Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / History  % width 26

The most influencial socialists leaders in Polish lands?


lesser 4 | 1,311  
7 Nov 2009 /  #1
Grzegorz Napieralski, Aleksander Kwasniewski, Adolph Hitler, Wojciech Olejniczak, Jospeh Stalin, Leszek Miller

Please explain your choice. You can also provide other names.
szkotja2007 27 | 1,499  
7 Nov 2009 /  #2
Who was the most influential socialist leader politically active in Poland?

Jean Paul II
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
8 Nov 2009 /  #3
Piłsudski as he was in control of the Socialist Party. He influenced many people but, arguably, wasn't the most effective leader as, upon his death, he hadn't met many of his objectives.
joepilsudski 26 | 1,389  
8 Nov 2009 /  #4
I agree...Pilsudski was a common sense socialist, in terms of wanting decent living and working conditions for both peasants and the emerging industrial workers...He was not really a 'politician', in fact, grew very tired of the constant wrangles inherent in political affairs...He just wanted a free and better Poland.
Mr Grunwald 20 | 1,554  
8 Nov 2009 /  #5
Definatly Stalin, he had most influence on all from that list. During war and after the war
OP lesser 4 | 1,311  
8 Nov 2009 /  #6
Jean Paul II

The historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency.
Pope John Paul II

Piłsudski as he was in control of the Socialist Party. He influenced many people but, arguably, wasn't the most effective leader as, upon his death, he hadn't met many of his objectives.

Yes I should write in Pilsudski to this poll instead one of modern socialist "leaders". HE was definitely one of the most influential socialists in Polish lands.

However he had no similar power like Stalin or Hitler. I'm not a fun of Pilsudki but he doesn't deserve to be mentioned in this company.

Definatly Stalin, he had most influence on all from that list. During war and after the war

On other hand, Hitler's rule was shorter but more intensive.
Mr Grunwald 20 | 1,554  
8 Nov 2009 /  #7
On other hand, Hitler's rule was shorter but more intensive.

Well it's written influential, it is quite rememberfull but influentional? Somehow I can't remember Poles getting the trend of gassing jews or Ukrainians... Yet They preserved some social settings even today (From that period).
OP lesser 4 | 1,311  
8 Nov 2009 /  #8
Neither of both of top socialist leaders succeed on this field. Poles in general were known from their distrust of communism. Stalin himself was aware of this situation. He considered Poles to be aristocratic nation without any hope to improve in near future.
Mr Grunwald 20 | 1,554  
8 Nov 2009 /  #9
He considered Poles to be aristocratic nation without any hope to improve in near future.

Still there are policies that ahevn't been removed and Stalin had full control of Poland in the rest of his lifetime, while also having his succesors also control of Poland.

Yet I can't see any influence Hitler has done towards Poland wich were really of any importance. The destibilizing of Polands social form is more of all Stalins fault
OP lesser 4 | 1,311  
8 Nov 2009 /  #10
Still there are policies that ahevn't been removed and Stalin had full control of Poland in the rest of his lifetime, while also having his succesors also control of Poland.

I cannot disagree with you here. Some forms of organization of current Polish state are borrowed from communism. However I think that following such criteria (what lasted, either in people's minds or form of organization of the state) primacy belong to Pilsudski. He is still considered the biggest national hero, represent this destructive Polish political romanticism so visible even in current foreign policy.

Yet I can't see any influence Hitler has done towards Poland wich were really of any importance

National Socialists build some roads which are still used in III RP :)
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
8 Nov 2009 /  #11
He does or he doesn't deserve to be mentioned, lesser? If you put it solely down to the wielding of power then only 2 choices are available. Piłsudski too was a dictator of sorts and had a huge influence.

However, it's rather silly as Russia and Germany were both much bigger than Poland.
OP lesser 4 | 1,311  
8 Nov 2009 /  #12
He does or he doesn't deserve to be mentioned, lesser?

I mean in this sense, that I don't question his good will. I say so being in opposition to his political platform.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
8 Nov 2009 /  #13
You didn't appreciate his efforts to integrate people into the vision of a collective state and not exclude or isolate people like the Jews? Being in opposition to his political platform is a subjective stance but some of his achievements speak for themselves and we have to see these in an objective light, agreed?
OP lesser 4 | 1,311  
8 Nov 2009 /  #14
You didn't appreciate his efforts to integrate people into the vision of a collective state and not exclude or isolate people like the Jews?

