PolishForums LIVE  /  Archives [3]    
 
Archives - 2005-2009 / History  % width240

Poland and Ukraine


Salomon  2 | 436  
4 May 2009 /  #61
Erm...officially you WERE on the winners side! You were allies with Stalin...

Yes but in case of alliance with Soviets in 1939 Poland would had been in much better condition after the war. Bad sides of communist system - I mean crimes commited on Polish or Russian nation would had been the same as it was in 1945.

He wanted Poland as a buffer and Germany as far back to the west as possible.

True, but in 1939 it was the best choice for Poland.
OP Ironside  50 | 12383  
4 May 2009 /  #62
We fighted against the biggest alliance the world has ever seen, it needed all of them and took them 6 years after Germany conquered nearly all of Europe.

Ah is that right?
And we fighted against you and Soviets one of the future superpower at the same time, after only 20years of the independent Poland.
So, losing is losing no matter what...

The case with the Germans in Poland after Versailles.

Well, whats wrong with border before the war? Could you elaborate?
Bratwurst Boy  8 | 11820  
4 May 2009 /  #63
And we fighted against you and Soviets one of the future superpower at the same time, after only 20years of the independent Poland.

And here I thought they were your allies....:)

Well, whats wrong with border before the war? Could you elaborate?

Just one question...knowing what you now know....do you still think it was a good idea?
Remember, it's not only the polish dead...many millions more, a devastated continent....all for some petty revenge and border changing...was it worth it?

*takes hat*
ZIMMY  6 | 1601  
4 May 2009 /  #64
Poland wasn't inclined to negotiate and talk these things through to find another solution

Negotiate with Adolph Hitler? ...like the British did? How naive! One would have more success negotiating with Attila the Hun.
Bratwurst Boy  8 | 11820  
4 May 2009 /  #65
How would you know...Hitler was interested in talks, till up to the last day!

bbc.co.uk/history/worldwars/wwtwo/countdown_390831_thur_01.shtml
ZIMMY  6 | 1601  
4 May 2009 /  #66
How would you know...Hitler was interested in talks!

I notice that you responded exactly one second after I posted. Now that's blitzkrieg for you (and quite impossible, hmmmm).

Oh yes, Hitler was "interested in talks" allright. He was so anti-war after all. Perhaps you could write a book titled, "The misunderstood and peace loving Adolph Hitler"?

No further comments from me until tomorrow.
OP Ironside  50 | 12383  
4 May 2009 /  #67
And here I thought they were your allies....

From 1939 to 1941 Soviets were your allies, don't you know?

Remember, it's not only the polish dead...many millions more, a devastated continent....all for some petty revenge and border changing...was it worth it?

Hey you lost me, are you asking IIww was good for Poland?
No, it wasn't ....
Well, you started the all thing.....
Bratwurst Boy  8 | 11820  
4 May 2009 /  #68
Was it worth it?

Thursday 31 August 1939

Headline: Germany has just announced a 16-point plan for a settlement with Poland - one of the proposals is to make Danzig part of the Reich.

Within the last hour a 16-point plan for a settlement between Germany and Poland has been broadcast over German radio. The radio broadcast also outlined the details of the diplomatic correspondence that has been taking place during the last week.

The German announcement has come as a complete surprise to everyone involved in the international negotiations of the last few days. All that the outside world has known until recently was that Britain and Germany have been exchanging notes. But now Germany has told the world her version of the events.

Apparently the reply Herr Hitler sent to the British Government two days ago contained a demand that Poland should send an envoy to Berlin within 24 hours to discuss a settlement between the two countries. The envoy never arrived, instead the German Government drew up it's own settlement, which Sir Neville Henderson, our Ambassador in Berlin, was told about very briefly yesterday evening.
This settlement consists of a series of demands made by Germany, namely: the immediate return of Danzig to the German Reich; a plebiscite, which will be held in a year's time to decide the future of the Polish corridor; though meanwhile the area should be evacuated by the Polish authorities, except for the port of Gdynia, which would remain Polish. Then, once agreement had been reached between the two countries, they would both demobilise their armies.

