of Medieval monasteries in Denmark and northern Germany There are certain differences in the building histories of monasteries in Denmark and northern Germany due to economic and political developments in the two areas during the Middle Ages. The monasteries in Denmark were founded over a very long period, although none were estab­lished in the 14th century and many in the 15th century. In northern Germany, due to the late conversion, establishment took place over a shorter period, with extensive building activity in the 13th and 14th centuries. The major building boom seen in Denmark up to the Reformation is not evident in the north of Germany. In the case of the Cistercian abbeys in Denmark, it is characteristic that very few of their churches ever acquired the planned length, and their cloisters were rarely completed until a late date. This contrasts sharply with the situation in northern Germany. The nunneries in both areas lack systematic investigation. In Denmark, the nuns had, in many cases, an earlier church for their services, so it is uncertain what they themselves preferred. Whatever the situation, we can see that the nuns had their choir on a pulpit at the western end of the nave. It is also quite clear in Denmark that the main wing containing the dormitory was placed to the west. Some scholars in Germany believe that the nuns had their main wing to the east, like the monks. The mendicant friaries in Denmark are best known from excavations, whereas in the large towns of northern Germany these still stand or are known from 19th century drawings. Very little is known about the early, closed friaries in the smaller towns. The friaries in the major Hanseatic towns had larger churches than those in Denmark and often also two cloisters. It is quite clear from the examples of monastery dissolution that their fate at the Reformation was, to a major degree, depen­dent primarily on the faith of the ruler – i.e. a city council, a duke or a king – and secondly on the power this ruler had to carry out their wishes. Accordingly, we see a different pattern in relation to the Reformation in the various principalities and towns of northern Germany. Interestingly, the Lutheran Reformation in northern Germany did not progress from west to east as is the expected norm for ideas, but rather from east to west. In East Prussia, the Reformation was introduced in 1525, jointly and without difficulties by the new duke, the Teutonic Order, the two bishops and the other clergy. Danzig underwent a Lutheran reformation in 1525, but due to a political change in the city council, the king of Poland had an opportunity to intervene and reverse the changes. The religious reformation in Danzig was consequently delayed by 30 years. The Reformation in Stralsund became rather violent in 1525 but ended after a few days in a common agreement, giving consent to the Lutheran faith. The town was many years ahead of the remainder of the Duchy of Pomeranian. In Hamburg, the citizens and the town council decided, after some debate, to adopt the Lutheran faith in 1528. A similar, uncomplicated transition took place in Rostock in 1531 and Wismar in 1532, too. In other towns, like Lübeck and Lüneburg, there were major divisions between the town council and ordinary citizens, leading to a drawn-out process, but these towns became Protestant nevertheless in 1530-31. The Reformation that came into force in all Pomerania was decided at a meeting, Landtag, in Treptow in 1534. That is slightly earlier than in Denmark and was without the support of the nobility. In Mecklenburg, with a divided government, there was a long period of transition, during which both faiths existed at the same time. It was first in 1549 that all Mecklenburg was declared a Protestant country with support from all the Estates. The political situation in Denmark was clearly different from that in Mecklenburg and Pomerania. The government in Denmark was in a way more centralised. On the other hand, the king was very much dependent on his council (Rigsrådet) with a strong component of Catholic clergy. The banishing of the mendicant orders from the friaries was clearly accepted by King Frederik I and was undertaken over a short period (1528-32). However, legal suppression of the friars did not happen until 1537, when the new king, Christian III, was victorious in the civil war. There was therefore a long period when the situation was unresolved and the Reformation in Denmark was a quite extended and in some cases rather violent process. The final Reformation came much later than in most of the neighbouring states in northern Germany. Many of the monastic buildings (or more correctly friaries) were offered to the towns in which they stood, but most disappeared either at the Reformation or during subsequent centuries. In Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, many friaries were abolished swiftly at the Reformation, which took place at rather different times. In the larger towns, they were then reused as schools and hospitals. On the other hand, it seems that the preserved examples are better known than those in Denmark, while in Farther Pomerania most have been lost over time. As for the landowning monasteries in rural areas, there are few well-preserved examples in either Denmark or northern Germany. But as a result of excavations and other investigations, we have supplementary information for many existing monastic churches and buildings. Due to the way in which the Reformation was undertaken, it seems that the nunneries are best preserved in Mecklenburg and Pomerania, where many continued as a Protestant Damenstift, while more survives of the male monasteries in Denmark. As for the physical remains of the monasteries in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern and in Medieval Denmark, there are now not many completely preserved Medieval monasteries, almost 500 years after the Reformation; there are even fewer in Farther Pomerania. But all in all, and looking across borders, we have, however, a great deal of information on the layout of Medieval monasteries in northern Europe – far better than in many Catholic areas with Baroque modernisations.