I'm a regionalist, he proposed some huge multicultural state in the age of nationalism. There was no such option at that time.

Being in opposition to his political platform is a subjective stance but some of his achievements speak for themselves and we have to see these in an objective light, agreed?

I agree, weakness of Polish state originated also from his socialistic policies. The second Republic ceased to exist short after he passed away. (being replaced by his fellow people). Facts speak for itself.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
8 Nov 2009 /  #15
True enough! His main task should have been towards modernising military equipment as he knew that Poland could not rely on its agreements with Germany and Russia. He broke down on this point and even had a legendary quote on it.

Poland was streets ahead of Nazi Germany in 1933 when it came to war-winning potential. Yes, the Nazis developed exponentially at an unrelenting pace but wasn't it in Sep or Oct of 1933 that Piłsudski is said to have proposed a pre-emptive war partnership with France and only the Brits to convince?? The British foreign minister of that time, Sir John Simon, had swathes of data on the suspicious activities of the Nazis and would likely have convinced Chamberlain.

Forgive my ignorance, my Polish history is sketchy but wasn't it the fault of his successor? I can't remember his name, Smyś or sth like that? He made a forecast for Polish readiness/preparedness by 1942. By 1936 even, the Nazis were ahead of the game.
southern 75 | 7,096  
9 Nov 2009 /  #16
The most influencial socialists leaders in Polish lands

Doda.
Mr Grunwald 20 | 1,554  
9 Nov 2009 /  #17
National Socialists build some roads which are still used in III RP :)

Well that is significant! (Think of Roads leading to Rome)

Still Stalin had a greater inpact on poland then Hitler. Even if you think per year who was worse still Stalin did the worse in total numbers ;)

Doda.

Well if she IS an socialist then ye :)
OP lesser 4 | 1,311  
11 Nov 2009 /  #18
Forgive my ignorance, my Polish history is sketchy but wasn't it the fault of his successor? I can't remember his name, Smyś or sth like that?

Rydz Śmigły was also responsible but I wouldn't put all fault solely on him.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
11 Nov 2009 /  #19
That's him, I remember now. He inherited a bad situation. Surely Piłsudski would have passed on his fears for his beloved nation!? Surely he would have been monitoring the current affairs of the day and may well have averted disaster. By 1935, it wasn't really too late though it would've been an uphill struggle.

The big problem is that there was a lack of emphasis on modernisation. The question arises, was that complacence or lack of prioritisation on it?
OP lesser 4 | 1,311  
11 Nov 2009 /  #20
I would say clueless and highly self-concentrated leadership. Nothing changed btw.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
11 Nov 2009 /  #21
Have socialists no notion of the common Polish interest? That really cuts against the grain of collectivism.
OP lesser 4 | 1,311  
11 Nov 2009 /  #22
National interest, I have yet to see somebody providing exact definition of this term.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
11 Nov 2009 /  #23
Well, what would you say is in the Polish national interest, lesser? According to your conception of that term of course.

Collective security was 10 years ago and that's why, rightly or wrongly, Poland joined NATO. The rationale of the EU was also compelling but the national interest is really put to the sword in supranational institutions.
OP lesser 4 | 1,311  
11 Nov 2009 /  #24
Well, what would you say is in the Polish national interest, lesser? According to your conception of that term of course.

This term has no meaning. It is used by political propagandists to attract nationally minded voters/supporters. I can think about some non-detailed personal interest of people. Why should it be reduced to nationality? Nationality is a non-issue here.

Collective security was 10 years ago and that's why, rightly or wrongly, Poland joined NATO. The rationale of the EU was also compelling but the national interest is really put to the sword in supranational institutions.

As much I understand that ordinary people may believe that some kind of national interest really exist, I think that mainstream politicians using this expression just play populist card. Call me cynical, but if Polish national interest is to settle the biggest number of Polish speaking bureaucrats in Brussels then I don't give a damn. :)
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
11 Nov 2009 /  #25
I completely agree, lesser. It is merely licence for the government to carry out their wicked agendas to whatever degree they deem necessary. Constant intervention :(

Cynical is a compliment ;) ;) :)
Some Guy - | 8  
12 Nov 2009 /  #26
I'd say it's between Hitler and Stalin. Hitler just killed people, but Stalin was not only more convincing but killed many more.

Archives - 2005-2009 / History / The most influencial socialists leaders in Polish lands?Archived