1. The Versailles Treaty called plebiscites in Upper Silesia, North Schleswig, and the adjacent East and West Prussian districts Allenstein and Marienwerder, areas amounting to some 12,000 square miles and inhabited by 3.3 million people. The indispensable work on the plebiscites—including those prescribed by the other treaties of Paris– is Sarah Wambaugh's excellent early history, Plebiscites Since the World War, with a Collection of Official Documents, 2 vols. (Washington, 1933).Google Scholar My own “Fighting without Arms: The Defense of German Interests in Schleswig, East and West Prussia, and Upper Silesia, 1918–1921” (unpub. diss., University of Virginia, 1986)Google Scholar deals exclusively with the German plebiscites. On the Upper Silesian referendum, Vogel, Rudolf, Deutsche Presse und Propaganda des Abstimmungskampfes in Oberschlesien (Leipzig, 1931)Google Scholar, and Laubert, Manfred, Die oberschlesische Volksbewegung: Beiträge zur Tätigkeit der Vereinigung heimattreuer Oberschlesier 1918–1921 (Breslau, 1938)Google Scholar, stand out as the most extensive German works. From the Polish side, Smogorzewski, Casimir, “La plébiscite et la partage de la Haute Silésie,” in La Silésie polonaise (Paris, 1932), 257–448Google Scholar, is a careful monograph which represents the prewar Polish view; for an introduction to the postwar Polish literature, which has grown quite extensive, see Jedruszczak, Tadeusz, Polityka polski w sprawie Gómego Śląska 1918–22 (Warsaw, 1958)Google Scholar, and Zieliński, Wladyslaw, Polska i niemecka propaganda plebiscytowa na Górnym Śląsku (Wroclaw, 1972).Google Scholar

2. The terms terror and terrorism are used here in a broad sense to describe roughly what Europeans meant by these terms in the postwar period: namely, organized or unorganized violence, or the threat of it, which espouses political ends. Since 1919 the meanings of these words have, of course, narrowed to cover more specific activities; the term political violence would therefore be more accurate from a late twentieth-century standpoint. Two works provide thoughtful definitions and discussions of both terms and bibliographies on terrorism in general: Laqueur, Walter, The Age of Terrorism (Boston, 1987), esp. 1–13Google Scholar (this is a revised edition of his earlier Terrorism and contains an updated bibliography); and the collection edited by Merkl, Peter, Political Violence and Terror: Motifs and Motivations (Berkeley, 1986).Google Scholar

3. Of the many pertinent works, see especially the older classic, Waite, Robert G. L., Vanguard of Nazism: The Freikorps Movement in Postwar Germany 1918–1923 (Cambridge, Mass., 1952)Google Scholar, and the more recent comprehensive analysis, Diehl, James M., Paramilitary Politics in the Weimar Republic (Bloomington, Ind., 1977).Google Scholar

4. See, for example, Cienciala, Anna M. and Komarnicki, Titus, From Versailles to Locarno: Keys to Polish Foreign Policy, 1919–1925 (Lawrence, Kans., 1984), 41–90.Google Scholar In this case some of the authors' assumptions about the “unfairness” of the vote were subsequently challenged by Richard Blanke in a review in the American Historical Review 90 (1985): 976–77.Google Scholar See also Blanke, Richard, “Upper Silesia, 1921: The Case for Subjective Nationality,” Canadian Review of Studies in Nationalism 2 (1975): 243–344.Google Scholar

5. Especially the Cabinet meeting of 21 Nov. 1918, and the Cabinet meeting of 28 Dec. 1918, in Miller, Susanne and Potthoff, Heinrich, eds., Die Regierung der Volksbeauftragten 1918/1919, 2 vols. (Düsseldorf, 1969), 1: 114–23, 2: 54–72.Google Scholar

6. Schumann, Wolfgang, Oberschlesien 1918–1919: Vom gemeinsamen Kampf deutscher und polnischer Arbeiter (Berlin, 1961), 104–6Google Scholar, and also the table on 288–90.

7. Cabinet meeting of 21 Nov. 1918, Miller, and Potthoff, , eds., Regierung der Volksbeauftragten, 1: 114–23.Google Scholar

8. Schumann, Oberschlesien, 116–18, 260–61; Hesterberg, Ernst, Alle Macht an den A.- und S.-räten: Kampf um Schlesien (Breslau, 1932), 85 (hereafter cited as Hesterberg, Alle Macht)Google Scholar.

