Pan Kazimierz
28 Jul 2009
History / A few thoughts after plowing through most "Sabaton: 40-1" comments on YouTube [59]
Right... suuuure.... says the pack hunter. :)
Right... suuuure.... says the pack hunter. :)
Pan Kazimierz
28 Jul 2009
History / A few thoughts after plowing through most "Sabaton: 40-1" comments on YouTube [59]
That's right: if Germany could have taken on Poland herself, and kept the whole country, why get Russia to help, and only keep half of it? Unless they couldn't, of course. In which case we fully understand your rationale in ganging up on a single country and then bragging about your superior might after having jointly slaughtered millions (of innocents).
I don't know about that part. That's only assuming that the Czech troops didn't just get steamrolled over.
Wot???
That's right: if Germany could have taken on Poland herself, and kept the whole country, why get Russia to help, and only keep half of it? Unless they couldn't, of course. In which case we fully understand your rationale in ganging up on a single country and then bragging about your superior might after having jointly slaughtered millions (of innocents).
If Czechs didn't surrender like cowards in 1938 but decided to ally themselves
with Poland instead, it would result in Germany not being able to encircle Polish
armies from the South and add some Czech troops to our forces (having very
good weapons, mainly tanks). The only problem would be to convince those
Czech divisions to actually fight *rolls eyes*
with Poland instead, it would result in Germany not being able to encircle Polish
armies from the South and add some Czech troops to our forces (having very
good weapons, mainly tanks). The only problem would be to convince those
Czech divisions to actually fight *rolls eyes*
I don't know about that part. That's only assuming that the Czech troops didn't just get steamrolled over.
Pan Kazimierz
28 Jul 2009
History / A few thoughts after plowing through most "Sabaton: 40-1" comments on YouTube [59]
I guess we'll never know for sure...
Also a fun line to throw out is, "If Germany didn't need Russia's help, why ask for it?"
I guess we'll never know for sure...
Also a fun line to throw out is, "If Germany didn't need Russia's help, why ask for it?"
Pan Kazimierz
28 Jul 2009
History / A few thoughts after plowing through most "Sabaton: 40-1" comments on YouTube [59]
I guess we'll never know for sure what would've happened had Germany tried to take on Poland alone... =p
See?
So you really think without the Russians Poland would have won against the Germans???
I guess we'll never know for sure what would've happened had Germany tried to take on Poland alone... =p
See?
Pan Kazimierz
28 Jul 2009
History / A few thoughts after plowing through most "Sabaton: 40-1" comments on YouTube [59]
Yes: Now I get to throw out the "We'll never know for sure what would've happened had Germany tried to take on Poland alone..." line, smugly, every time somebody brings that up. =D
Yes: Now I get to throw out the "We'll never know for sure what would've happened had Germany tried to take on Poland alone..." line, smugly, every time somebody brings that up. =D
Pan Kazimierz
28 Jul 2009
History / A few thoughts after plowing through most "Sabaton: 40-1" comments on YouTube [59]
Hey, the Russians helped...
The Germans ate you for breakfast in '39 and no lone battle which took 3 days instead of 3 hours changes that...
Hey, the Russians helped...
Pan Kazimierz
28 Jul 2009
History / A few thoughts after plowing through most "Sabaton: 40-1" comments on YouTube [59]
I see a Thermopalye comparison (I refuse to take the time to make sure I've spelled that correctly).
"Persians attack - Spartans defend a pass - Spartans get overrun - Spartans effectively kill themselves - Persians march on - (actually get beat later but oh well, no analogy is perfect).
So what?"
[/quote]
They're actually Swedes. I think the intended effect was much less meant as an accurate depiction of the average Polish soldier's total badassed awesomeness and power but rather to help 'capture' the spirit of the battle.
I'm not sure of exactly the event to which you're referring, but you're welcome to come teach us a lesson or two if you feel up to it. ;)
I see a Thermopalye comparison (I refuse to take the time to make sure I've spelled that correctly).
"Persians attack - Spartans defend a pass - Spartans get overrun - Spartans effectively kill themselves - Persians march on - (actually get beat later but oh well, no analogy is perfect).
So what?"
[quote]"So come, bring on all that you've got/Come hell, come high water, Never stop/Unless you are 40 to 1/Your lives will soon be undone"
[/quote]
They're actually Swedes. I think the intended effect was much less meant as an accurate depiction of the average Polish soldier's total badassed awesomeness and power but rather to help 'capture' the spirit of the battle.
If I were a Pole I would rather not try it again...
The last times Poles bragged about a war with Germany they did not look so good later!
The last times Poles bragged about a war with Germany they did not look so good later!
I'm not sure of exactly the event to which you're referring, but you're welcome to come teach us a lesson or two if you feel up to it. ;)
Pan Kazimierz
28 Jul 2009
News / Poland to ban Che Guevara image [55]
I came here to mention that one...
