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

Poland is on the crossroads pall if you have failed to noticed it so far

this is not a court case Seanus - it is about seeing and thinking about things

would you kindly release your views on homeopathy???

I can be a pain in the ass you see - an ulcer to more specific - fancy this???

Well, many of your countrymen claim to be Western. Not all legally trained people are lawyers. Some are academics :)

You saw the Pact being signed, did you? LOL ("about seeing").

Any proof? ;) ;)

sorry I meant reveal ;) - my English is not flawless as you of course must have noticed

still waiting for your reply :)

heheh I am being sadistic here :)

I wonder what kind of trap do you expect here :P

What does homeopathy have to do with the discussion? You are just employing decoy tactics and are ducking my request for proof.

Piłsudski was already entering into discussions with the Germans at the time of this alleged preventive war request.

the simple answer is no

but you are a disbeliever

please reveal your views on homeopathy - be that kind to me and our readers :)

you can however safely do it in the morning - cause I am right now going to sleep -

have a good night

Please keep" homeopathy" out of the discussion, it does not belong in this thread. Thank you.

Exactly, thanks Vincent :)

Gumishu, the negotiations for the Pact were already underway by October 1933, the time at which Piłsudski allegedly asked France to become part of a preventive war. He wanted to hide his weakness.

Care to expand on what "security" schemes were that? Or do you want me to do it? The French propositions were ridiculous and did not adress the situation at all.


Which is why they refused to mobilise even one squad of troops, becuase of their eye on the ball.


Where did i say there were negotiations, i said there was such an idea but in the face of the fact that France was unwilling to even mobilise troops it fell on its face.


Yep, if you knew anything about the period you'd know Poland was perceived as a seasonal state by more then Germany and Russia, and Russia made no secret of its eventual intent towards Poland, legimitacy and allies were a big thing for a country in such a situation.

Yes Poland could win easily (milion men against 400k, come on Sean), not a single brit or french would die but it still required international recognition by at least one major power, Poland was not in position to run around on its own.


Ah but Piłsudski was 100% correct. No one including Piłsudski expected that Germany will adopt modern warfare or annect Austria and Czechoslovakia.

Germany was the lesser of two threats and without those two countries and adopting British doctrines it could have been handled though by 1939 conquering Germany was no longer possible a defensive war without Czechoslovakia and Austria was conceivable.

Also in the long run Piłsudski was right, Russia did destroy a lot more then Germany by principle of their prolonged stay in Poland and installation of communist govt.

Sokrates

the guy doesn't seem to be willing to see things from different prospectives/points of view - he is happy with his acquired one and it's ok - just renders any debate senseless

There's a lot of people on these boards that are not open to discussion, Seanus aint one of them, while i agree that his take on the period is completely erronous middle fingering open minded people is not a good tactic, they're a rare and precious animal:)

he didn't show any open-mindedness in this debate of ours here - first he blatantly speaks horrendous rubbish which he couldn't admit - then he hides behind the backs of some Western historian - which he can't suspect of any hidden agenda - and I easily can - Westerners seem not be able to accept their 'authorities' of kinds can have hidden agendas (or at least biases)

Those security schemes were defensively motivated, Sok. Think of the Maginot Line. They also looked for other alliances as a sign of stability.

They didn't mobilise as it hasn't been proven that anyone asked them to mobilise so why should they have done?

Aha, so the Pact was signed devoid of negotiation, is that what you are telling me?

Perceived as a seasonal state? Look, countries have been breaking international law agreements for a long time now and you can't say that it is only a recent phenomenon. It was a feature of those times too. Piłsudski even effectively nullified the 1921 Franco-Polish agreement by signing the Pact with Germany. A pact which he knew would be destined to failure. You guys even mentioned this and it has been documented. Why didn't he try again and again to enter a preventive war?? Once isn't enough, even assuming that he asked. Think of the lives that could have been saved.

You are wrong again, Sokrates. Look for the communiques of one Sir John Simon, former Foreign Minister of the UK. He gave multiple warnings of what he reasonably suspected they were up to. Again, you are grossly disinformed.

Piłsudski died in 1935, why would he have predicted the fall of the Sudetenland in 1938? Think a little!

The fact is, by 1936, Germany was arguably strong enough with the correct execution of war strategies. Why do you need to discuss 1939 as the lapsing of the chance, it was missed long before and Piłsudski's snubbing of Germany further fuelled the flames. Hitler liked Piłsudski and proposed a partnership on a couple of occasions. Piłsudski rebuked him and this was dubious as it was known that he hated Russia more.

