Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / News  % width 132

Poland is the most friendly neighbor of Ukraine and Russia - Ukrainian poll ...


Ironside 51 | 11,337  
29 Oct 2009 /  #61
Oh, just like Poles celebrate the imperialistic Piłsudski who was also a dictator to boot!? Dmowski would have been more practical and pragmatic in such affairs.

Imperialistic?
Dmowski more pragmatic in what affairs?
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
29 Oct 2009 /  #62
He wanted to almost fuse Lithuania with Poland, Ironside. That's what I meant.

Dmowski was a man of science, with Biology being his speciality. He wanted to be a rationalist for the country, sb who wouldn't embrace flighty romanticism but sth more grounded and pragmatic. The basic affairs of the state were not to be governed by lofty ideals such as Piłsudski's undermining of Russia at any cost. Dmowski sought to inculcate this approach and I think he would have been more practical in his approach to Nazi Germany and the Stalinist Soviet Union.

Piłsudski stoked the fire, inflamming other nations and this, coupled with a major miscalculation of the strength of Nazism, sealed his fate and secured the downfall of the country. Still, an untimely death for a man of potential. A sincere RIP!
gumishu 12 | 6,007  
29 Oct 2009 /  #63
Piłsudski stoked the fire, inflamming other nations and this, coupled with a major miscalculation of the strength of Nazism, sealed his fate and secured the downfall of the country. Still, an untimely death for a man of potential. A sincere RIP!

sorry Seanus but you are talking plain rubbish - have you ever heard Piłsudzki suggested the French to wage a 'preventive war' against Germany just after NSDAP came to power - after the French declined Poland went on to sign an non-aggression pact with Hitler

Oh, just like Poles celebrate the imperialistic Piłsudski who was also a dictator to boot!?

- sorry what do you mean by imperialistic - I seriously doubt you have a good grasp of Polish history
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
29 Oct 2009 /  #64
A preventive war, LOL. A war preventing what, a further war? A war which they likely would have lost and started a broader conflict anyway. Think before you write, gumishu. I was talking about him naively thinking that the Germans were not a major force and believing that a few tanks, horses and old machinery would somehow be enough to stave off the threats and counterparry to victory. It was Piłsudzki himself who cried in 1933 when he had forebodings about the demise of Poland yet he still ruffled feathers in times of fervent nationalism.

It is you who are talking rubbish on this occasion. Test me then, Gumi. Maybe my Polish history is more objective and balanced than yours, right?
gumishu 12 | 6,007  
29 Oct 2009 /  #65
ronside, you apply dangerous logic. Why not give Silesia back to Germany? It was under German control for quite a while and I'd appreciate some more Germans here in the mix. I'm sick of dour old hags, give me some young German blood here.

if you don't like it here you can go to Germany - the standard English line against an Englishman - fair enough???

A preventive war, LOL. A war preventing what, a further war?

it is not if it was sensible - it was to show that Piłsudzki did not underestimate Hitler as you would wish to believe

in the military respect Germany was no match to Poland in 1934 (perhaps to your surprise) - not mentioning the united forces of France and Poland so perhaps it would be possible to cast the Nazi threat out - we don't know for sure there wasn't

btw there was pretty massive modernization programme of the Polish army in the process of implementation which was planned to complete in 1941 - and earlier in some parts of the military - but you don't know it

it's not that I claim that lack of knowledge about a subject is bad in itself - you don't need to know anything - but don't then judge such topics on your preassumptions (or should I use the word perceptions?)
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
29 Oct 2009 /  #66
No, I don't see why diversity and integration shouldn't come Poland's way. Poland is enjoying the fruits of the EU and had an exit clause in May 2004. Many Poles are much happier in the UK and Poles here are getting benefits from German sponsored packages in the form of EU funds.

Well, being so well read, I'm sure you know Aescherson. He presented the figures very clearly in his book 'The Struggles for Poland'. Poland's state of development was not a patch on that of the Nazi war machine. Pilsudzki didn't push for the modernization of conventional weaponry and that was a costly mistake. You are not more of an authority than Aescherson, are you?
gumishu 12 | 6,007  
29 Oct 2009 /  #67
and Poles here are getting benefits from German sponsored packages in the form of EU funds.