I also like the 'self-advertised idiots' argument. I think it's absolutely correct, and if people wish to make it clear to those in their immediate area that they are fools, then it's better to let them do so than to put a future law in place requiring a tatoo'd forehead or some such.
PLk 123- Che was not a fascist? In the pure sense, neither was Hitler. You do realize that NAZI is the acronym for Nationalsozialistische Deutsche -- the National Socialist German Workers' Party, and that Fidel Castro in his youth was infatuated with Mussolini and Hitler, and he carried around a copy of Mein Kampf. Che was Fidel's Goebbels, hardly one deserving of admiration.
I came here to mention that one...
I also like the 'self-advertised idiots' argument. I think it's absolutely correct, and if people wish to make it clear to those in their immediate area that they are fools, then it's better to let them do so than to put a future law in place requiring a tatoo'd forehead or some such.
Pan Kazimierz
28 Jul 2009
History / A few thoughts after plowing through most "Sabaton: 40-1" comments on YouTube [59]
I don't know if I'd go that far. Honestly, I'd say probably instead because nobody knows exactly or approximately what his troop's kill/death ratio. It's an awesome story and a great song (actually 60 to 1, per Wiki btw), but note also that Raginis' location was defensively all but ideal (bunkers on hills, surrounded by swamps, river to cross...), so three days, while amazing, is not so far as miraculous.
I'd like to see a song about Battle of the Vistula, next. That would be pretty awesome, imo.
As for the movies... give 'em time, they're starting to come out now. I'm sure there'll be something among those lines in the next five to ten years, tops.
If I could guess then I would say that he was anti-German (eventually anti-Jewish). Being anti-German during the war against Germany is unthinkable according to current Polish elites. :)
I don't know if I'd go that far. Honestly, I'd say probably instead because nobody knows exactly or approximately what his troop's kill/death ratio. It's an awesome story and a great song (actually 60 to 1, per Wiki btw), but note also that Raginis' location was defensively all but ideal (bunkers on hills, surrounded by swamps, river to cross...), so three days, while amazing, is not so far as miraculous.
I'd like to see a song about Battle of the Vistula, next. That would be pretty awesome, imo.
As for the movies... give 'em time, they're starting to come out now. I'm sure there'll be something among those lines in the next five to ten years, tops.
Pan Kazimierz
27 Jul 2009
News / Poland among the greatest enemies of Russia [112]
But it's not E8000. That's what the price would be if everyone in the world could magically pull it out of their- er, wallets. But we of course know that only a fraction of the people in the world could afford this much, let alone what we'd have to multiply it by so that said fraction could pay it all. Stop living in a dream world, solar power is not the miracle solution. And just because there's a limit to how long we can use oil, doesn't mean that every alternative is preferable. Let's not be naiive. Wanna try nuclear fusion, instead?
-Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate Stability (1 Nov., p. 982), Hoffert et al.
Which is not to say that I love oil, either. I just find that any alternative that, y'know, actually works is preferable to one that doesn't, no matter how clean and how quiet it may be.
You are right, PK. We shouldn't invest in solar energy. Let's wait when oil price reaches the point when E8,000/person x year won't be enough and Russia again decides to close the tap amid a harsh winter. I think when we have frozen asses, our brains start to process faster. Whatever Germans invented with Desertec technology is bad for us, let's keep on burning oil like we have been doing for 150 years already cause the Earth will give us more and the air will clean itself.
But it's not E8000. That's what the price would be if everyone in the world could magically pull it out of their- er, wallets. But we of course know that only a fraction of the people in the world could afford this much, let alone what we'd have to multiply it by so that said fraction could pay it all. Stop living in a dream world, solar power is not the miracle solution. And just because there's a limit to how long we can use oil, doesn't mean that every alternative is preferable. Let's not be naiive. Wanna try nuclear fusion, instead?
energy sources that can produce 100 to 300% of present world power consumption without greenhouse emissions do not exist operationally or as pilot plants
-Advanced Technology Paths to Global Climate Stability (1 Nov., p. 982), Hoffert et al.
Which is not to say that I love oil, either. I just find that any alternative that, y'know, actually works is preferable to one that doesn't, no matter how clean and how quiet it may be.
Pan Kazimierz
26 Jul 2009
News / Poland among the greatest enemies of Russia [112]
Because it produces power. People can enjoy the scenery on their HDTV's powered by the fields of wind farms now, instead! XD
What, solar power? If by 'con', you mean 'much less monetarily efficient than it's generally made out/thought to be', then, yes. It still works, obviously, it's just absurdly costly.
Yes. In other words, if you use them, they'll last about 25 years, tops, and stop producing a significant amount of power. And if you don't use them, then they never even start producing power.
Haha, nice...
They do, im not denying that, but they are unsightly and loud the countryside is already littered with pilons, why make it even more unsightly? If they were all out at sea it would be a different matter, but the costs involved in that are incredibly high (yes I know a little bit about it) and the maintence associated costs are even higher.
