What would Europe look like with Polish-Lithuanian-Ukrainian Commonwealth today

I just don't want un-patriotic **** holes!
I find them anywhere!
The sociaty is allready poisoned by Che Guevera or other reddies!

God save us

I won't be sorry if Turks in Germany cause more problems to you personally.
I put friendly Germans apart.

Fact - Che Guevarra is an absolute king of T-shirts and coffee mugs, if you disapprove of Che T-shirts you're an imperialist pig and you probably voted for PiS.

Hey...I AM a friendly guy!

Not if these people are British, German, French or other EU citizens - that's the problem.

any chance commonwealth would morph into ,miendzy morze, with peacefull confederation of countries from east, west, north and south?

it would of being common and wealth for all? right!!

ps
my best friend is german and name is adolf

If Polish nobility got around the idea that peasants are people too, yes.


We can always impose ethnicity/religion unfriendly procedures anyway, if we cant kick them out we can always discourage them, proclaiming Catholicism a national religion and banning their headgear and some more offensive customs would be one way, Europe thinks of us as Catholic hardcores anyway so there would be international recognition without much fuss.

Didn't work in France, if I recall correctly.

We're not France, we're perceived differently and 95%~ of us are Catholics, even if only in name.

Thoose scums? NEVER!
Dumbtwits that's what I call em. AND I LIVE IN LIER! AMAGAD! NIGHTMARE!
It's THE peasentland! Grammpfhgh

Sarcasm aside untill 15th century Poland was the most liberal and progressive state as far as social classes, all it took was for a strong ruler or two to hold out the years of noble pressure, if that would happen and it could Poland would be well on its way to becoming a premiere European superpower.

Pissing on peasants delayed the creation of citizen society in the full meaning of the word, in result efficiency went down across the board, economy, politics, military and internal affairs all suffered.

Well many complain about that the moronic masses have the right to choose wich moron is to rule a country. At thoose times atleast there were SOME minimum you had to have to do anything.

Now anyone can do "anything"

Much better and without WWI and WWII most likely.
There wont be Ukrainian nationality today and Communist Russia!

Why so? Do you mean Ukrainians could call themselves as "Russky", "Ruthenians", "Krayanians", "Orthodoxianians" :-) or so? Well Poles could finally end up calling themselves Sarmathians or so :-)

No, they would call themselves Poles in the first place maybe Ruthenians in second.
(see British and Walsh as an analogy):P!

Well, if one of the main reasons of the commonwealth failure was forcing Ukrainian elites to give up their religion and language this is very unlikely Ukrainians would end up calling themselves "Poles". Even nationality at that time was not so important - not so many Polish elite would call themselves "Poles", rather Sarmathians. Furthermore, even many Ukrainians of those times recognized king of Poland as their king, not many would say they live in Poland. The same repeated later in Russian empire. Now many simply minded Russians can't understand why Ukrainians had lived in the empire for about 300 years still not calling themselves Russians :-) British and Walsh is not best example here. Say rather it could end up as British and Scottish. Even rather as British and Irish.

Wrong!
the Ruthenians were unable to stick to the bargain and religion was a secondary problem, they imagined they can play the same game with Russian Czar.\

They very fast learned otherwise.


Well, their remembered their origin in Polish Kingdom :P
Seriously, if someone tested freedom it takes time to get use to being slave.


Its only guess, I would rather say that may guess is as good as yours - but I'll stick to mine as Polish culture assimilated Ruthenian and Lithuanian nobles and this is a fact not guess.

I only drawn logical conclusion.

When Ukrainian hetman Xmelnitsky started the huge uprising in 1648 he had no relations with Moscow. It was a mass protest uprising, not an intrigue you must admit. Main reasons were: influenced by reformists catholic church pushed hard on Ukrainian Christian Orthodox in the commonwealth "only catholic can be a szlachtycz" - that was a huge challenge and abuse for majority of Ukrainians. Prior to that that Christian Orthodox had equal rights in the Commonwealth. Also the reformists had pushed using Polish language in churches, which also was kind of issue for Ukrainians.


Well for that breaking with Poland generation of Ukrainians to be under Russian czar was the same deal: repressions and marginalization of Ukrainian elites started in 18th century, for some 50 years it was more or less Ok.

All this religion thingy was of some importance to some I must admit - mostly to orthodox clergy though.
They main reason for the huge rebellion in 1648 was behind the scene manipulation.
King wanted to use Cossacks as a force to put a pressure on Senate and nobles to strengthen his reign and to Attack Krym(Tatars) and secure southern flank of Polish Kingdom before attack on Sweden (he was heir to Sweden Throne).

This plan backfire because of King dead.
At the same time agents (there is prove of it) from Moscow were trying to influence people using all tool from the book.
Money, religion, personal resentments ect.
They succeeded and Chmielnicki become traitor (he was Polish noble)trying to build state for himself - he failed.


Not really:P
In the 18th century repressions become more direct for two reasons:
1. The Polish Kingdom become dependent on Russia.
2. Russia destroyed Sicz - reason of the strength of Ruthenians rebellions.
Without Sicz - Ruthenians were only peasants to be subdued( and loyal Cossacks - symbol and tool of the Czar tyranny).