9. On the character of Upper Silesian society, see Rose, William John, The Drama of Upper Silesia (Brattleboro, Vt., 1935), 93Google Scholar; for Berlin views of the situation, see Cabinet meeting, 28 Dec. 1918, Miller, and Potthoff, , eds., Regierung der Volksbeauftragten, 2: 54–72.Google Scholar

10. Hesterberg, Alle Macht, 78–80, 175–76; Schumann, Oberschlesien, 154, 183–211; Schulze, Hagen, ed., Akten der Reichskanzlei: Das Kabinett Scheidemann (Boppard am Rhein, 1971), 173, 247.Google Scholar

11. Rhode, Gotthold, “Das Deutschtum in Posen und Pommerellen,” in Die deutschen Ostgebiete zur Zeit der Weimarer Republik (Cologne, 1966), 92–100Google Scholar; von Rieckhoff, Harald, German-Polish Relations, 1918–1933 (Baltimore, 1971), 13.Google Scholar

12. Rosenthal, Harry K., “National Self-Determination: The Example of Upper Silesia,” Journal of Contemporary History 7 (1972): 232–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Birke, Ernst, “Schlesien,” in Die deutschen Ostgebiete zur Zeit der Weimarer Republik, 218Google Scholar; Vogel, Deutsche Presse und Propaganda, 15–19; Blanke, “Upper Silesia, 1921,” 255.

13. Laubert, Die oberschlesische Volksbewegung, 15; Orzechowski, Marian, Wojciech Korfanty: Biografia polityczna (Wrocław, 1975), 189–91.Google Scholar

14. Ibid., 200–201; Popiolek, K., “Na marginesie artykulu K. Laptera in H. Zielińskiego pt. ‘powstanie Śląskie,’” Kwartalnik Historyczny 62 (1955): 162–83.Google Scholar

15. Vogel, Deutsche Presse und Propaganda, 53–55; Schumann, Oberschlesien, 164–65. See also Jedruszczak, Tadeusz and Kolankowski, Zygmunt, gen. eds., Źródła do dziejów Powstań Śląskich, 3 vols., 1 (Wroclaw, Warsaw, Krakow, 1963): 76–89 (hereafter cited as Źródła)Google Scholar.

16. Laubert, Manfred, Die oberschlesische Volksbewegung, 3–16Google Scholar; Birke, Ernst, “Schlesien,” 152–53.Google Scholar The branch with responsibilities outside Upper Silesia was called the Vereinigte Verbände heimattreuer Oberschlesier.

17. Schumann, Oberschlesien, 70–89; Hesterberg, Alle Macht, 11–16.

18. Zentralrat für die Provinz Schlesien to Prussian Minister-Präsident (Hirsch), 5 Dec. 1919, Bundesarchiv Koblenz (hereafter cited as BA), R43 I/349.

19. Urbanek, Kurt, “Plebiszitkommissar in Oberschlesien,” in Leben in Schlesien: Erinnerungen aus fünf Jahreszehnten, ed. Hupka, Herbert (Munich, 1962), 29–42.Google Scholar

20. Cabinet meeting, 30 Apr. 1919, Akten der Reichskanzlei: Kabinett Scheidemann, 250–52; Vereinigte Verbände heimattreuer Oberschlesier-Beuthen to VVhO-Oppeln, 19 May 1919, Geheimes Staatsarchiv Preussischer Kulturbesitz, Berlin (hereafter, GStA), Rep. 77/5762; Vogel, Deutsche Presse und Propaganda, 60–61; Schumann, Oberschlesien, 234–38.

21. Documentation on the military particulars can be found in Jedruszczak, and Kolankowski, , gen. eds., Źrödta 2 (Wroclaw, Warsaw, Krakow, 1970): esp. 324–29.Google Scholar An Allied commission led by French General Dupont in September 1919 resulted in the release of the hostages, a treaty of amnesty for the participants in the uprising, and the continuation of broken-off German-Polish talks on the transfer of territories to Poland. See Wambaugh, 1: 220; Golecki, Anton, ed., Akten der Reichskanzlei: Das Kabinett Bauer (Boppard am Rhein, 1980), 248, 254, and 284, n.4.Google Scholar

22. Reichskanzlei (hereafter, RK), Reichsministerialsache, 15 June 1919; Hörsing to RK and Staatsregierung, BA, R43 I/344; Reichswehrministerium to VI. AK, 10 Sept. 1919, BA, R43 I/349; Akten der Reichskanzlei: Kabinett Bauer, 219–27, 244, 254.