Because it produces power. People can enjoy the scenery on their HDTV's powered by the fields of wind farms now, instead! XD
So its all just a big con?
What, solar power? If by 'con', you mean 'much less monetarily efficient than it's generally made out/thought to be', then, yes. It still works, obviously, it's just absurdly costly.
Doesnt that defete the object ;0)
Yes. In other words, if you use them, they'll last about 25 years, tops, and stop producing a significant amount of power. And if you don't use them, then they never even start producing power.
Maybe not, I'm hoping that I wont be on this forum in near future, let alone 25 years...
Haha, nice...
Pan Kazimierz
26 Jul 2009
News / Poland among the greatest enemies of Russia [112]
Not really, nope. Sorry, credible source here. I'm not just guessing at the figures, you know. What I might have thought before doing the research is irrelevant.
But they do make viable power. Hydroelectric is nice, too.
Exactly. Hence, I also took them out. Their part in the equation was being part of the six billion world population that I divided the total cost of conversion to solar power of, coming up with an average 8k per person. People with no electricity were not included in the estimate for overall world power consumption. Obviously the cost per person is actually multiple times higher because these people with no running water or electricity are not to be expected to pay any of it.
With proper maintenence, a very long time. The only way to extend the life of solar panels, however, is to not use them.
That means storing them in a dark, cool environment, by the way.
But there aren't any savings. Just a ridiculously huge cost. I suppose you could argue it's worth it for the cleanliness of the environment we'll improve over those years, but that's also not quite what you think. Because it also takes quite a lot of energy to produce those things.
Let's have that argument in 25 years, when we know that they'll actually last long enough to theoretically be worth the cost, shall we?
Aparently cheaper than you think, one of the UK's major window manufacturers is now installing them, its just about educating poeple and changing peoples perception of solar power.
Not really, nope. Sorry, credible source here. I'm not just guessing at the figures, you know. What I might have thought before doing the research is irrelevant.
Im not convinced about wind farms, they've had a very negative impact on the landscapes over here and also the noise they produce is also a nuisance.
But they do make viable power. Hydroelectric is nice, too.
As to your figures and the worlds population you were bringing people who dont even have running water in the equation let alone electricity.
Exactly. Hence, I also took them out. Their part in the equation was being part of the six billion world population that I divided the total cost of conversion to solar power of, coming up with an average 8k per person. People with no electricity were not included in the estimate for overall world power consumption. Obviously the cost per person is actually multiple times higher because these people with no running water or electricity are not to be expected to pay any of it.
Also regarding life span, how many years does a combi boiler last? How long do windows last?
With proper maintenence, a very long time. The only way to extend the life of solar panels, however, is to not use them.
That means storing them in a dark, cool environment, by the way.
I'd say 25 years for very little outlay is quite good considering the savings made over those 25 years,
But there aren't any savings. Just a ridiculously huge cost. I suppose you could argue it's worth it for the cleanliness of the environment we'll improve over those years, but that's also not quite what you think. Because it also takes quite a lot of energy to produce those things.
also as technology moves on, who knows how long the ones produced in 25 years time will last, maybe 100 years? We simply dont know because its very new.
Let's have that argument in 25 years, when we know that they'll actually last long enough to theoretically be worth the cost, shall we?
Pan Kazimierz
26 Jul 2009
News / FEINSTEIN NEW us AMBASSADOR TO POLAND [47]
Y'know... my palm actually hit my face when I read this. Nice. That made my day.
I'm not bashing, btw. That was actually an excellent mood-lightener right there. Grats.
Also, I find it funny how people, especially 'other' people, love to talk about Poland's 'whining and playing the victim all the time', but when somebody mentions even touching a single square inch of Oświęcim, the tune turns to 'erasing history to suit ourselves', and 'it tells a tale and it should stay'.
Excuse me for suggesting as much, but if we're going to talk about 'putting the past behind and moving forward', and the like, accept no substitutions. Personally, I'm all for going for it all the way.
only from Serbians Poles could expect loyalty. Sarmatia is what Poles and Serbs need.
Y'know... my palm actually hit my face when I read this. Nice. That made my day.
I'm not bashing, btw. That was actually an excellent mood-lightener right there. Grats.
Also, I find it funny how people, especially 'other' people, love to talk about Poland's 'whining and playing the victim all the time', but when somebody mentions even touching a single square inch of Oświęcim, the tune turns to 'erasing history to suit ourselves', and 'it tells a tale and it should stay'.
Excuse me for suggesting as much, but if we're going to talk about 'putting the past behind and moving forward', and the like, accept no substitutions. Personally, I'm all for going for it all the way.
Pan Kazimierz
26 Jul 2009
News / Poland among the greatest enemies of Russia [112]
And an expensive thing. You have any idea how much those things cost?