Why not? Did the sarmatians rape your family? Oh poor baby :P

Yes, and it happened in some 100+ years after Ukraine signed the treaty with Moscow czar.

You keep calling Ukrainians as Ruthenians even both names existed that ancient time and meant the same. Why?

Its not true that both names coexisted at the same time.
Ukraine is Polish name of the country( today eastern- central part) so, before 1569 nobody was called Ukrainian.
And later it wasn't common to be called Ukrainian - full flow that name got in the XIX century.

Second reason no every Ruthenian = Ukrainian, thing to keep in mind.


Yes and No :P
In 1654 Cossacks "think" they will be better with Czar:)

1701 Poland Kingdom become dependent of Russia .
1709 Sicz destroyed by Peter I
1734 New Sicz rebuild
1772 first partition of Poland
1775 New Sicz destroyed definitely by Katharine II

They did not, Rusini, Ruthenians, Kozacy but not Ukrainians, its a relatively new name and a national concept behind it is even more recent.

To be specific Ukrainians as a national concept first appear in isolated cases as early as 17th century but the concept is not grasped by any major group untill late 18th century, before that they referred to themselves as Rusini and to the general region of today Belarus and Ukraine as "Ruś".


The destruction of Sicz Zaporoska happened 47 years later but economic and political opression started as soon as 20 years afterwards.

Oh no!!! Now it is Polish! :-)) I am just tired of this, every neighboring country claims origin of "Ukraine" word :-) Actually this is very common for many countries, so if you enjoy it, keep doing that :-) Just respect sovereignty of Ukraine.


I am Ok with that statement too. I just wanted to say that first few years the cossacks were enjoying their (historically wrong) decision. And they were not looking for partnership with Moscow duchy prior to uprising. The uprising of cossacks in 1648 was 100% the commonwealth internal business.

Well, that what is said in Poland's history books:P
I personally don't care but its stands to reason that it very well could be a Polish name as Kiev and area were populated mainly by people from Polish Kingdom after 1569.


What do you mean?

Actually here you are correct, its not Polish, it was first used 1187 in the Kievan Chronicle. It originally meant "borderland" or "friontier" its origin is unknown but definitely not Polish.


Come on Ironside, what books, commie version of history from the 60s?


Yes for a couple of years, afterwards Tatars begun pillaging their lands, there was no Polish regular army to defend them and it turned out that not having regular army or organized goverment structures they were virtually defensless and Moscow, unlike Poland had no intention of protecting these lands as long as there were Cossacks inhabiting them.


I think he means we will invade them, take back Lwów and start the impaling business again, everyone knows Poland wants Ukraine back, it would be nice to occupy Moscow again too.

Paweł Jasienica books:P


Lwów is not Ukraine is Polish town, and sure as hell we should got it back.
It has nothing to do with Ukrainian state as I'm all for such state existence and development but it doesn't change a fact that we should settle our border issues first.


World was used but what are implication ?
I don't want to go into detailed discussion about it but to take it as definite prove of ancient name "Ukraine" can only some who want to believe it and hard!


To what end?:P

There's a lot we could write about him, suffice to say he didnt always write what he wanted and when he did it wasnt always the same as truth, remember that he wrote in times of deep communism and when hatred towards Ukraine was fresh.


Was, barring a major conflict there's no way to take it back and while we probably could kick Ukraine out of the region the short and long term consequences would be catastrophic.


Whats to settle? They've got their country, we have ours, would you like to break us the sharp sticks in the name of historical sentiments? Germany tried it, learn from their failiures.


Like i said Ukraine was another term for "border lands" the name was applied not only to Ukraine proper but also to lands in Belarus or Russia depending on the geographical pov of the writer.

Poles popularized the term but it originates somewhere in the ruthenian region about 900 years ago though it meant something else than today.


I could go to Stalins grave, open it, unzip and pay him my respects:)

In the name of Justice, and to have our land back.
I hate to see our country striped almost naked from our lands, And to tell the truth Ukraine wouldn't really notice:P (5mln people versus 50mln).


Why if you agree with borders drawn by him?


It could be as well Polish word.
To be correct nobody can determine without a doubt whatever the word was Polish or Rutheanian or somebody else.
The same could be said about Ukraine, there no way to determine when and by whom it was used as a name of the country - and that the truth of it.

Never the less is stands to reason that the name "country on the edge" as you said "border lands" - so if Ukraine (Kiev and area ) are border lands or on edge, question arise - on the edge of what ?Otherwise it makes not sense !

Who would called his own country borderlands ??
Term Ukraine for country become popular in XVIII century and for people in the middle of XIX century.


Well, what is the truth?
It was as close to the our point of view on history as it could be!(I got my own views).
To say it is not the truth and nothing but but the truth one have to prove it:P

There's a point at which you just have to let go, Ukrainians despite all the evil the UPA did are the victims just as much as we're, they're also a strategic country for Poland, wrecking our own stability and welfare to such degree for one city is not worth it.


So do i but getting back our lands this way is counterproductive, right now is the time to let it slide.


Come on Iron, we in Poland would wage war over a square inch taken from us by force, how do you think Ukraine is any different?


It could, but the fact that it first appears in a Kievan Chronicle done by a Rusin implies its not.


Edge of various Russian principalities for example, Lithuania, Poland etc.