23. Hatzfeldt to Auswärtiges Amt (hereafter, AA), 9 July 1920, National Archives, Washington, D.C., Microfilmed Files of the German Foreign Ministry Archives, T 120, seriAL K 1809, container 5180, frames K456328–332 (this, and its continuation in serial L912, container 5478, frames L254701ff., are hereafter cited as MGFM-T 120 with container and abbreviated frame numbers). Göppert to AA (tel.), 9 Feb. 1920, Politisches Archiv des Auswärtigen Amts, Bonn (hereafter, PA), Friedensabteilung O/S a, Bd. 4.

24. Great Britain, Public Record Office, Documents on British Foreign Policy 1st ser., 23 vols. (1947–1981), 11: 14Google Scholar; Źródła, 2: 58.Google Scholar

25. Źródła, 2: 56Google Scholar; Wambaugh, , Plebiscites, 1: 217–23Google Scholar; Paoli, F., “L'armée française au service de la paix en Haute-Silésie (1920–1922),” Revue d'Allemagne 4 (1972): 706–7.Google Scholar

26. For the views of Germans working with the Commission, see Hatzfeldt's, report in Źródła, 2: 56Google Scholar; and Pollack, Werner, “Erinnerungsberichte,” BA, Kleine Erwerbung 706/1: 17–18Google Scholar. The opinions of the French generals are found in Gratier's communications to Le Rond of 6 Feb., 18 Mar., 15 Apr., and 12 May 1920, BA, Microfilmed Files of the Commandant Supérieur des Forces Alliées en Haute-Silésie (filmed by the Bundesarchiv from originials in the Wojewódzkie Archiwum Państwowe at Opole, Poland), N926: 4, N927: 14016; N928: 6 (hereafter cited as CSFAHS); and in Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1st ser., 11: 10, 12, 32Google Scholar.

27. General de Brautes, 46th Division, to Gratier, Report on activities through 31 Aug. 1920, n.d., BA, CSFAHS/N889; Źródła, 2: 224–25Google Scholar; Wambaugh, , Plebiscites, 1: 235.Google Scholar

28. On the Sipo, see Hatzfeldt's reports, printed in Źródła, 2: 62–63, 226Google Scholar; and also the row of July 1920 directives from the Prussian Interior Minister, BA, CSFAHS/N937: 50–57.

29. AA (Meyer), File Note, 10 May 1920, PA, IV Polen O/S /80.

30. Ludyga-Laskowski, Jan, Zarys historii trzech Powstań Ślaskich 1919–1920–1921 (Warsaw, Wroław, 1973), 157–64.Google Scholar This carefully annotated edition of the earlier published and unpublished work of an important participant keys Ludyga-Laskowski's information to the extensive modern Polish scholarly literature on the subject. On the incident of 30/31 July 1920, see Urbanek, “Plebiszitkommissar in Oberschlesien,” 40–41.

31. Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1st ser., 11: 5, 18.Google Scholar

32. Ibid., 11: 24; de Brautes to Gratier, Report on activities through 31 Aug. 1920, n.d., BA, CSFAHS/N889; for a good sample of the Polish view, see the chapter, “Prowokacje niemieckii odruch polski,” in Ludyga-Laskowski, Zarys historii, 138–45.

33. Wambaugh, , Plebiscites, 1: 231–32Google Scholar; Le Rond, Instructions to the military commanders, 7 Apr. 1920, BA, CSFAHS/N982.

34. AA (Meyer), File Note (strictly secret), 29 May 1920 (the Berg- und Hüttenmännischer Verein report is attached), PA, IV Po 5 Nr. Geheim, Bd. I.

35. See the portrait drawn by Schulze, Hagen in Otto Braun oder Preussens demokratische Sendung (Frankfurt a.M., Berlin, 1977), 377–81Google Scholar; and also Brecht, Arnold, Aus nächster Nähe (Stuttgart, 1966), 327–28.Google Scholar Schulze calls Weismann “one of the most colorful and most problematic figures in the public life of the Weimar Republic.”