Errwhat? Really? I can't think of any other power source that provides as little output for as much money. Let me lay it out for you:
Current optimal solar panel price is about 3 E's per watt (solarpanelinfo.com/solar-panels/solar-panel-cost.php).
According to Wiki, world power consumption in 2005 (which of course has much increased since then) equals constant consumption of 16 terrawatts, or 16000000000000 watts. Multiply that by 3.02, and you have the cost in Euros to convert the planet to solar power.
It's 48000000000000, obviously.
It doesn't look that bad - total cost equals something like 8000 Euros per person in the world. But of course we know that, what percent can actually pay that? Half the world's population lives on $2 USD a day. Of the remaining half, more than half really don't care.
It still doesn't look terrible, perhaps, but note also that solar panels also constantly degrade with use, and have an average functional lifespan of about 20-25 years.
Replacing old coal plants with fresh new solar/wind generators would be a beautiful thing.
And an expensive thing. You have any idea how much those things cost?
Solar panels can be replaced easily.
Errwhat? Really? I can't think of any other power source that provides as little output for as much money. Let me lay it out for you:
Current optimal solar panel price is about 3 E's per watt (solarpanelinfo.com/solar-panels/solar-panel-cost.php).
According to Wiki, world power consumption in 2005 (which of course has much increased since then) equals constant consumption of 16 terrawatts, or 16000000000000 watts. Multiply that by 3.02, and you have the cost in Euros to convert the planet to solar power.
It's 48000000000000, obviously.
It doesn't look that bad - total cost equals something like 8000 Euros per person in the world. But of course we know that, what percent can actually pay that? Half the world's population lives on $2 USD a day. Of the remaining half, more than half really don't care.
It still doesn't look terrible, perhaps, but note also that solar panels also constantly degrade with use, and have an average functional lifespan of about 20-25 years.
Pan Kazimierz
25 Jul 2009
News / New York Post : "Polish" Death Camps and more [278]
Actually the bone marrow.
Specially in Poland's matter there was allways important where your heart is not what blood if through your veins since it is the heart that produces that blood in the end
Actually the bone marrow.
Pan Kazimierz
24 Jul 2009
News / New York Post : "Polish" Death Camps and more [278]
Not to butt in, but if that's how you're arguing, it's not hard to see how nobody's supporting you... hell, to be honest, I'm sure we already all know by now how nobody even likes you.
Because, seriously, you're starting to look like the comical conspiracy-theorist type. Did JFK really get shot in the head by a radical pro-Cuban? We will never find out, that's for sure.
Anyway, I'd say it's more likely the error was made simply out of some American's (having lived in America, I can tell you that while intelligent and thoughtful people can generally be found in reasonable supply, it's much harder to find one not ignorant of happenings outside of his country's borders) Critical Research(/Logic) Failure, and not malice or conspiracy. Can't be helped; there's no effective forcible cure for stupidity (except perhaps, to quote bash, taking the safety labels off of everything, and letting the problem solve itself), so there's really no point in getting upset about it. Just a little exhasperated(sp?), perhaps.
We will never find out, that's for sure.
Not to butt in, but if that's how you're arguing, it's not hard to see how nobody's supporting you... hell, to be honest, I'm sure we already all know by now how nobody even likes you.
Because, seriously, you're starting to look like the comical conspiracy-theorist type. Did JFK really get shot in the head by a radical pro-Cuban? We will never find out, that's for sure.
Anyway, I'd say it's more likely the error was made simply out of some American's (having lived in America, I can tell you that while intelligent and thoughtful people can generally be found in reasonable supply, it's much harder to find one not ignorant of happenings outside of his country's borders) Critical Research(/Logic) Failure, and not malice or conspiracy. Can't be helped; there's no effective forcible cure for stupidity (except perhaps, to quote bash, taking the safety labels off of everything, and letting the problem solve itself), so there's really no point in getting upset about it. Just a little exhasperated(sp?), perhaps.
Pan Kazimierz
12 Jul 2009
History / UKRAINIAN GENOCIDE AGAINST POLES DOWNPLAYED [57]
Really. Since when, again, did your oft-cited Polonisation procedure include the killing of people's 'only children'? Or first-born son, or whatever else you'd think would justify UPA atrocities if only it had actually ever happened? And don't tell me they went to Bereza Kartuska, either. Killed and raped women and kids, what?
Though, I suppose the last part does need mentioning given that UPA was famous for it. Those people were such primitive savages, the Polish and Soviet armies actually worked together to wipe them out. Which isn't something that happens every day.
Really. Since when, again, did your oft-cited Polonisation procedure include the killing of people's 'only children'? Or first-born son, or whatever else you'd think would justify UPA atrocities if only it had actually ever happened? And don't tell me they went to Bereza Kartuska, either. Killed and raped women and kids, what?