As far as we know, Poland has not yet received any official details of this plan from Germany. However, the German Government is now saying that, as no Polish envoy ever arrived in Berlin, Poland has therefore rejected these proposals.

As I said, they better had talked with the Germans...
Rafal_1981  
4 May 2009 /  #69
You Germans lost all the wars in the last centurys and You speaking about big mouth?

And their 1000 years reich last for...12 years? ;-]

Speaking about big mouth, lol
Salomon  2 | 436  
4 May 2009 /  #70
Czechs have up part of their country for Germany (under the British and French preassure) and later were beaten by Germany. Soviets proposed them alliance as well. Such alliance in 30's would had been their the best choice in 20th century.
OP Ironside  50 | 12383  
5 May 2009 /  #71
Well, demands were made by Germany to country C...... rings any bells and when they agreed they were run over by Germany.
Dazing - fine , plebiscite - fine , evacuation by Polish authorities - no way, you could have observers,
Demobilise armies? What's about Hitlers plan to settle issues with France and Soviets?

I mean if it would have been proposition in good faith then it wasn't worth it!
But at the time there were no trust with good reasons.
Bratwurst Boy  8 | 11820  
5 May 2009 /  #72
Maybe, maybe not....hard to say now.
But these were legitimate german grievances and not going away, Hitler or not.
But this treaty brought Hitler to the top in the first place...without it he would just had stayed on the fringe of german politics where he belonged!
Salomon  2 | 436  
5 May 2009 /  #73
Was it worth it?

Chamberlain in Germany WW2



Munich Agreement

Czechs risked and had taken German propossal (under British and French preassure) ... how naive they were that they haven't talked with Soviets...

1930s-era Soviet poster by Kukryniksy showing Western powers giving Hitler Czechoslovakia on a dish. Inscription on the flag: "On towards the East!"
OP Ironside  50 | 12383  
5 May 2009 /  #74
But this treaty brought Hitler to the top in the first place...without it he would just had stayed on the fringe of german politics where he belonged!

This treaty wasn't fair for Germany!
But border with Poland wasn't bad
I mean look up maps from before 1772 and compare them with map from 1936, one has to draw the line somewhere!
All in all in my opinion only Danzing were sore issue!
Nathan  18 | 1349  
5 May 2009 /  #75
Remember, it's not only the polish dead...many millions more, a devastated continent....all for some petty revenge and border changing...was it worth it?

Of course, not. But you see how many now again stir up the border conflict? What do you want, Ironside and Salamon? Do you want bloodshed again? Do you want see your kids and wives die in a war? Stop your nonsense about borders. The lands Ukraine has was, is and will be historically Ukrainian no matter what you try to present in here. I see some of you still suck up to the idea that somebody will grant you something. You have your land and enjoy it. Could, would, should - big mouths as was mentioned in here before.

You live 65 years after the war and it taught you nothing. You continue building grudge and pretense on foreign territories occupied by you for so long. Why were there people who believed in support of Germans at the beginning of the war? Are you supprised by that? I am not. You are masochistic freaks, you like pain and death. You want it to perpetuate.

anyways Germany supported ukrainian terrorist organizations and trained germans living in Poland to act as a support for German Army and to sabotage Polish defences.

local paramilitary strzelcy groups and terrorized the Ukrainian population under the pretext of maintaining law and order. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Ukrainian_minority_in_Poland

Listen, if there was no UPA and similar organizations in Ukraine as well as writers, political activists, simple people who believed in themselves, their culture, language and religion, I would, probably, be someone else, but definately not a Ukrainian. Because of UPA, OUN, partisans who gave their lives to fight stszelcy terrorists, Russian invasion as well as German nazis later, I am who I am. There were cases where innocent died, but this is a war and they died on both sides. So be so kind and don't teach your kids and future generations of hatred and other shi* because they will do whatever was done 65 years ago again.
Bratwurst Boy  8 | 11820  
5 May 2009 /  #76
All in all in my opinion only Danzing were sore issue!

Yes...but no miracle could have transported Danzig into the new german borders so it was bound to stay a problem.
Friends could have talked that over probably...enemies not.

