Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / News  % width 49

Polish myths. Poland is one of the countries that count in the world.

eric_the_nave - | 30  
27 Jul 2007 /  #31
During the last ten years while living abroad in Australia I have seldom heard the word Poland mentioned in the local mass media. On the other hand watching the Polish news broadcast by the state owned Australian channel catering to immigrants, I have been flooded with the constant flood of Poland's achievements on the international and, to a lesser extent the local, arena.

As an Australian I can assure you that in the early 1980’s during Solidarnosc (forgive spelling) Poland was headline news every night. And of course again in 1989.

However, in Australia we live near the Solomon Islands (recent civil war), East Timor (likewise – and only recently independent from Indonesia), Fiji (recent military coup) – broadly an unstable region. Europe as a whole is now fairly stable which is a good thing but it does tend to make the news from there comparatively dull. So it is not just Poland not getting into the news it is most of Europe. (Germany and France are in the news a lot because of their opposition to the Iraq war)

On the flip side how often does Australia get mentioned in Poland????

not to name the guy who named/found Kosciuszko mountain in Australia. for me as a pole that name might not be known as there few other more famous living in Poland but for the guy from Australia it is a shame...

The guys name was Paul Edmund de Strzelecki (probably not originally Paul but the Polish equivalent). Great explorer and Polish Patriot - not necessarily a great speller - the mountain was called Mt Kosciusko (pronounced Koz - zee -osk - ko - not much like Tadeusz...). That error was not noted for manym many years.
truhlei 10 | 332  
27 Jul 2007 /  #32
On the flip side how often does Australia get mentioned in Poland????

As in Russia Australia isn't mentioned often in mass media. Poland more frequently but also it is not among the first more mentioned states.

In my opinion not frequently mentioning in mas media is the asset of a Nation.
Mass media usually write about states that have troubles. If the life is stabilized TV and papers loose any interest. You should be happy mass media in the world doesn't pay attention to your country!
Tran Anh 2 | 72  
31 Jul 2007 /  #33
East Europe doesn't give any benefit to Russia. These are quite subdevelopped countries. The only reason why Russia is anxious about them is their possible transit blackmail.

The generations of 45 years and younger in Russia aren't interested in territories away from today Russian borders. They know the main challenges and the main prospects are within today Russian territory. Russia as superpower doesn't attract the majority of population because it is not profitable and takes Russian away from solving its own problems.

For example Russia received a wide oportunity to ignore its EU neighbours from East Europe by the pretext they are not independent enough and problems with them can be solved on level of EU. Thete are many examples of the sort.
As to EU collisions, they are also a reality the exists despite Russia. These collisions won't desappear by the reason that there are very different countries within EU and collisions are possible. Russia uses both collisions and united nature.

Truhlei, summerizing from all of your posts I have read in this forum (not only those above quotes), are you happy if I deem you as a 'Practical Autocratist' (Putinist)? If you represent the opinion of majority of Russians (possibly), then obviously Russia itself has progressed a lot. Though I feel that as the Poles are so ardently individualistic, all your writings may never be convincing enough!

z_darius 14 | 3,968  
18 Oct 2007 /  #34

Sometimes words people write say nothing about the object of these words, but a lot about the author. Your post isn't really about Poland. I think, however, it reveals a lot about your limited knowledge of the subject.
askibinski - | 5  
10 Nov 2007 /  #35
In my opinion, if Poland would be a person, I would say it would be a very uncertain person who doesn't have a strong believe in it's own potential. I think recent emigrations are a prove of that.
osiol 55 | 3,922  
10 Nov 2007 /  #36
windscreen wiper - a Polish invention

I thought it was a british invention - designed by a Geordie for use on boats.
The hinged windscreen wiper, I thought, was invented by an American woman.
Someone enlighten me.
z_darius 14 | 3,968  
10 Nov 2007 /  #37
Someone enlighten me.