Though, I suppose the last part does need mentioning given that UPA was famous for it. Those people were such primitive savages, the Polish and Soviet armies actually worked together to wipe them out. Which isn't something that happens every day.
Pan Kazimierz
12 Jul 2009
History / Poland and Hungary in September 1939 [79]
“With the Nazis, we lose our lives; with the Soviets, we lose our souls.... If I found my army between the Nazis and the Soviets, I would attack in both directions.”
-Polish General Anders to American General Patton.
Your ancestors had quite simple choice, Russia or Hitler, simply it was between Siberia at the worst or crematorium in any case. Now, try to make the same. What would be your choice, Hitler or Stalin?
“With the Nazis, we lose our lives; with the Soviets, we lose our souls.... If I found my army between the Nazis and the Soviets, I would attack in both directions.”
-Polish General Anders to American General Patton.
Pan Kazimierz
10 Jul 2009
History / Gdansk and it's history with Poland [116]
What about a book title, author, and page number where said evidence could be found?
I don't claim to 'know' the statement made to have been true, myself, but I think it's just silly to write it off without doing just so much to check...
Don't sweat it, but make sure you have a viable link to support your claims next time.
What about a book title, author, and page number where said evidence could be found?
I don't claim to 'know' the statement made to have been true, myself, but I think it's just silly to write it off without doing just so much to check...
Pan Kazimierz
10 Jul 2009
History / "GANGING UP" ON POLAND? [99]
See, that individual part isn't hard to understand. Which is why I'd originally posted the quote below:
Simplified:
Poles were forbidden to build homes in said area. (Ukraine as well, I know)
Forced buy-outs.
Forced evictions. (Ukraine as well, I know)
Banning of the Polish language. (Ukraine as well, I know)
Children beaten (because I doubt 'tortured' is quite accurate; this is why I hate Wiki) at schools for using language. (Ukraine as well? I don't know.)
Governmental aid for racial majority of occupying force to settle these lands.
Chewbacca Defense: attempt to win a debate by 'last man standing' methodology. Usually carried out by causing excessive confusion or excessive frustration until opponent just gives up and leaves. Logic being that lack of a responding post means that you win the debate.
Not to be confused with Godwin's Law: ""As an internet discussion/debate grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
"You know who else used laws to stop debates? Hitler!"
...back on topic, is this really quite so harsh as I'd originally thought it to be? Apparently not, though it's still debatably worse than Polonisation procedures in Ukrainian lands. Possibly it's not even Davies' description I was thinking of, but Zamoyski's instead. But I haven't yet seen any reason why I was wrong when I said that it was.
SHOW WHERE GERMANS WERE HARSHER AND MORE BRUTAL IN EITHER KULTURKAMPF OR GERMANIZATION TOWARDS POLES AS COMPARED WITH POLISH POLONIZATION AND PACIFICATION IN THE EASTERN EUROPE. Is it hard to understand this sentence?
See, that individual part isn't hard to understand. Which is why I'd originally posted the quote below:
In Prussia, and later in Germany, Poles were forbidden to build homes, and their properties were targeted for forced buy-outs financed by the Prussian and German governments. Otto von Bismarck described Poles, as animals (wolves), that "one shoots if one can" and implemented several harsh laws aiming at their expulsion from traditionally Polish lands. The Polish language was banned from public, and ethnically Polish children tortured at schools,[19] just for speaking Polish (see: Września). Poles were subjected to a wave of forceful evictions (Rugi Pruskie). German government financed and encouraged settlement of ethnic Germans into those areas aiming at their geopolitical germanisation.[20] The Prussian Landtag passed laws against Catholics.[21]
Simplified:
Poles were forbidden to build homes in said area. (Ukraine as well, I know)
Forced buy-outs.
Forced evictions. (Ukraine as well, I know)
Banning of the Polish language. (Ukraine as well, I know)
Children beaten (because I doubt 'tortured' is quite accurate; this is why I hate Wiki) at schools for using language. (Ukraine as well? I don't know.)
Governmental aid for racial majority of occupying force to settle these lands.
Btw., whatever your Chewbacca defense means, I use here more offense to test the truth. Right now I don't feel any defense on your side. :)
Chewbacca Defense: attempt to win a debate by 'last man standing' methodology. Usually carried out by causing excessive confusion or excessive frustration until opponent just gives up and leaves. Logic being that lack of a responding post means that you win the debate.
Not to be confused with Godwin's Law: ""As an internet discussion/debate grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one."
"You know who else used laws to stop debates? Hitler!"
...back on topic, is this really quite so harsh as I'd originally thought it to be? Apparently not, though it's still debatably worse than Polonisation procedures in Ukrainian lands. Possibly it's not even Davies' description I was thinking of, but Zamoyski's instead. But I haven't yet seen any reason why I was wrong when I said that it was.
