Return PolishForums LIVE
  PolishForums Archive :
Archives - 2005-2009 / News  % width 264

The most spectacular errors in Polish politics.


Seanus 15 | 19,706  
1 Sep 2009 /  #31
Poland could have understood what was happening there before taking a position. Many governments didn't recognise Kosovo, not through extensive knowledge of the issue but largely because they didn't understand enough about it.

As ever, tactical voting takes place to snub or complicate. Why did Poland contest Silesia so vigorously? Pawian is right to say that Poland didn't really take it too seriously. Poland is still insular and is yet to really open up fully and take an interest in things which it perhaps could.
southern 75 | 7,096  
1 Sep 2009 /  #32
If you recognize Kosovo so easily you send message to the West,here we are come and fek us.Their concern was mostly about slavic countries attitude and Poland complied quite easily.

But if you rejected recognition they would fear an approach to Russia and in this way you would have a bargaining tool.
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
1 Sep 2009 /  #33
What we must also remember is that recognising Kosovo as an independent state is not recognising it as Albanian. The Albanians think it is theirs and at least Poland didn't support that line. It's more complicated than that.
Polonius3 1,000 | 12,446  
2 Sep 2009 /  #34
Balkanisation is a curse to be avoided at all costs. Mini-states, ethnic enclaves and such like are the stuff of future conflicts. Having Serbian and Croatian enclaves in Bosnia is nonsensical: These should merge with Serbia and Croatia, leacing the Bosnians to fend for themselves. The same holds true for Moldova which should rejoin Romania and finally put an end to the Ribbentrop-Molotov fiasco. And since Kosovio is now mainly Albanian, it should not be an independent state nor part of Serbia but join Albania to form a contiguous national space. Regardless of what happened 500 or 1,000 years ago. That is why not attmepting to reactivate the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth nor give the 13 American coloneis back to the British are prudent solutions that have worked in practice.
Crow 152 | 9,768  
2 Sep 2009 /  #35
If you recognize Kosovo so easily you send message to the West,here we are come and fek us.Their concern was mostly about slavic countries attitude and Poland complied quite easily.

actualy, what was amazing to me is that little Slovenia (2 mil. Slavs) gave greater resistance to Kosovo recognition then Poland (some 40 mil. Slavs). Poland easely obeyed to pressures from so called west. But later, after recognition occured, public (people and inteligentsia) in Poland giving bigger and bigger support to Serbs, while Slovenians don`t even comment. In Polish diplomatic circles, complete thing arround Kosovo recognition turned into real scandal. Its President openly against PM, even during sesion of UN security council. Unbelivible. It only confirming that Polish inteligentsia understand importance of Serbia for vital Polish interests on the long run.

Slovakia gaved and giving great resistance to Kosovo recognition, example for all other Slavs. Czech society (people and inteligentsia) also greately support Serbs but, Czech politics absolutely failed.
Harry  
2 Sep 2009 /  #36
I know Harry you are the apologist for 1939 betrayal by Polish allies and other betrayal so called allies

I do love hearing Poles whining about betrayal by allies. The traditional two questions (which no Pole ever answers) are:
1) In what way did Britain betray Poland? Kindly quote the relevent parts of the relevent treaty.
2) If Poland was betrayed by her allies, given the way that Poland had treated her Ukranian allies some 18 years previously, did she deserve any better?

so as Pole I am answer so you can stop saying that no Pole answer this. I would like England and France to upheld their commitment to Poland and attack Germany from the west and cross German west border.

I care little for your thoughts of what the French should have done. You show nothing but your ignorance by saying that France should have attacked Germany (France did attack Germany). Please specify the army units with which the British could have broken through the Siegfried line. Name the units which could have been sent to France and used to reinforce the British attack within the two weeks available until Poland was finished. Explain how the British army should have launched an attack on Germany from the soil belonging to nations which did not want such attack to take place.

There's no need to tell us what nationality you are: your knowledge of basic history is so bad that you can only be Polish.
Polonius3 1,000 | 12,446  
2 Sep 2009 /  #37
Kosovo is not a matter of Slav v non-Slav or Christian v Moslem. Keeping it as a part of Serbia would make it a festering wound that sooner or later would erupt. As a tiny independent state it is not a very viable entity. That is why absorption by Albania seems the only logical alternative.