- are you absolutely sure Poland is not a netto payer to the EU - I wouldn't - so please don't judge on your preassumptions

well Piłsudzki must have underrated some weponries (he did not think highly of aviation role in the war, and had little trust in armor tactical and strategic value and of course it did influence Polish military spending - but the spending also was influenced by the world crisis)

still Poland was the first state to have the full metal pursuit/fighter planes introduced (1930 and on) - the thing Polish industry (especially engine making wasn't capable of producing enough in quantity and quality - yes Poland was lagging behind in many fields - but was surprisingly leading in some - tank periscope was a Polish invention first used in the 7TP tank)

by the way - you wish you see some young German blood here in Poland (well not seeing any influx in near future - unless you give them back the properties of their grandparents - but I would call it anything but justice) - then there is my wish - that you don't judge that easily
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
29 Oct 2009 /  #68
Not presumptions. On that point, I am sure. It's presumptions btw.
Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,161  
29 Oct 2009 /  #69
what about the rest?

Belarus 8%, Greece 7%, France 4%, Georgia 3%...
gumishu 12 | 6,007  
29 Oct 2009 /  #70
Not presumptions. On that point, I am sure. It's presumptions btw.

then give me your source - the knowlegde within counts only when I jugde your truthful :)
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
29 Oct 2009 /  #71
Gumishu, I think you are having inner arguments as you proved my point better than yours. Show me the documents as proof that the Nazis were in much better shape come 1939? Excluding leaks, that was FAR from common knowledge at that time. Pilsudzki didn't see Germany as a threat based on what evidence, an arrogant hunch? Wow, he was clearly not a fan of Sun-Tzu's 'The Art of War'. He was a man wrapped up in his own egomaniacal 'glory' and thought he could take on the Russians and the Germans.

I have a friend here who works as a Coordinator of EU funds. His name is Jacek K (sorry, can't reveal his full name for obvious reasons) and I had a long chat with him about it. I studied EU funds back in the day.
gumishu 12 | 6,007  
29 Oct 2009 /  #72
Seanus - sorry but any serious debate with you after reading such point is pointless :

He was a man wrapped up in his own egomaniacal 'glory' and thought he could take on the Russians and the Germans.

Educate yourself better.

I have a friend here who works as a Coordinator of EU funds. His name is Jacek K (sorry, can't reveal his full name for obvious reasons) and I had a long chat with him about it. I studied EU funds back in the day.

what obvious reasons - is his job top secret? - I think we live in a transparent country and society - or don't we?? - do you think he's gonna be abused because he works where he works???

I have a friend here who works as a Coordinator of EU funds. His name is Jacek K (sorry, can't reveal his full name for obvious reasons) and I had a long chat with him about it. I studied EU funds back in the day.

when was it - and how does it relate to the now huh?
Sokrates 8 | 3,346  
29 Oct 2009 /  #73
Pilsudzki didn't see Germany as a threat based on what evidence, an arrogant hunch?

Actually he did see Germany as a lesser threat then Russia.

He was a man wrapped up in his own egomaniacal 'glory' and thought he could take on the Russians and the Germans

Siedzimy na dwóch stołkach, zależy z którego spadniemy najpierw - J. Piłsudski.

We're sitting on two stools, it depends from which one we'll fall first.

Historical knowledge about Piłsudski is better gained from books then discussions by the beer Sean :)
gumishu 12 | 6,007  
29 Oct 2009 /  #74
Siedzimy na dwóch stołkach, zależy z którego spadniemy najpierw - J. Piłsudski.

„Mając te dwa pakty siedzimy na dwu stołkach – to nie może trwać długo. Musimy wiedzieć, z którego spadniemy najpierw i kiedy”.[5]

is the actual quote

for our not-so-Polish-fluent guests

Having those two pacts (non-aggression pacts with Nazi Germany and Russia) we sit on two stools. We need to know from which we fall first and when.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
29 Oct 2009 /  #75
[library.du.ac.in/dspace/bitstream/1/9/29/Ch28-Jozef%20Pilsudski.pdf] - another guy who agrees with me. Look at page 24 of 25, from 'He grasped.....enemy neighbours'.

The authors Hehn, Kershaw and Davidson felt that Piłsudzki was inept in giving Germany time to rearm and underplayed the post-Versailles sentiment.

Here, ^ Baliszewski, Dariusz (2004-11-28). "Ostatnia wojna marszałka" (in Polish). Wprost (Agencja Wydawniczo-Reklamowa "Wprost") (48/2004; 1148).