Pan Kazimierz
9 Jul 2009
History / Gdansk and it's history with Poland [116]
BB
Sorry, I'm not in a position to answer right now. Theoretically, I could inconvenience myself to no end to provide for you exactly what it will take to convince you of most anything even partially ambiguously against the German nation, but in that case, maybe it shouldn't be too hard for you, either? There is a limit to how much time I have on my hands that I wish to use browsing the web for obscure topics for the betterment of people who I know scarcely at best, though such time exists, and trying to dig up Davies' citations on this claim for free have already caused me to go over it. I know it's not your fault, but it's just not happening at this point in time.
If that is the case, please do, in fact, find a better one, and I'll thank you for it. Though, since any historian that claims 'evidence that Copernicus spoke the Polish language' could just be written off by you as 'Polonophilic', that will likely be very difficult.
I'm sure that, say, Adam Zamoyski for example would have put in some input on the topic, but even I don't like citing the guy in favor of Poland.
BB
No, I ask you!
Sorry, I'm not in a position to answer right now. Theoretically, I could inconvenience myself to no end to provide for you exactly what it will take to convince you of most anything even partially ambiguously against the German nation, but in that case, maybe it shouldn't be too hard for you, either? There is a limit to how much time I have on my hands that I wish to use browsing the web for obscure topics for the betterment of people who I know scarcely at best, though such time exists, and trying to dig up Davies' citations on this claim for free have already caused me to go over it. I know it's not your fault, but it's just not happening at this point in time.
There should be another source to find on the net besides Davies (who is a tad to biased concerning Poland anyhow for my taste).
If that is the case, please do, in fact, find a better one, and I'll thank you for it. Though, since any historian that claims 'evidence that Copernicus spoke the Polish language' could just be written off by you as 'Polonophilic', that will likely be very difficult.
I'm sure that, say, Adam Zamoyski for example would have put in some input on the topic, but even I don't like citing the guy in favor of Poland.
Pan Kazimierz
9 Jul 2009
History / "GANGING UP" ON POLAND? [99]
Nathan:
Yes, I believe you are missing something. It seems to me that the only thing you're not missing is the specifics of transfer of property from Polish/Ukrainian to German/Polish inhabitants. This did not, however, comprise the full extent of my post, and using this lone example in comparison to a counterpart as a representation of the whole of the procedures in question... I have no idea what you're getting at. So, if you're pulling a Chewbacca Defense, then congratulations, you've succeeded. I am now thoroughly confused, and as such will not respond. If, on the other hand, you actually do want a response from me that actually makes sense, please clarify, first, the matter for me, as to what exactly you're going at?
Nathan:
PK, am I missing something? .
Yes, I believe you are missing something. It seems to me that the only thing you're not missing is the specifics of transfer of property from Polish/Ukrainian to German/Polish inhabitants. This did not, however, comprise the full extent of my post, and using this lone example in comparison to a counterpart as a representation of the whole of the procedures in question... I have no idea what you're getting at. So, if you're pulling a Chewbacca Defense, then congratulations, you've succeeded. I am now thoroughly confused, and as such will not respond. If, on the other hand, you actually do want a response from me that actually makes sense, please clarify, first, the matter for me, as to what exactly you're going at?
Pan Kazimierz
9 Jul 2009
History / Gdansk and it's history with Poland [116]
There was a source listed along with that statement, take it up with Davies if you wish (just check page 26, etc. for related information, and possible check Davies' cited source independently). I sadly do not have access to the volume right now.
I would like to see some evidence for that Pan..
[quote]Because during former discussions about Kopernikus nobody could bring a hint that he ever used polish or even knew it.
[quote]Because during former discussions about Kopernikus nobody could bring a hint that he ever used polish or even knew it.
There was a source listed along with that statement, take it up with Davies if you wish (just check page 26, etc. for related information, and possible check Davies' cited source independently). I sadly do not have access to the volume right now.
Pan Kazimierz
9 Jul 2009
History / "GANGING UP" ON POLAND? [99]
Except that's not what happened at all. I provided a list of actions carried out against Polish culture in Prussian Poland, and you selected one item from that list, asked me to compare it to the Polonisation procedure, and have the gall to be indignant when I do not respond? Please don't pull the Chewbacca Defense card on me, because in most cases, I'd find it not worth my time to even call you on it.
But I asked some of the posters to bring me comparison to what was done by Poles on Ukrainian lands and as far as I see, PK refused to answer. Sad. Because it is obviously can't even be compared.
Also there was a word "Kulturkampf", usage of which in comparison to Polonization and Pacification policy of Poland in Eastern Europe is preposterous. He refused to answer my question. If you want, please, draw comparison and tell me whether Poles behaved nicer than Germans in Kulturkampf.
Except that's not what happened at all. I provided a list of actions carried out against Polish culture in Prussian Poland, and you selected one item from that list, asked me to compare it to the Polonisation procedure, and have the gall to be indignant when I do not respond? Please don't pull the Chewbacca Defense card on me, because in most cases, I'd find it not worth my time to even call you on it.