36. See my “Fighting without Arms,” 463–65, 645–47.

37. Urbanek, “Plebiszitkommissar in Oberschlesien,” 33–34.

38. Grenzzeitung, 23 June 1920, quoted in Vogel, Deutsche Presse und Propaganda, 101–2.

39. Spiecker to Moltke, 12 July 1920, PA, Po 5 Nr. 1, Abst. 5; Staatskommissar für die Überwachung öffentlicher Ordnung to RK (Albert), 16 June 1920, BA, R43 I/351.

40. Working on a doctoral dissertation on the press and the Upper Silesian plebiscite, Rudolf Vogel met Spiecker and looked over his private archive sometime around 1930. In an interview on 26 May 1983, Ambassador Vogel-now retired after a distinguished career as journalist, CDU Bundestag member, and cabinet-level civil servant and diplomat in the 1960s- told me that Spiecker was mainly interested during 1920 in keeping an eye on the activities of those likely to form shock troops. He also told me, however, that after 1945, when he and Spiecker were both CDU politicians, the two became close friends. Considering the multiplicity of filters through which this information has passed, one must conclude that its value as evidence is quite low, though it does tend to confirm the tentative assessment given here. Interview with Rudolf Vogel, 26 May 1983.

41. Interview with Rudolf Vogel, 26 May 1983. The quotations are from Vogel, Deutsche Presse und Propaganda, 96–99.

42. Laubert, Die oberschlesische Volksbewegung, 170.

43. For military operations after 7 May 1921, see von Hülsen, Bernhard, Der Kampf um Oberschlesien: Oberschlesien und seine Selbstschutz (Stuttgart, 1922), 20–24Google Scholar, and Höfer, Karl, Oberschlesien in der Aufstandzeit 1918–1921: Erinnerungen und Dokumente (Berlin, 1938), 113–15, 146–49Google Scholar; on the financial aspects, Witt, Peter-Christian, “Zur Finanzierung des Abstimmungskampfes und der Selbstschutzorganizationen in Oberschlesien, 1920–1922,” Militärgeschichtliche Mitteilungen 13 (1973): 59–76.Google Scholar

44. “Sitzung 25. August 1920 in Breslau vormittags 11 Uhr,” PA, Po Nr. 5, Abst. 6, IV Polen O/S/83.

45. Hatzfeldt's, report is in Źródła, 2: 257Google Scholar; the French opinion is that of General de Brautes, report on activities through 31 Aug. 1920, n.d., BA, CSFAHS/N889.

46. Davies, Norman, White Eagle, Red Star: The Polish-Soviet War, 1919–1920 (London, 1972), 188–210.Google Scholar

47. Potthoff, Heinrich, Gewerkschaften und Politik zwischen Revolution und Inflation (Düsseldorf, 1979), 287–91Google Scholar; Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1st ser., 11: 36–42Google Scholar; Źródła, 2: 413Google Scholar; Ludyga-Laskowski, Zarys historii, 153–54; Pollack, “Erinnerungsberichte,” BA, Kl. Erw. 707/1: 18; Le Directeur de la Police-Kattowitz (Gallois) to Regierungspräsident Oppeln, 18 Aug. 1920, BA, CSFAHS/N937: 59–60.

48. Wambaugh, , Plebiscites, 1: 236–37Google Scholar; Źródła, 2: 414Google Scholar; Laubert, Die oberschlesische Volksbewegung, 167–70; German Foreign Office, Der Aufstand im oberschlesischen Abstimmungsgebiet August und September 1920, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1920).Google Scholar

49. “Lagebericht vom 23. August 1920,” BA, R43 I/351; Koch-Weser, Erich, “Aufzeichnungen,” 23 and 24 08 1920Google Scholar, BA, Nachlass Koch-Weser, 27: 299; Wulf, Peter, ed., Akten der Reichskanzlei: Das Kabinett Fehrenbach (Boppard am Rhein, 1972), 130Google Scholar; “Sitzung 25. August 1920 in Breslau,” PA, Po Nr. 5, Abst. 6, IV Polen O/S /83.