In the context of Hitler's Drang nach Osten, Polish occupation of two Czech distrcits may look like complicity in that country's dismantling, but the Poles were only righting a Versailles wrong. That predominantly ethnic Polish area (Zaolzie) was mistakenly granted to Czechsolovakia. Even it present, there is a large Polish presence in the Ostrava area. Poland was only taking back what rightly belogned to her and was largely populated by ethnic Poles. Kosovo is not largely populated by ethnic Serbians.
Harry  
2 Sep 2009 /  #38
the Poles were only righting a Versailles wrong. That predominantly ethnic Polish area (Zaolzie) was mistakenly granted to Czechsolovakia.

Don't talk rubbish: the conference of Versailles did not grant that land to Poland, mistakenly or otherwise.

Poland was only taking back what rightly belogned to her

If it rightfully belonged to Poland, why did Poland give it away in 1925?
Marek11111 9 | 816  
2 Sep 2009 /  #39
Harry go read this books then come back and tell us why you are bashing Poles, as we know the England always ware more sympathetic to Germans then Poles.

The Versailes treaty was not favorable to Poland (that ware the freeking Curzon line come from)
the book are:
A Question of Honor: The Kosciuszko Squadron: Forgotten Heroes of World War II
( in this book you will find if Polish Soldiers who ware really invited to victory parade and why prime minister Blare apologias )
No Greater Ally: The Untold Story of Poland's Forces in World War II
( you will find how France attacked German western border and stopped )
Polonius3 1,000 | 12,446  
2 Sep 2009 /  #40
All Versailles decision were not ethnographcially correct. After WW2 Stalin gave Zaolzie to Czechoslovakia undoutbedly to make it a source of Polish-Czech conflict. The old divida et impera tactic.

pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zaolzie
Crow 152 | 9,768  
2 Sep 2009 /  #41
Kosovo is not largely populated by ethnic Serbians.

its miserable statement but i would forgive you for you aren`t familiar with facts. You got some idiotic infos from BBC and CNN.... Better ask where goes money that you pay in taxes for NATO. It goes for islamization and germanization

are you aware that after NATO arrived more then 500.000 Albanians arrived on Kosovo from Albania (!) and about 500.000 Serbs left the area. Not to mention mujaheedines from Arabic countriues that were populated in Bosnia and on Kosovo-Metohija. Now, its obvious why is Kosovo predominantly Albanian and Muslim today.

absorption by Albania seems the only logical alternative

actualy, that is plan. Its called Greater Albania
Sasha 2 | 1,083  
3 Sep 2009 /  #42
1. Polish annexation of Zaolzie 1938, the tiny part of the pre-war Czechoslovakia.
Kinda Polish cooperation with Hitler.

Good point.

Or Russians at all.

I took offense... ;(((

3. Polish support for Kosovo irredenta (separatism).
Excuse us, Serbian friends - be forgiving.

After all Boria you're inly a kind man. :) Only pretend to be Russophobic :P
Harry  
3 Sep 2009 /  #43
as we know the England always ware more sympathetic to Germans then Poles.

Yes, that is why England spent ten of the last 95 years fighting German and zero years fighting Poland.

The Versailes treaty was not favorable to Poland (that ware the freeking Curzon line come from)

The treaty of Versailles contains sweet feck all about the Curzon line. Do try and learn a little about history.

the book are:
A Question of Honor: The Kosciuszko Squadron: Forgotten Heroes of World War II
( in this book you will find if Polish Soldiers who ware really invited to victory parade and why prime minister Blare apologias )

Why would I want to read such a pathetically bad book? The facts are that Polish servicemen were invited to the London victory parade in exactly the same way as all other non-commonwealth allies. Poland didn't bother sending any representatives. Free Polish forces were also invited but refused to attend because they thought that not enough of them had been invited. Tony Blair made no apology whatsoever connected with the London Victory parade.

No Greater Ally: The Untold Story of Poland's Forces in World War II
( you will find how France attacked German western border and stopped )

I have very very little interest in French military history.

I note that, as is traditional for Poles, you have completely avoided all my questions. Here they are again:
1) In what way did Britain betray Poland? Kindly quote the relevent parts of the relevent treaty.
2) If Poland was betrayed by her allies, given the way that Poland had treated her Ukranian allies some 18 years previously, did she deserve any better?

3) With which army units could the British have broken through the Siegfried line?
4) Which British army units could have been sent to France and used to reinforce the British attack within the two weeks available until Poland was finished?

5) How could the British army have launched an attack on Germany from the soil belonging to nations which did not want such attack to take place?
vetala - | 382  
3 Sep 2009 /  #44
1) In what way did Britain betray Poland? Kindly quote the relevent parts of the relevent treaty.