Pan Kazimierz
8 Jul 2009
History / Gdansk and it's history with Poland [116]
Copernicus:
Copernicus:
He used Latin and German, knew enough Greek to translate the 7th-century Byzantine poet Theophylact Simocatta's verses into Latin prose (Armitage, The World of Copernicus, pp. 75–77), and "there is ample evidence that he knew the Polish language" (Norman Davies, God's Playground, vol. II, p. 26
Pan Kazimierz
8 Jul 2009
History / "GANGING UP" ON POLAND? [99]
Nathan: cherry-picking, you are. I therefore will not respond.
Nathan: cherry-picking, you are. I therefore will not respond.
Pan Kazimierz
8 Jul 2009
History / THEY WOULDN'T LISTEN TO WISE OLD PIŁSUDSKI!!!! [67]
Unless I'm missing something, yes, it did, just edited to place 'Poland' in the place of 'Contracting Power' and 'Germany' in the place of 'European Power'. Article I, of course.
Probably because there's a good bit of difference between 'run away' and 'left port'. The Polish Navy went on to be the most decorated of any participating, as we all know.
I don't know, I just posted the quote. I'm not exactly an expert on the times and neither one on WWII-era warfare. I just know that credible expert (at least on land-based warfare) Ironside stated that it was more than strategically advantagous in hindsight to attack Germany all-out at the agreed-upon time.
But, you are saying that there was nothing at all within Britain's power to do to aid Poland that they did not, correct?
And, if I may say so: Dariusz, your comments on Harry's prescribed medication were completely out of line. While that's the case, Harry, his daughter's hardly at fault...
It very clearly did not state that at all. Check the text for yourself avalon.law.yale.edu/wwii/blbk19.asp. I must say that I expected better from Cambridge University Press.
Unless I'm missing something, yes, it did, just edited to place 'Poland' in the place of 'Contracting Power' and 'Germany' in the place of 'European Power'. Article I, of course.
I always love it when Poles criticise the RAF for not doing enough, they get so pissed off when asked "Perhaps the RAF should have followed the example of the Polish navy and run away days before the first shots were fired?"
Probably because there's a good bit of difference between 'run away' and 'left port'. The Polish Navy went on to be the most decorated of any participating, as we all know.
As is traditional when speaking to Poles about September 1939, I will now ask precisely where the land war against Germany should have been launched by the British. Perhaps an amphibious assault on Hamburg?
I don't know, I just posted the quote. I'm not exactly an expert on the times and neither one on WWII-era warfare. I just know that credible expert (at least on land-based warfare) Ironside stated that it was more than strategically advantagous in hindsight to attack Germany all-out at the agreed-upon time.
But, you are saying that there was nothing at all within Britain's power to do to aid Poland that they did not, correct?
And, if I may say so: Dariusz, your comments on Harry's prescribed medication were completely out of line. While that's the case, Harry, his daughter's hardly at fault...
Pan Kazimierz
8 Jul 2009
History / "GANGING UP" ON POLAND? [99]
Oh, so that's all you're trying to do. I'd thought you were trying to... never mind. Good job, I guess? =p
Oh, so that's all you're trying to do. I'd thought you were trying to... never mind. Good job, I guess? =p
Pan Kazimierz
8 Jul 2009
History / THEY WOULDN'T LISTEN TO WISE OLD PIŁSUDSKI!!!! [67]
"As the House is aware, certain consultations are now proceeding with other Governments. In order to make perfectly clear the position of His Majesty's Government in the meantime before those consultations are concluded, I now have to inform the House that during that period, in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to this effect. I may add that the French Government have authorized me to make it plain that they stand in the same position in this matter as do His Majesty's Government."
yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/bluebook/blbk17.htm
Shortly thereafter a formal agreement between Poland and Britain was signed which clearly stated "If Germany attacks Poland His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will at once come to the help of Poland."
Anita Prazmowska, Britain, Poland and the Eastern Front, 1939 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 193.
Expectations of swift Allied action were also repeatedly reinforced by the British. For example, during Anglo-Polish General Staff talks held in Warsaw at the end of May, the Poles stressed the need for British aerial assaults on Germany should war break out. The British responded with assurances that the Royal Air Force would attack industrial, civilian, and military targets.[10] General Sir Edmund Ironside then repeated this promise during an official visit to Warsaw in July.
Prazmowska, Britain, Poland and the Eastern Front, pp. 94-95.
What transpired is by now well known. The RAF did not even attempt to bomb German military installations because, as the Air Staff concluded on September 20: "Since the immutable aim of the Allies is the ultimate defeat of Germany, without which the fate of Poland is permanently sealed, it would obviously be militarily unsound and to the disadvantage of all, including Poland, to undertake at any given moment operations ... unlikely to achieve effective results, merely for the sake of maintaining a gesture." The Chiefs of Staff agreed, informing 10 Downing Street that "nothing we can do in the air in the Western Theatre would have any effect of relieving pressure on Poland."[20] And so the RAF decided instead to drop propaganda leaflets.