Even if Hitler attacked , it would also be defense - claimed Pilsudski in 1934 Pilsudski wanted war. No one ever said it out loud , but those who closely followed political events in 1932 and 1933, did not have the slightest doubt : threatened resurgent German militarism Poland itself sought to war. In the history of this mysterious chapter is called " Polish preventive war " and to this day no one was able to explain what was in it truth and what is merely a legend.

The above link by a POLISH source shows Piłsudski's approach to France as being unsubstantiated hearsay at best. Can you show me the proof that he asked France for help? The way I see it is that France played their hand at Locarno and went down the road of appeasement and Piłsudski would have known that.

It was Piłsudski who had very limited faith in those pacts so cut the crap. As I said, he broke down when the prospect that all his good work would go undone emerged.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346  
29 Oct 2009 /  #76
The authors Hehn, Kershaw and Davidson felt that Piłsudzki was inept in giving Germany time to rearm and underplayed the post-Versailles sentiment.

You mean the same Piłsudski who proposed a joint strike with France?

The above link by a POLISH source shows Piłsudski's approach to France as being unsubstantiated hearsay at best. Can you show me the proof that he asked France for help?

I never said he asked France, he and his supporters had the idea to ask France which is why the two questions were asked.

As for your other statement in 1933 Poland could have easily overrun Germany, alone and within several weeks, the difference in standing armies was staggering and only equalled in 1936.

It was Piłsudski who had very limited faith in those pacts so cut the crap. As I said, he broke down when the prospect that all his good work would go undone emerged.

Yep but you somehow claim he was a loon with unreasonable policies, his original intent was to attack Germany but he needed France, not so much for military help, Poland didnt need that at the time but for political legitimacy.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
29 Oct 2009 /  #77
Please read this article on the strategy of preventive war. The French and British miscalculated too. By 1936, it was too late. All major powers missed the chance but I see no mention of Piłsudski in this important paper.

allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5/0/8/0/pages250802/p250802-13.php, page 13 of 17
gumishu 12 | 6,007  
29 Oct 2009 /  #78
he authors Hehn, Kershaw and Davidson felt that Piłsudzki was inept in giving Germany time to rearm and underplayed the post-Versailles sentiment.

sorry - what do you actually mean - should Poland have waged a 'preventive war' against Germany ???

I don't get your point

The above link by a POLISH source shows Piłsudski's approach to France as being unsubstantiated hearsay at best. Can you show me the proof that he asked France for help?

if you carefully read the article you have given the link to there is a strong hint there there were such approaches - to call it hearsay is faulty

It was Piłsudski who had very limited faith in those pacts so cut the crap. As I said, he broke down when the prospect that all his good work would go undone emerged.

Seanus I'd say too much wine - and too eager to make gross judgements - I don't know if he broke down (maybe he did) but you claimed he was sure he could went against Germany and Russia alone
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
29 Oct 2009 /  #79
The point is clear, Gumi. Those authors felt that Piłsudski missed chances and let Germany rearm unabated.

There wasn't enough of a clear dialogue between Poland, France and Britain. That much was true. As for a preventive war, see the link above. Sir John Simon was ignored and he shouldn't have been. Given his position, that was a blunder by the Brits. Piłsudski also had a reasonable army in 1933 and could have scored some success.

Sokrates said he "proposed" this. You said "suggested the French", Gumi. Sorry, a strong hint is not an actual proposition or an actual suggestion in this case, is it?. It's a possibility, don't you agree?

It hasn't been traced in the archives. Sth like that would be easy to trace given its magnitude. Also, the French would likely have agreed as they were far more concerned than the British at the rapid pace of rearmament of the Nazis. The Brits naively placed too much trust in the ententes of the time.

Where did I mention the word 'alone'? Where did I say when he planned his attacks? He had plans on the table and he banked on one enemy taking out the other.
gumishu 12 | 6,007  
29 Oct 2009 /  #80
The point is clear, Gumi. Those authors felt that Piłsudski missed chances and let Germany rearm unabated.

use your own mind sometimes Seanus :)

You said "suggested the French", Gumi. Sorry, a strong hint is not an actual proposition or an actual suggestion in this case, is it?. It's a possibility, don't you agree?

please read the article in wprost carefully - the artilce takes the thing as a fact - encoded messages are mentioned - do you believe in homeopathy btw Seanus??? :):):)
Sokrates 8 | 3,346  
29 Oct 2009 /  #81
meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/5 /0/8/0/pages250802/p250802-13.php, page 13 of 17

Because Piłsudski didnt miss the chance, you missed the point. Poland could not attack alone for political reasons, yes in 1933-35 Poland would roll over Germany faster then you can say Blitzkrieg but without political legimitacy of an active ally like France it was open to Russian intervention.