Gumishu, stop havering/blethering. Look at one of my posts above where I imply that I could easily be wrong. Proper historians often lock horns in battle and it isn't always clear who is right. I said that historians are just going on available information as they probably weren't there themselves. You guys are on home ground with Piłsudski, I can easily admit I am wrong as it was yourselves who were educated on him, not me. There's absolutely no shame in that. However, I am putting some posers to you and, rather than SHOW me to be wrong, you are just claiming that I am like a foot-stamping little schoolboy. I have shown ample instances of my 'knowledge' of that period and you haven't cogently refuted it.

You still haven't shown to the satisfaction of most that Piłsudski went to France. Not one link but a blanket assertion without solid foundation.

Thanks Sok :)

if you want to be treated seriously don't start casting judgements around (Piłusdzki was mythomaniac who though he can have a go with Germany and Russia at the same time) - then we can have a debate - don't start debates if you are not very well informed - and from various sources - I find myself excused for any lack of knowledge - I don't have very strong opinions on the issue - I am suspicious of many claims but I can consider most reasonable ones - I am no historian and don't have the need to study most historical subjects in depth - but I will go on to contradict any claims that contradict my knowledge if only to have to modifiy my views as a result (which has happened many times already)

we can have debates if you have questions also and not pass judgements - be ready to accept different ways of thinking judging some past decisions


and again - are you interested in truth or in winning a case? (debate) - this is no contest - why can't you consider it possible that there were some Polish offers to wage a 'preventive war' and try to fit it in some bigger picture - maybe it won't fit - but maybe your bigger picture is somehow skewed then - it is sometimes very refreshing to ask various non-typical questions - and the answers may also come quite surprising - we live to learn don't we?

It was designed as provocation, a tactic employed by many Polish people I have seen. What, not used to it? ;) ;) ;)

Where did I say "at the same time"? Show me that, please.

I'm informed enough to have a discussion. With many Poles, it's about winning rather than discussing and my moot training taught me that that wasn't the best way. Discussion has an imparting knowledge function and not merely an adversarial horn-locking function. You were rather strong in tone against Sokrates in that other shipyard discussion.

I have a question then. Where is your proof that a Polish delegation met with a French delegation to discuss a preventive war? Sth more than "a hint" please. Also, I wanted to discuss why Piłsudski didn't labour the point more. He was sounded out apparently but there is just too much hearsay.

Geez man, I can accept different ways as we are not dealing solely in fact here. Please don't get defensive, this is not a competition. You are a good poster and present your arguments well and I'm grateful that you reply often and try to discuss :) :)

Don't get me wrong, I entertain the possibility that there was such a meeting. I just wanted you to prove it, ale dobra, let's enter a hypothetical. Piłsudski did well in predicting the Phony War. He saw the calamity that lay in store for Poland and that's why I feel that he had to pull out all the stops to start a war. That was NOT a time for legitimacy discussions and the Americans, to their credit, would have been in like a shot.

He wanted to build federation included such nations as Ukrainians, Georgians and Armenians, as for Lithuania he didn't proposed fuse but Lithuania with Wilno as a capital and divided into three cantons with different languages.

It was better deal for Lithuania then anything else (he was Lithuanian himself), without independent Poland is very unlikely that independent Lithuania would existed.

Dmowski on the other hand wanted as much land as would be possible to assimilate various nationalities and ethnicity's.

I-S ( wide off mark )

Again, his romanticism flew in the face of political developments. Valdemaras may well have suspected the motives of Piłsudski who was eccentric and unpredictable at times through his moods. What specific time were you referring to, Ironside?

I can't remember the name of the treaty but I think it was the Suwałki Treaty that said that Wilno was to be part of Lithuania as Kowno was the capital then I think. The Lithuanians felt that Poland was trying to ruffle them through the Seimas.

Please let me know your interpretation of the Seimas as it seems to me to be analogous to Rugova claiming to be the PM of Kosovo, a country (part of Serbia?) which wasn't independent at the time.