50. Wambaugh, , Plebiscites, 1: 237Google Scholar; Źródła, 2: 433–44Google Scholar; Hatzfeldt to AA, 14 Sept. 1920, PA, Po 5 Nr. Abst.

51. Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1st ser., 11: 45–51Google Scholar, and especially Percival's report of 14 Sept. 1920, 58–65.

52. Wambaugh, , Plebiscites, 1: 237–38.Google Scholar

53. Akten der Reichskanzlei: Kabinett Fehrenbach, 153–57; Źródła, 2: 414–15Google Scholar; Lukaschek to AA (Copy), 15 Sept. 1920, BA, R43 I/2521.

54. Trachtenberg, Marc, Reparation in World Politics: France and European Economic Diplomacy 1916–1923 (New York, 1980), 107–30Google Scholar; Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1st ser., 8: 7–8Google Scholar; Akten der Reichskanzlei: Kabinett Bauer, 623–32.

55. See my “Fighting without Arms,” 670–83, 734–60.

56. Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1st ser., 11: 75Google Scholar; AA, “Zusammenstellung der in letzter Zeit in O/S Abstimmungsgebiet vorgekommenen Verbrechen …,” 17 Dec. 1920, PA, IV Po O/S, Po 5 Nr. 1 Abst. 9a; Vogel, Deutsche Presse und Propaganda, 103.

57. From Hatzfeldt's, report of 15 11 1920, Źrółta, 2: 464.Google Scholar

58. Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1st ser., 11: 155–56.Google Scholar

59. Vogel, Deutsche Presse und Propaganda, 113–14; Urbanek, “Plebiszitkommissar in Oberschlesien,” 41–42. The murderer was apprehended, but the Commission postponed the trial, fearing that Polish demonstrations would result (Hatzfeldt to AA, 25 Feb. 1921, MGFM-T 120/ 5478: … 763). Apparently he was never brought to trial.

60. This story is repeated in Zieliński, Henryk, “La question de I'état indépendant de Haute-Silésie àpres la première guerre mondiale (1919–1921),” Acta Poloniae Historicae 4 (1961): 47Google Scholar.

61. See, for example, Gratier's report on a spy named “Hermann” in the employ of the Commission, BA, CSFAHS/928: 205; and the colorful but somewhat inaccurate memoir of Hans Steinacher, who experienced the last few weeks of the campaign in Upper Silesia, “Meine Lebenserinnerungen 1915–1923,” handwritten, dated Kirkenes, 27 Oct. 1942–8 Feb. 1943, BA, Nachlass Steinacher, BA, 856: 87–94. Hatzfeldt mentioned letters containing death threats to outvoters as of November 1920, Źródłła, 2: 464.Google Scholar Three AA files offer abundant material on various subterranean activities: PA, Po Geh. Abst. Bd. 1, 2, 3 (Agenten- und Spionagewesen).

62. Witt, “Zur Finanzierung,” 69; von Oertzen, Wilhelm, Die deutschen Freikorps 1918–1923, 3d ed. (Munich, 1938), 130–40.Google Scholar The earliest transfer of funds designated “Spezialpolizei” that I have found is one of ten million marks to Spiecker on 27 Jan. 1921 (Reichsfinanzministerium to Reichshauptkasse, 27 Jan. 1921, R2/24686, BA). The special policeman in question is Glombowski, Friedrich, Frontiers of Terror: The Fate of Schlageter and His Comrades (London, 1934), 48–99.Google Scholar

63. Waite, Vanguard of Nazism, 226–27, 244; Wambaugh, , Plebiscites, 1: 231.Google Scholar

64. Höfer, Oberschlesien in der Aufstandzeit, 82–84; Heinz, Friedrich Wilhelm, “Die Freikorps retten Oberschlesien,” in Deutscher Aufstand: Die Revolution des Nachkrieges, ed. Hotzel, Curt (Stuttgart, 1934), 70–76.Google Scholar

65. Spiecker to Reich and Prussian ministers, 22 Dec. 1920, BA, R43 I/353.

66. See the numerous reports about the probability of a general Polish revolt in BA, R43 I/3 5 5; Hatzfeldt had predicted such a revolt as early as July 1920 (Hatzfeldt to AA, 9 July 1920, MGFM-T 120/5180: … 328–32).

