Three Silesian Uprising happened in 1919, 1920 and 1921. While the first is definitely an "ordinary" uprising, the second is closer to be a civil war.

The third uprising is definitely a civil war. There was two armies fighting, a front, general who commands the armies, and causalities by hundreds. Paramilitaries from inner Germany and inner Poland played a major role and came to fight, not just the Upper Silesians. The war had a duration of 3 months. How can such a major even be refereed to only as an "uprising"? Isn't that a major euphemism for what happened?

In Switzerland the War of Sondernbund lasted only 3 weeks and did 93 casualties, and is refereed to as a "war". That is orders of magnitudes less than even the 1st uprising.

  • Possibly because the Sonderbund declared itself an independent country, while Upper Silesia merely attempted to separate and associate with Poland. Many would claim that only sovereign states can participate in a war. Apr 3 '16 at 1:01
  • @PieterGeerkens Err, no, I do not think the Sonderbund declared itself independant. Also, both Poland and Germany were sovereign states during the 3rd Silesian Uprising. Finally, many civil wars are fought within a state by two groups, often a rebel group which is not a sovereign state (such as the south in the US civil war, or the Sonderbund). So sorry, your theory falls apart.
    – Bregalad
    Apr 3 '16 at 9:18
  • 1
    I follow your logic that the events could be called a civil war. Which does not meant that 'uprising' is wrong. But I guess the answer to the question will be "because it was called so once and the term stuck". Or am I missing a dimension to your question?
    – mart
    May 19 '16 at 13:59

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.