Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / History  % width 14

PIŁSUDSKI'S DREAM OF CONFEDERATION?


Polonius3 1,000 | 12,446  
14 Aug 2009 /  #1
Actually Piłsduski's great dream had been to create a grand confederation encompassing Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine and Belarus approximating the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (Rzplita Obojga Narodów). When he marched into Kyïv that had been his intention, but his ally Petlura was unable to stay in control, the Poles got pushed back to the gates of Warsaw and Ukraine ended up in Soviet hands.

Had Piłsudski's dream come true, the USSR probably would have never happened or at least it would have been far smaller. The expasnive and bellicose Japs would have probably attacked Russia from the east, re-Asianising the tsars' ethnically non-Russian acquisitions in much of Asia.

If we add Piłsduski's proposed (to France and England) pre-emptive strike against a still weak and underarmed Germany (early 1930s), the whole course of world history migth have been altered. Probably for the better, because WW2 might have never occurred.
Nathan 18 | 1,363  
14 Aug 2009 /  #2
Confederation may work only high in the mountains with beautiful cows roaming around and people singing jodel. You need to have fresh air and sain brains. Otherwise, it wouldn't work.
Crow 146 | 9,106  
14 Aug 2009 /  #3
Actually Piłsduski's great dream had been to create a grand confederation encompassing Poland, Lithuania, Ukraine and Belarus approximating the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (Rzplita Obojga Narodów).

count on Serbia if Pilsudski`s dream happen to become reality. It may be last chance for survivor of Serbians as ethos
Pan Kazimierz 1 | 195  
14 Aug 2009 /  #4
^I thought you wanted a union, Crow? A Confederacy is basically a treaty of friendship among states promising not to attack each other and with a collective military of some sort and a central government that theoretically has some power, but not enough to threaten the sovereignty of the individual states. And we've yet to see one last a significant length of time.

The original Poland-Lithuania was a full Union.
Crow 146 | 9,106  
14 Aug 2009 /  #5
^I thought you wanted a union, Crow?

there are different forms of unity. Unity in Confederation is one of them, or unity in Alliance, in federation. Then there are different types of regime/governmant: republic, monarhy, parliament monarchy

as the matter of fact, i personaly prefer Confederation. It is definitely best form of unity for Slavs who likes freedom and their specific matters. Yes, Slavs are kind of free individuals. Confederation is for Slavs, organized as democratic republic

i look forward to live long enough to see how arising Democratic Sarmatian Confederation. i would salute proposition for Warsaw as Capitol of confederation or maybe even Krakow.
plk123 8 | 4,149  
14 Aug 2009 /  #6
And we've yet to see one last a significant length of time.

USA is a union has been for ~240y. is that not long enough for you?
time means 5 | 1,310  
14 Aug 2009 /  #7
English and Scottish union (1707)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acts_of_Union_1707
Pan Kazimierz 1 | 195  
14 Aug 2009 /  #8
USA is a union has been for ~240y. is that not long enough for you?

I was talking about Confederacies there, bud, which the USA is not one of. Tell me, how long did the original Articles of Confederation last, and why they were falling apart so hard so fast?

English and Scottish union (1707)

Which was not a Confederacy, thus furthering my point.

as the matter of fact, i personaly prefer Confederation. It is definitely best form of unity for Slavs who likes freedom and their specific matters. Yes, Slavs are kind of free individuals. Confederation is for Slavs, organized as democratic republic

Why would we be able to pull off the first stable, lasting Confederacy in history, where nobody else could?
Crow 146 | 9,106  
15 Aug 2009 /  #9
Why would we be able to pull off the first stable, lasting Confederacy in history, where nobody else could?

two words

`survivor` and `progress`
Mr Grunwald 29 | 1,945  
17 Aug 2009 /  #10
Confederacy is somehow a very tight alliance between countries, same army and all but different laws and other things. Somehow like European Union just that in EU they want the same law and same constitution and the military is somehow problematic. So it is a bit different I think.

Link from wiki wiich I do not agree with in all terms.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation

A confederation, in modern political terms, is a permanent union of sovereign states for common action in relation to other states.[1] Usually created by treaty but often later adopting a common constitution, confederations tend to be established for dealing with critical issues such as defense, foreign affairs, or a common currency, with the central government being required to provide support for all members.
Crow 146 | 9,106  
20 Aug 2009 /  #11
A confederation, in modern political terms, is a permanent union of sovereign states for common action in relation to other states.

Something like this is what Slavic world needs if Slavs and friends of Slavs wants to surive and progress in very hostile enviroment

a book

The Intermarium: Wilson, Madison, & East Central European Federalism
By Jonathan Levy

fragments from a page 305-306:

The Slavic Confederation

``Given the inability of the Poles and Ukrainians to productvely coordinate their efforts via the Pomethean League in 1948, the London Poles sought out another more suitable partner, a faction of the White Rutenians, to spearhead a new organization called the Slavic Confederation. he Slavic Confederation was based in London and was an initiative of the Poles to the White Ruthenians and Ukrainians to build regional anti-Soviet bloc similar to Commonwealth proposed by Pilsudski in 1918.``

``The propsed Confederation was to be `political and tactical` with each group being equal to the other and having veto powers.``
Marek11111 9 | 816  
28 Aug 2009 /  #12
I think Poland should work towards the grand confederation dream,as history shows Poland needs alliance to protect Slavs from west and east
joepilsudski 26 | 1,389  
30 Aug 2009 /  #13
Certainly some food for thought...
MareGaea 29 | 2,752  
31 Aug 2009 /  #14
Had Piłsudski's dream come true, the USSR probably would have never happened or at least it would have been far smaller

This is all "if-history" and we don't do "if-history". If the Great Powers of the 19th century hadn't begun an armament-race in the first decade of the 20th century, the First World War might not have happened, hence the 2nd one wouldn't have happened either. If Germany had conquered the UK and Ireland in WW2, then the war might have taken 10 to 15 years, if it hadn't ended with an armistice.

M-G (what if...)

Archives - 2005-2009 / History / PIŁSUDSKI'S DREAM OF CONFEDERATION?Archived