67. Koch-Weser, “Aufzeichnung,” 28 Jan. 1921, BA, Nachlass Koch-Weser, 27: 365.

68. Hatzfeldt to AA, 4 Mar. 1921, PA, Po 16 Abst. 3; Akten der Reichskanzlei: Kabinett Fehrenbach, 582–83; Źródła, 2: 169.Google Scholar

69. AA, “Meldung aus Breslau von 13. März 1921,” PA, Po 5 Nr. 1 Abst. O/S 12; Prussian Interior Ministry to Regierungspräsidenten, 17 Mar. 1921 (a copy of Gessler's report is attached), PA, Po 5, Nr. 1 Geh. Abst. It is an indication of how carefully the Foreign Office was treading that the preceding document and supporting reports were filed without entry into the AA journal and with a senior councilor's instruction that these papers were to be assigned to a safe. They were later bound into a folder but apparently remained sealed in an envelope until I viewed them in 1983.

70. AA to Hatzfeldt (tel.), 18 Mar. 1921, MGFM-T 120/5478: … 848.

71. Ebert to Gessler (personal, strictly confidential), 16 Mar. 1921, BA, R43 I/118.

72. Oertzen, Die deutschen Freikorps, 138–41; Hülsen, Der Kampf urn Oberschlesien, 15, 21; Glombowski, Frontiers of Terror, 49–94.

73. Kahlden to AA (Meyer), 9 Dec. 1920; Kahlden, “Weihnachtsgratifikationen,” 10 Dec. 1920; Schutzbund to AA (Voss), 3 Feb. 1921, PA, Handakten Meyer 1; copy of a letter from an unnamed AA referent working with the Silesian Committee to AA, 23 Feb. 1921, PA, Po 5 Nr. 1, Abst. O/S 12; Überschar to AA, 8 Mar. 1921, MGFM-T 120/5478: …. 796–99.

74. Rudolf Pechel, editor of the Deutsche Rundschau, made these charges in a 1921 article. Spiecker sued him for libel and won, but the unsavory publicity dealt his post-plebiscite career as head of the United Press Section of the Reich Government a setback, from which, however, it had recovered by the end of the twenties, when Spiecker held several important posts in the Reich and Prussian governments and the Center Party; after the Second World War, Spiecker held ministerial posts in both the federal government and the government of Nordrhein-Westfalen. See the clippings and Pechel's notes in BA, Nachlass Rudolf Pechel, 119. One must exercise caution, however, since at least some of the nationalist animus against Spiecker arose from his association with the Wirth wing of the Center. A particularly virulent diatribe against Spiecker appears in Hans Steinacher's memoir, cited above in n. 61.

75. RK (Wirth), “Erklärung,” 1 Dec. 1921, BA, R2/24686.

76. The literature on Center trends in the late twenties and early thirties is now large; a concise and useful discussion may be found in the essay by Morsey, Rudolf, “The Center Party between the Fronts,” in The Path to Dictatorship 1918–1933 (Garden City, N.Y., 1966), 68–80.Google Scholar

77. Peter Merkl discusses this phenomenon and its nuances in Political Violence under the Swastika: 581 Early Nazis (Princeton, 1975), 161–62, 222–30.Google Scholar See also the analysis of Nazi violence in the German East during the period 1925–32 in Bessel, Richard, Political Violence and the Rise of Nazism: The Storm Troopers in Eastern Germany 1925–1934 (New Haven, 1984), 75–96.Google Scholar

78. Glombowski, Frontiers of Terror, 261; Waite, Vanguard of Nazism, 288–89.

79. Heinz, “Die Freikorps retten Oberschlesien,” 70–88; Killinger, Manfred von, Der Kampf um Oberschlesien (Leipzig, 1934), esp. 11–14.Google Scholar

80. Salomon, Ernst von, Die Geächteten (Berlin, 1930).Google Scholar

81. Glombowski, Frontiers of Terror, 271.

82. On the Potempa affair, see Bessel, Richard, “The Potempa Murder,” Central European History 10 (1977): 241–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Kluke, Paul, “Der Fall Potempa,” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 5 (1957): 279–97.Google Scholar On the National Socialist uses of the shock inherent in violence and the symbolic aspects of it, see the comments by Merkl, Peter in The Making of a Storm Trooper (Princeton, 1980), 299–305.Google Scholar

83. Wambaugh, , Plebiscites, 1: 239–48.Google Scholar

84. Moltke to AA (tel.), 13 Mar. 1921, MGFM-T120/5478: … 810; Le Rond to Affaires Étrangères, 16 Mar. 1921, BA, CSFAHS/N950.