Prazmowska, Britain, Poland and the Eastern Front, pp. 183-184.
The opportunity to fight a brief, localized war against Germany was therefore lost in September 1939. In hindsight, also lost were the opportunities to save millions of lives, to rid the world of Hitler, and to have prevented the creation of conditions that led to the Cold War. As General Ironside commented in 1945, after much of Europe was in ruins, "Militarily we should have gone all out against the German the minute he invaded Poland. ... We did not ... And so we missed the strategical advantage of the Germans being engaged in the East. We thought completely defensively and of ourselves."
Cienciala, Poland and the Western Powers, p. 249.
Are you suggesting that the Brits did exactly (or even remotely) as obliged? Seems like a betrayal to me. And of course, if we're going to revert to the topic of 'the Western Powers', where was France's "within fifteen days" invasion that could have saved both countries, except that it never came? Unless you're saying that technically the treaty was upheld because it was physically impossible for Britain to aid Poland with anything more effective than propaganda leaflets?
Tell me, General, what effect our leaflet raids have had?
- Churchill, in response to lamentation about the Polish Armed Force's effectiveness in fighting the Germans.
"As the House is aware, certain consultations are now proceeding with other Governments. In order to make perfectly clear the position of His Majesty's Government in the meantime before those consultations are concluded, I now have to inform the House that during that period, in the event of any action which clearly threatened Polish independence, and which the Polish Government accordingly considered it vital to resist with their national forces, His Majesty's Government would feel themselves bound at once to lend the Polish Government all support in their power. They have given the Polish Government an assurance to this effect. I may add that the French Government have authorized me to make it plain that they stand in the same position in this matter as do His Majesty's Government."
yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/wwii/bluebook/blbk17.htm
Shortly thereafter a formal agreement between Poland and Britain was signed which clearly stated "If Germany attacks Poland His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom will at once come to the help of Poland."
Anita Prazmowska, Britain, Poland and the Eastern Front, 1939 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 193.
Expectations of swift Allied action were also repeatedly reinforced by the British. For example, during Anglo-Polish General Staff talks held in Warsaw at the end of May, the Poles stressed the need for British aerial assaults on Germany should war break out. The British responded with assurances that the Royal Air Force would attack industrial, civilian, and military targets.[10] General Sir Edmund Ironside then repeated this promise during an official visit to Warsaw in July.
Prazmowska, Britain, Poland and the Eastern Front, pp. 94-95.
What transpired is by now well known. The RAF did not even attempt to bomb German military installations because, as the Air Staff concluded on September 20: "Since the immutable aim of the Allies is the ultimate defeat of Germany, without which the fate of Poland is permanently sealed, it would obviously be militarily unsound and to the disadvantage of all, including Poland, to undertake at any given moment operations ... unlikely to achieve effective results, merely for the sake of maintaining a gesture." The Chiefs of Staff agreed, informing 10 Downing Street that "nothing we can do in the air in the Western Theatre would have any effect of relieving pressure on Poland."[20] And so the RAF decided instead to drop propaganda leaflets.
Prazmowska, Britain, Poland and the Eastern Front, pp. 183-184.
The opportunity to fight a brief, localized war against Germany was therefore lost in September 1939. In hindsight, also lost were the opportunities to save millions of lives, to rid the world of Hitler, and to have prevented the creation of conditions that led to the Cold War. As General Ironside commented in 1945, after much of Europe was in ruins, "Militarily we should have gone all out against the German the minute he invaded Poland. ... We did not ... And so we missed the strategical advantage of the Germans being engaged in the East. We thought completely defensively and of ourselves."
Cienciala, Poland and the Western Powers, p. 249.
Are you suggesting that the Brits did exactly (or even remotely) as obliged? Seems like a betrayal to me. And of course, if we're going to revert to the topic of 'the Western Powers', where was France's "within fifteen days" invasion that could have saved both countries, except that it never came? Unless you're saying that technically the treaty was upheld because it was physically impossible for Britain to aid Poland with anything more effective than propaganda leaflets?
Tell me, General, what effect our leaflet raids have had?
- Churchill, in response to lamentation about the Polish Armed Force's effectiveness in fighting the Germans.
Pan Kazimierz
8 Jul 2009
History / "GANGING UP" ON POLAND? [99]
I don't get it... you haven't provided two (?), and if you have, then only one is linked with the betrayal of the Ukrainians in Peace of Riga? That is the point of the exercise, right?
I don't get it... you haven't provided two (?), and if you have, then only one is linked with the betrayal of the Ukrainians in Peace of Riga? That is the point of the exercise, right?