There wasn't enough of a clear dialogue between Poland, France and Britain.

I'm sorry but yes there was, your link proves that Piłsudski before he'd go out with an offer checked if there's any ground for support in the West, there was not.

Piłsudski also had a reasonable army in 1933 and could have scored some success.

Again you're clueless, in 1933 Germany had ~160 tanks and armored cars (less them Poland) and in the event of a war could mobilise approximately 500.000 men against a milion strong Polish army.

The standing German army was 100.000 men, Polish standing army was 450.000 men.

All that was required was political support in the West, Poland at that time could do the fighting alone.

Also, the French would likely have agreed as they were far more concerned than the British at the rapid pace of rearmament of the Nazis. The Brits naively placed too much trust in the ententes of the time.

You're saying that French who blatantly refused to mobilise an army even as support would have agreed to mobilise it and declare war? This statement ranks among the stupidiest things you posted right next to calling Putin a decent man.
gumishu 12 | 6,007  
29 Oct 2009 /  #82
Seanus - just admit you were wrong and we just forget about the case and let you live peacefully (on whatever wine you please to indulge on) ;)
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
29 Oct 2009 /  #83
'Wszystkie odbywały się poza ministerstwami spraw zagranicznych i nikt nie potrafi dzisiaj przytoczyć ich treści'. You are basing your case on this? Again, it's unsubstantiated and unproven.

What bollocks! Prove that Poland could have overcome Germany in 1934. Show me some stats rather than false bravado, Sok.

Sok, again nonsense! Checked what exactly? The way I see it is that many communications were sent in Britain by Simon and his warnings went unheeded. There was a general consensus that rearmament was alarming but concerted action was not taken. There was too much reliance placed on Non-Aggression Pacts and that was costly. There WAS a lack of coordination on the point of a preventive war.

Again, pulling figures out of your jacksie doesn't impress me as they have no foundation. Again, proof please.

If indeed the discussions between the Polish marshalls and French generals took place, then the French would have entertained a solid proposition. However, they likely perceived the wishy-washy approach as not worthy of pursuing. They didn't feel the will and commitment to be enough.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346  
29 Oct 2009 /  #84
What bollocks! Prove that Poland could have overcome Germany in 1934. Show me some stats rather than false bravado, Sok.

What statistics? Wehrmacht 1933-39 Władysław Koczuk, or just wikipedia.

German army had 100 regulars in 1933, Polish army had 500.000 and the ability to arm further 500.000 against a total of 460.000 of German troops.

Citino Robert, The Path to Blitzkrieg:

In 1933 Germans had 0 tanks and 34 armored cars.

Poland had 130 tanks and 57 armored cars.

Corum James, The roots of Blitzkrieg

In 1935 German army rose to 230.000

Sok, again nonsense! Checked what exactly?

Readiness of France for any conflict, the French reply was "no".

There WAS a lack of coordination on the point of a preventive war.

There was no will to fight a preventive war by anyone but Poland.

would have entertained a solid proposition.

Despite them not being ready to even mobilise? Care to explain?:)
gumishu 12 | 6,007  
29 Oct 2009 /  #85
'Wszystkie odbywały się poza ministerstwami spraw zagranicznych i nikt nie potrafi dzisiaj przytoczyć ich treści'. You are basing your case on this? Again, it's unsubstantiated and unproven.

Seanus the question - do you believe/disbelieve homeopathy and based on what - is still valid? Will you know the difference then?
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
29 Oct 2009 /  #86
On the last point, yes, I do care to explain. The French proposed a number of collective security schemes in 1932 and 1933 but they fell on deaf ears. They had their eye on the ball and didn't like the insipid stance of others. The League of Nations dwindled and this was another factor which COULD NOT be overlooked. It was, after all, a post WWI creation which spelled out a number of important measures and it was left to fall by the wayside. For the French, the conditions had to be right but a lack of a clear plan deterred them.

Sok, there is still no official account of that meeting between the French and Poles in either of their respective archives. Tell me, when did the negotations for the German-Polish Non-Aggression Pact start? Let's see how much you know.