But that's past now...
pawian  221 | 25292  
5 May 2009 /  #77
You had no litertaure, no elite, no dynasty or territory you could claim as your own no before 1848 anyway - take or leave a few years.

Hmm, what about Bolesław Chrobry who captured Kiev Rus in 1018? Were Kievan Russes of Ukrainian or Russian nationality? Today both Russians and Ukrainians claim that Kiev Rus was their ancestry.

Who can explain?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev_Expedition_(1018)

The intervention in the Kievan succession crisis of 1015-19 by the Polish ruler Boleslaw Chrobry was an episode in the struggle between Svyatopolk Vladimirovich ("the Accursed") and his brother Yaroslav ("the Wise") for the rulership of Kiev and Kievan Rus. It occurred when Svyatopolk's father-in-law Boleslaw, ruler of Poland, intervened on Svyatopolk's behalf.

The intervention was initially successful as Boleslaw defeated Yaroslav's armies, and temporarily secured the throne for Svyatopolk. But when Boleslaw withdraw himself and his army from Kiev, Svyatopolk was unable to retain his position, being defeated by Yaroslav in the following year. Chronicles of the expedition include legendary accounts as well as factual history and have been subject to varied interpretations.


[...]
Nathan  18 | 1349  
5 May 2009 /  #78
Who can explain?

Russians as a nation can trace their roots to Juri Dolgorukij who pillaged Kijiv and built Moscow in 12th century. There is no more connection to Kijiv Rus' and Russia than that. Kijiv to Ukrainians is like Krakow to Poles and Paris to French, historical and national capital from the beginning.
pawian  221 | 25292  
5 May 2009 /  #79
Hmm.... Russians are of different opinion on Kiev Rus

Soviet historiography and nationality policy since the Thirties has followed Russian nationalist historiography by depicting the USSR and the Tsarist Russian empire as the direct descendants of Kiev Rus', with Russians depicted as 'elder brothers'. In the Russian scheme of history, Ukrainians, as Professor Wheeler states, only appear on the scene sometime after the 14th century.

while Ukrainians strongly defend their position:
Not surprisingly, Ukrainian historiography refuses to accept this version of history, arguing that Kiev Rus' is a medieval Ukrainian state to which only Ukraine has direct claim. Ukrainian nationalist historiography, unlike Russian, was banned in the former USSR and has only now been rehabilitated. In Ukrainian historiography, Russians originate in the 12th century with their roots in the Vladimir-Suzdal principality, Muscovy and the Tsarist Russian empire.

So, who is right????

independent.co.uk/opinion/letter-two-claims-to-the-history-of-kiev-rus-1455361.html
Nathan  18 | 1349  
5 May 2009 /  #80
You can believe and trust whoever you like, whichever theory makes you sleep better. Personally, I don't give a crap.
pawian  221 | 25292  
5 May 2009 /  #81
Oh, la la. Please, stay calm. I didn`t mean any offence. :):):):) It is a matter to settle by Ukrainians and Russians themselves. I was just curious whose arguments are stronger.
Nathan  18 | 1349  
5 May 2009 /  #82
Pawiam, I am calm. I really don't give a crap. I live by today, not in the past. My presence on this forum is based solely on the idea that I can make people believe that whatever was - was and we need to move forward. If you need to prove something which is 900 years old while you can not prove what you ate two days ago - then what is the point. It is good that you have an interest in history. I think that you know more already than I do. So good luck and if you find which version is closer to you, tell me, no matter in whose support it goes and please, explain me why. I'll be very interested. I have to go know, but see you sometime around here. Have a nice day.
OP Ironside  50 | 12383  
5 May 2009 /  #83
What do I want? On this thread nothing, it's only talk.
I simply wanted to learn how you think.
You claim to speak for Ukraine yet you live in Canada in the land where after IIww many ukrainian war criminals run away to. Among them were haters which stirret up simple people to commit barbaric atrocitys and prepetrators as well. So I advice you to be carefull from whom you are learning your history.

You are try to justify ethnic cleasining done by your compatriots talking about some injustes your people expirenced from Poles.
You try equal it with thoses massacers it only an idiot or total filth, you spreadng chuav filth all overe this forum and yet you think yourself sane.