Polish part of the invention was the rubbery thingie on the wipers.
12 Apr 2008 /  #38
Poland Will become one of the top superpowers in the next 15 years.
MareGaea 29 | 2,752  
12 Apr 2008 /  #39
Germany (a country that started/lost II World Wars

I don't want to be nagging or something, but the First World War was not started by Germany, but by Austria-Hungary and actually all the European participants except Belgium and Luxembourg were to blame for it's coming to be.

Austria-Hungary: simply wanted to show their muscles in revenge against small Serbia where it did not have any muscles.
Bulgaria: simply wanted revenge for the lost Second Balkans War and felt betrayed by it's fellow Slavic countries
France: had been stirring up things in Europe ever since the lost Napoleontic wars and European politics (Metternich and the Concert of Europe) were aimed at preventing France from ever developing Napoleontic dreams again. Furthermore they sought revenge for the lost Franco-Prussian war.

Germany: had the bad luck to be suddenly in 1871 the biggest and strongest country in Western and Central Europe. This made them naturally look suspicious in the eyes of the British (although they were mainly concerned about their naval presence). It also had the bad luck that Kaiser William 2 came to power in 1888. It's attitude towards Austria's politics was ambivalent: at first it encouraged Austria and, after seeing the Serb answer to the ultimatum of 25 July 1914 declared that there was no reason for war.

Great Britain: Could have made its intentions clear in the early days of the July-crisis, but didn't. Didn't care about Belgium, it was only the idea of Belgian harbours (and of course as the Dutch were pro-German in those days) the Dutch ports in German hands right before their nose. In fact, Britain could have stopped all of it if King George would have pressurized William 2 to stop Austria. But he did not. Also, British-German relations were easing up considerably in the early months of 1914.

Italy: played along for Southern Tyrolia. The Italian decision not to adhere to previous promises of joining Austria and Germany, but instead to join the allies was solely taken by one man, it's prime minister. In the Alps the Italians have never been able to win from the Austrians.

Russia: perhaps the biggest perpetrator. Seeking more influence to the West and a change to take revenge on Austria for the 1878 war. Nicolas could have stopped Russian involvement, but he was too weak to stop his generals and he was generally not liked by his ppl. It was the Russian mobilisation that set things in motion for WW1, what would have been normally a local Balkans-conflict.

Serbia: had been festering the atmosphere in Europe for over a decade at the time, all in search of their dream: the Pan-Slavic state. Politician had few sympathies for the Serbs, they were called King-killers as they killed their own king and the crown prince of Austria. While it had been messing around with its Slavic neighbours for a few years at the time, it now was messing with the wrong guy.

I leave Turkey out of this as the war against the Ottoman Empire has the mess we have in the Middle East nowadays as a consequense. Also, I leave Poland out of this as Poland at the time was not a country de facto: split by three other countries, it was not on the map at the time.

southern 75 | 7,095  
12 Apr 2008 /  #40
Germany started WW1 on purpose when its leaders decided that the moment was the best to hit.They had been preparing for this war for more than a decade.However they lost the war because of the mistake to overestimate the russian danger and send there more divisions than needed with the result of weakening the western front and abandoning crucial operations the Schliffen plan ordered.That is they changed the original Schliffen plan with devastating consequences.
Bratwurst Boy 13 | 11,870  
12 Apr 2008 /  #41
Germany started WW1 on purpose when its leaders decided that the moment was the best to hit.They had been preparing for this war for more than a decade

Why are you so keen on blaming the Germans only Southern?
Which sources do you have?
Maybe you should brush up your is a good link:

One Thing Led to Another

I would point the finger rather at Serbia which started this massacre!

First world war - causes
southern 75 | 7,095  
12 Apr 2008 /  #42
Which sources do you have?