You are telling me that Poland didn't start a war for, what, fear of undermining political legitimacy? LOL That's as bad as the American excuse for not stopping terrorists based on invading liberty and then suddenly stumbling across the idea of Homeland Security and more fascistic developments.

Piłsudski wanted to see Hitler in power as long as possible (Hehn, 2005). Does this sound like a man who really wanted to use the 1921 Franco-Polish alliance to oust him? Come on man, think a little.
gumishu 12 | 6,007  
29 Oct 2009 /  #87
If indeed the discussions between the Polish marshalls and French generals took place, then the French would have entertained a solid proposition. However, they likely perceived the wishy-washy approach as not worthy of pursuing. They didn't feel the will and commitment to be enough.

well I don't want to judge French reasoning or stance behind this 'No' - one important thing the French were traumatized by the Great War and any kind of war wasn't to be popular - even in 1939 some French press insisted that they don't want to die because of Gdańsk/Danzig - and I believe it reflected the social moods quite good - and I don't judge that - but you claim that if there was some serious propositions from the Polish side of the preventive war the French military and political circles would go for it - so if there were any Polish proposals they weren't serious enough - the thing is it just doesn't fit into greater picture see - it is always better to see in broader perspective - perhaps even the French military were interested in such a war adventure but this would be very unpopular and so was probably dismissed by French politicians (well you actually have to remember that higher military echelons are also politicians of some sorts - or at least they were in some previous decades ages)

Piłsudski wanted to see Hitler in power as long as possible (Hehn, 2005). Does this sound like a man who really wanted to use the 1921 Franco-Polish alliance to oust him? Come on man, think a little.

I can't see you can think for yourself - it also takes some knowlegde though - and you see things as static methinks - and they weren't there as they never are

btw - does the author make any effort to back up the claim and further explain the issue (even if based on some limited knowledge) ? or just goes with you as an authority on the topic :P :):):)

btw Seanus are you avoiding an answer to the question about homeopathy - of course your answer will be meaningful :)
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
29 Oct 2009 /  #88
Gumishu, what NO? Show me the proof that that meeting took place. When discussing history, it is axiomatic that the discussing parties accept certain things as given. This I cannot accept as given in the absence of proof.

'Cancer and arteriosclerosis can lead to depressive illnesses, reduced energy and motivation, all of which can seriously affect decision-making, particularly in making leaders more inclined to the status quo, indecisive, less open-minded and readier to let the situation drift. These characteristics were all apparent in many of the elderly leaders of Europe between the two World Wars, particularly Prime Minister Ramsay Macdonald in Britain, the Polish President Marshal Pilsudski'

From: qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/96/5/325. Drifting, that sounds about right.

Come on, Sok, when did those negotiations for the Pact start?

Gumi, I take a link from an author (Hehn in this case), then I draw on my awareness of the 1921 Pact and make a perfectly valid point. I questioned his motive. If my perspicacious point hurt you, I'm sorry ;) ;)

Homeopathy? No sidetracking please. My Mum is the person to ask, not me.

Unlike you, I don't pretend to be an independent-thinking historian. Historians have widely differing accounts on history and I'm aware that I'm just going on available info as, guess what? I wasn't there ;) ;)
gumishu 12 | 6,007  
29 Oct 2009 /  #89
Gumishu, what NO? Show me the proof that that meeting took place. When discussing history, it is axiomatic that the discussing parties accept certain things as given. This I cannot accept as given in the absence of proof.

yes you are a disbeliever - the English sorry Scottish Saint Thomas - before becoming the saint
;)

gumishu

Drifting, that sounds about right.

the dispute with you starts very much to resemble the dispute with Bratwurst Boy :)
is this a western thing - do you really love to see things out of context and out of proportion

- you just state there was no 'preventive war' offers from the Polish side toward the French side unless proven otherwise ;)

oh Lord Almighty - this just proves you are prejudiced. period - how do you like that pretty logic of mine :)?
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
29 Oct 2009 /  #90
Udowodnij mi to, proszę (sorry Mods, he doesn't seem to understand proof or prove so I asked in Polish).

Just one link of definitive proof :)

I'm not gonna take the bait and get into petty squabbles. I'm legally trained so back up your averments, please. That's all I'm asking.

Poland is not Western?

Seanus (could mention identity crisis but won't go there ;) ;))

Archives - 2005-2009 / News / Poland is the most friendly neighbor of Ukraine and Russia - Ukrainian poll ...Archived