You cannot provide single argument only links but you keep ranting for pages with what seems to be diarrhea of the mind.
Land we talked about since middle ages belongs to Poland and was part of the Crown you cannot put it aside, you could claim as well that Provance should not be part of France - good luck!

I belive that after deeds of the part of local population which feel themselfs to be ukrainian it would not be just to grant them land where blood of their innocent victisms sank.

Hmm, what about Bolesław Chrobry who captured Kiev Rus in 1018? Were Kievan Russes of Ukrainian or Russian nationality? Today both Russians and Ukrainians claim that Kiev Rus was their ancestry.

Well, in Moscow was the same family, dynasty, in Kiev later was Lithuanian dynasty, and there was no much continuity but who can tell.
One matter is certain though, whitout imigration from Kingdom of Poland there had been nothing much - almost empty land.

Friends could have talked that over probably...enemies not.

Well, there two sides and I think Hitler wasn't that peacefull at heart!
Bratwurst Boy  8 | 11820  
5 May 2009 /  #84
Well, there two sides and I think Hitler wasn't that peacefull at heart!

I doubt Poland would had been ready to talk about those issues with ANY german gov....tensions run high already with the Weimar Republic about it.

These were the times, hate on all sides!
Mr Grunwald  33 | 2133  
5 May 2009 /  #85
You should watch "Pogranicze w Ogniu"
It's an excellent movie about intelligence of Germany, Poland, France & a little bit of UK in 1917-1939 it's mostly about Poznan (Posen) two friends 1 Polish other half Polish& half German goes two totally different ways. The Polish guy goes to Dwojka while the Gerry-Pole goes to the Abwehry or how ever it's spelled.
pawian  221 | 25292  
6 May 2009 /  #87
Naturally, the Polish guy wins.... :):):)
Nathan  18 | 1349  
6 May 2009 /  #88
Land we talked about since middle ages belongs to Poland and was part of the Crown you cannot put it aside, you could claim as well that Provance should not be part of France - good luck!

But this is exactly what you claim, Ironside. Did you move to my side of argument now? If you can't claim that Provance isn't part of France, you cannot bring your nonsense of Polish borders beyond what they are today. Now stop turning around like an eel who doesn't know how to get back to water.

You claim to speak for Ukraine yet you live in Canada in the land where after IIww many ukrainian war criminals run away to. Among them were haters which stirret up simple people to commit barbaric atrocitys and prepetrators as well. So I advice you to be carefull from whom you are learning your history

The same can be said of Poland - many war criminals live in your country or moved to England, France or to the very Canada. They are unpunished as well and you keep learning from them history - be careful.

One matter is certain though, whitout imigration from Kingdom of Poland there had been nothing much - almost empty land.

Absolutely right. People from Kijivska Rus' flew into the cosmos or even better they discovered America well before Columbus and emmigrated from the rich lands of Ukraine onto American continent. I actually see some similarity in Indians, they look very Cossack-like. Hmm, interesting. Then rzeczpospolity moved into the empty territory and began fighting with each other because of differences in religion, language, culture etc. I would start a book in your place in stead of wasting precious time with me over here.

it would not be just to grant them land where blood of their innocent victisms sank.

Would it be just for Poles even to pretend on the territories where they spilled so much Ukrainian blood for over 400 years, hm..?! How old are you? Try to wake up, Ironside. I am frankly tired of this childish nonsense.
OP Ironside  50 | 12383  
6 May 2009 /  #89
[quote=Nathan]
[/quote

You won't acknowledge the true, I don't care, keep your myths and your chauvinistic belives and go back to sleep.
Everyone can see you for what you are ... everything you said and all....
How old are you?
Because if someone speak as an immanture child it is you Nathan - you too, you too.... shove it up your arse you prat.

Im done, no more that pointless thread.
Good night!
Nathan  18 | 1349  
6 May 2009 /  #90
You didn't even explain your expressions which I quoted above. I told you - you are a little eel...

Archives - 2005-2009 / History / Poland and UkraineArchived