85. Documents on British Foreign Policy, 1st ser., 11: 196Google Scholar; Wambaugh, , Plebiscites, 1: 249.Google Scholar

86. The full results of the vote by commune appeared in the Journal officiel de Haute Silésie, 7 May 1921. More accessibly, Wambaugh, describes the vote in outline in Plebiscites, 1: 249–50Google Scholar, and reprints the results for all Kreise and some communes in 2: 240–60. In Ulitz, Otto, Oberschle-sien: Aus seiner Geschichte, 3d ed. (Bonn, 1971), 54–57Google Scholar, a former German plebiscite leader gives statistics by Kreis along with a brief analysis, which, while it makes no pretense at nonpartisan-ship, is perceptive and useful.

87. Blanke, “Upper Silesia, 1921,” 255.

88. For the background to these elections and their results, see my “Fighting without Arms,” 426–39.

89. More extensive information on the complexion of the regions can be gained from Blanke, “Upper Silesia, 1921,” 245–47; Vogel, Deutsche Presse und Propaganda, 4–21; and from Wam-baugh, , Plebiscites, 1: 211.Google Scholar

90. Hatzfeldt was so sure of the overwhelming Polish sentiment in Pless and Rybnik as of mid-1920 that he suggested giving the two Kreise to Poland outright in exchange for calling off the plebiscite. The Foreign Office rejected the suggestion as unacceptable, both to the German public and to the Allies; Hatzfeldt to AA, 9 July 1920; AA (Meyer), File Note, 20 July 1920, MGFM-T120/5180: & 328–33.

91. The Kreise ranking third and fourth in terms of Polish electoral increase–Oppeln-Land and Ratibor–were likewise western Upper Silesian counties with heavily Polish rural populations. Pless, the most Polish of all counties, came in fifth in terms of participation increase(forty-four %); but Rybnik-almost as Polish–managed only a twenty-two % increase over November 1919. On the other hand, the northern Kreis really comparable with Cosel and Lublinitz in terms of population size and composition was the northern county Rosenberg, with a Polish border and a population almost eighty % Polish. Rosenberg Poles, however, increased their vote by only thirty-four %.

92. As mentioned above, however, participation in the November 1919 elections was relatively high in Königshütte and Hindenburg. The next lowest increase was in the northwestern Kreis of Kreuzburg, an agricultural area of the first category. Kreuzburg was atypical in many respects because its population, German and Polish, was almost entirely Protestant.

93. Blanke, “Upper Silesia, 1921,” 241–60.

94. The Commission's reports are printed in Wambaugh, , Plebiscites, 2: 242–61.Google Scholar On events after 1 May, see Smogorzewski, Casimir, “Le plébiscite et la partage de la Haute Silésie,” in La Silésie polonaise (Paris, 1932), 332–35.Google Scholar

95. Wambaugh, , Plebiscites, 1: 253–55.Google Scholar

96. Trachtenberg, Reparation in World Politics, 208–11; see also the Cabinet protocols of 5, 6, 7, and 9 May in Akten der Reichskanzlei: Kabinett Fehrenbach, 664–71.

97. Höfer, Oberschlesien in der Aufstandzeit, 113–15, 146–49.

98. Hülsen, Der Kampf um Oberschlesien, 20–24.

99. Campbell, F. Gregory, “The Struggle for Upper Silesia, 1919–1922,” Journal of Modern History 42 (1970): 378–82CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wambaugh, , Plebiscites, 1: 256–69Google Scholar; Bertram-Libal, Gisela, “Die britische Politik in der Oberschlesienfrage,” Vierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte 20 (1972): 114–32.Google Scholar

100. It has been seen that this question is more easily asked than answered. In his essay, “Approaches to the Study of Political Violence,” in Political Violence and Terror: Motives and Motivations, esp. 37, Peter Merkl has pointed out that the effects of political violence have so far been the subject of only limited empirical research; it may be added, certainly too limited to support the proposition that one may assume the effectiveness of terror from its mere presence.