I don't have any such definite knowledge - I just think it quite probable - as I don't have very specific knowledge I can't discuss motivations with any credibility - I can only suppose some points - as far as I know Maginot line was put into creation already in the 20's (1926) - I don't know how advanced the works were in 1932-3-4 - still I think it already had an impact on the French strategic and political thinking - wouldn't you agree

I think France may have acted had they seen the evidence of Simon and had Piłsudski been more insistent (assuming he started this process). Still, their stubborness might have got the better of them, forcing them to stick with their policy of appeasement.

No Sean you dont, generally in subjects of Eastern policies you dont think, hardcore logic for you.

If a country is unwilling to even mobilise it forces it will NOT go to war, it doesnt matter how much you push that Piłsudski should have asked, France was a defeatist country that did not want war, their refusal of mobilisation was direct proof of how worthless the alliance is which is why Piłsudski treated with Germany.

Knowing full well France wont go to war he simply tried to buy Poland some time.


French knew he was thinking about pre-emptive war, why do you think he sent such a set of questions, unless we asume French were severely retarded.


What romanticism?

You don't know that, Sokrates. It's all guesswork on your part. It was more about following appeasement rather than an outright rejection of war.

Sent what questions? Show me these questions, please.

The man was all about romanticism, Sok. Dmowski was a pragmatist.

No, his alleged going to France and snubbing of the Germans showed his cards, much like Tusk pandering to American concerns over the missile shield and angering the Russians. Now he looks stupid as he has nothing to show for it. Russia is not to be toyed with.

No its not, its all some otherwordly logic on your part. If a country asked to mobilise its forces blatantly refuses its clear that it wont mobilise AND go to war.

As for your French "defensive propositions" if i recall correctly they were about a limited technology transfer and some small military credits for purchases of French equipment, all in all they were pretty ridiculous and served no purpose.


Sorry they were both pragmatic, though Dmowski took it to an extreme.


What cards? He checked the opinions in France, found them to be extremely defeatist and that all.


Please Sean dont compare an incompetent theif with a guy who was exceptionally competent, you might not agree with him (though i dont understand your arguments completely) but he was nothing like Tursk and neither was the situation.


Russia in 1939 had a sh*tty army and its completely conceivable that Poland could hold through the winter, on Germany:

Poland could defeat Germany easily, you didnt know that i've englightened you, the disparity in manpower and equipment was untill 1935 huge, all it took was for France to mobilise in support and Poland would do the fighting alone, and win.

If Poland acted without French support it could be condemned by the league of nations, backstabbed by Russia or even ostracized, Western Europe was untill 1939 much more pro-German then pro Polish, there were attempts to appease Germany and bring them into the circle of the post WW1 order.

So no Piłsudski was not romantic, he did all he could do except for allying himself with Germany (which for obvious reasons was out) eventually realising France is not going to honor any deals he signed the peace treaty.

How do we know France would not honor any deals? Because it did not in 1939, what makes you think it would enter the even declare in 1935 when Poland would be an agressor when it wouldnt fight in 1939 even having some 200.000 underarmed German militas against them.

History has proven Piłsudski was right about every even the smallest point, his policies were the best that could have been done at the time, i dont really understand your completely ridiculous arguments, you sound a bit like Gumishu trying to prove a completely otherwordly point by force.

I wish poland had a choice to never let russians into thier country!

Just reading the newspaper today that claims that Russia carried out a simulated tactical invasion of Poland recently which included the use of field based nuclear weapons. Doesn't sound too neighbourly to me!

telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/poland/6480227/Russia-simulates-nuclear-attack-on-Poland.html

That's crass...if it were true! Is this true??? What are the polish papers writing about it???

According to the Telegraph article the story was carried by Wprost which it says is a Polish news magazine.

Okay...here is Wprost online...I can't polish...someone help us out here?
wprost.pl

as far as I know the field manouvers were carried out already a couple of weeks ago (on Belorussian soil close to Polish borders

dziennik.pl/swiat/article448264/Polska_atakuje_Rosja_i_Bial orus_sie_bronia.html

Its true, they carried out excersizes in Kaliningrad together with Belarus, including an invasion on the Polish coast, but as long as Russia has the military spending it does the only countries its invading are Georgia and other pocket states.

Well, that's a far cry from excercising nuclear attacks on a NATO member...

That is an absolutely NO GO and would be over all international papers by now not to mention diplomatical rows!

well the exercise was dubbed defensive - but as far as I can remember it included turning the situation around and going for the offensive

I haven't so far been able to find any mention the Russians simulated tactical nuking of Poland during the excercise