Almost all historians outside Germany and even some german ones agree.
Anyway I take into account the research of Liddel Hurt who was a military historian and very objective.
The Germans had their plan to attack(plan Schliffen) ready from 1904 and worked it to the slightest detail.They had counted that the french army would require 40 days at least to complete its mobilization,during which the german army would have advanced to very advantageous positions.The russian army would need more than 2 months to complete mobilization due to more primitive transportation means,worse roads etc.

So what happened?The French been heavily pressed during the first two weeks by Germans begged the Tsar to start his attack on Pommern before his army was ready.The Tsar agreed to sacrifice thousands of his soldiers and two russian armies entered Prussia causing great damages to german infrastructure.The german marshall Pridvitc did not count that the Russians would attack before their full mobilization and after one not decisive battle he decided to withdraw his forces behind Wistula river ready to withdraw even behind Oder.

When he announced his objective to retreat so far to Kaiser,the Kaiser immediately requested his retirement and replaced him with Hindenburg sending divisions from western front to the East by train.Hindenburg later won the battle of Tannenberg and smashed the one russian army,however the chance to defeat France was lost for Germans cause the removal of these divisions striped them of the extra force needed to penetrate the western front.The Germans simply lacked the power for that.
Bratwurst Boy 13 | 11,870  
12 Apr 2008 /  #43
Almost all historians outside Germany and even some german ones agree.

Please cite some...

Your post has nothing to do with the causes for this war and that Germany planned WWI for a decade is plain a lie! And of course you can't bring any sources for that.

(And no, building up a navy is not a declaration of war)

(Because this view point to only fault Germany was already out of date shortly after the war)

(8) Captain E. N. Bennett, speech at a Union of Democratic Control (11th November, 1920)

The fundamental falsehood on which the Versailles Treaty is built is the theory that Germany was solely and entirely responsible for the war. No fair-minded student of the war and its causes can accept this contention; but the propaganda story of Germany's sole guilt has been preached so persistently from pulpit, Press and Parliament that the bulk of our people have come to regard it as an axiomatic truth which justifies the provisions of the most brutal and unjust Treaty in the world's history.

In short and easy words:

Germany unified in 1871 building a powerful country upsetting the centuries old "balance" between Great Britain and France about who should run the continent.

Germany unused to her muscles and plagued with an idiot of a Kaiser wants also something of what the british Empire and the french Empire already had....getting annoyed by the old bullies rejection of the new kid on the block.

Tensions arose...alliances were build....Europe becomes a powder keg which is lit by a Serb as he assassinated the Archduke.

Austria-Hungary boils and goes to war with Serbia...Serbs run to Russia...Russia mobilizes...Germany is alllied with Austria and declares war and mobilizes and invades Belgium on the way to Paris seeing that as the only way to actually have a fighting chance between GB/France on one side and Russia on the other side...

The rest is history!
isthatu2 4 | 2,702  
14 Apr 2008 /  #44
However they lost the war because of the mistake to overestimate the russian danger

except they had a full year to sort that out after the vast majority of the russian forces simply upped and went home. No,they "lost" the war because of,and I hate to admit this,they realised that the US build up and potential was just far to great.
Bratwurst Boy 13 | 11,870  
14 Apr 2008 /  #45
The US should have let the europeans squabble alone...maybe without their meddling there wouldn't had been a Treaty of Versailles, no Hitler and no WWII...
Matyjasz 2 | 1,544  
15 Apr 2008 /  #46
What's wrong with the Treaty of Versailles? ;P
Bratwurst Boy 13 | 11,870  
15 Apr 2008 /  #47
Someone got very angry and decided to do something about that....his names starts with an A.
Making beneficiaries pay dearly for it...

Matyjasz 2 | 1,544  
15 Apr 2008 /  #48
The most important thing is that this angry man and his "few" supporters were eventually content with the outcome of their actions, right? :)
Bratwurst Boy 13 | 11,870  
15 Apr 2008 /  #49
They were??? That's news to me...

Archives - 2005-2009 / News / Polish myths. Poland is one of the countries that count in the world.Archived