Unfortunately my post seems to have been deleted, or maybe lost, but I'd advise you to carefully watch commercials of Ally Bank (fitting name!), particularly "Pony", "Truck" and "Hide". 'Even kids know that... you don't f*cking treat your allies this way'

2) If Poland was betrayed by her allies, given the way that Poland had treated her Ukranian allies some 18 years previously, did she deserve any better?

Ah, in that case I suppose German occupation of France was absolutely fair and so would be the occupation of Britain since both of these countries have history of colonialism.

4) Which British army units could have been sent to France and used to reinforce the British attack within the two weeks available until Poland was finished?

On September 1st GB had no idea that Poland would fall (NOT in two weeks, the last Polish forces capitulated on 6 October (see: Battle of Kock))

3) With which army units could the British have broken through the Siegfried line?

5) How could the British army have launched an attack on Germany from the soil belonging to nations which did not want such attack to take place?

Britain was the one to give us a guarantee, they should have been smarter than to promise us something which they knew was impossible. Had Britain said that they have no means to help us, we would look for more reliable allies.
Harry  
3 Sep 2009 /  #45
'Even kids know that... you don't f*cking treat your allies this way'

So you mean you can not quote any part of the treaty which was broken by the British. Good to know that.

Ah, in that case I suppose German occupation of France was absolutely fair and so would be the occupation of Britain since both of these countries have history of colonialism.

I certainly wouldn't have been complaining about either of those events. What goes around has a habit of coming around.

On September 1st GB had no idea that Poland would fall (NOT in two weeks, the last Polish forces capitulated on 6 October (see: Battle of Kock))

Thanks for that, I was in Kock last month doing some research so I know all about it.

Britain was the one to give us a guarantee, they should have been smarter than to promise us something which they knew was impossible. Had Britain said that they have no means to help us, we would look for more reliable allies.

Perhaps the Polish should have actually read the fecking treaty? Britain promised nothing impossible. Britain promised somethings and Britain stuck to that promise.
Mr Grunwald 33 | 2,173  
3 Sep 2009 /  #46
1. Letting the communists live or atleast not jail them/punish (1989)

2. Making a republic of 3 nations, Ruthinians&Lithuanians and Poles (Although not nobility (cause it was kinda that) but whole people)

3. Not having an large enough professional army in 17 hundreds

4. Recognize Kosovo

5. Seek closer alliance with germany (today) then looking to USA (LIKE AMAGAD! READ THE NEWS!)

6. Not buying oil/gas from somewhere else then Russia (Although now since Putin was so kind to accept somehow soem soviet crimes we never know what the future will hold)

If Russia will be more pro Polish in some parts of politics... Maybe Poland will leave NATO?
southern 75 | 7,096  
3 Sep 2009 /  #47
. Letting the communists live or atleast not jail them/punish (1989)

Jaruzelski in prison?I don't think so.
Marek11111 9 | 816  
3 Sep 2009 /  #48
Harry you are right do not educate yourself by reading books just stay ignorant and spin hate and lies and apologies for everything by blaming Poland.
Harry  
3 Sep 2009 /  #49
Harry you are right do not educate yourself by reading books

What's the point in reading a book by a liar? I note that you have no comment to make on any of the facts which Lynne Olson lies about, i.e. that Polish servicemen were invited to the London victory parade in exactly the same way as all other non-commonwealth allies. That Poland didn't bother sending any representatives. That Free Polish forces were also invited but refused to attend because they thought that not enough of them had been invited. And that Tony Blair made no apology whatsoever connected with the London Victory parade.

just stay ignorant and spin hate and lies and apologies for everything by blaming Poland.

The poster demonstrating his ignorance is you and you are also the one lying here.

I also note that, as is traditional for Poles, you have completely avoided all my questions. Here they are again:
1) In what way did Britain betray Poland? Kindly quote the relevent parts of the relevent treaty.
2) If Poland was betrayed by her allies, given the way that Poland had treated her Ukranian allies some 18 years previously, did she deserve any better?

3) With which army units could the British have broken through the Siegfried line?
4) Which British army units could have been sent to France and used to reinforce the British attack within the two weeks available until Poland was finished?

5) How could the British army have launched an attack on Germany from the soil belonging to nations which did not want such attack to take place?
TheOther 6 | 3,692  
3 Sep 2009 /  #50
The Versailes treaty was not favorable to Poland

Are you kidding? No Treaty of Versailles, no Poland...
Harry  
3 Sep 2009 /  #51
Please try not to confuse the poor boy, he finds history a challenging subject at the best of times!
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
3 Sep 2009 /  #52
That happens all the time, vetala. International law, at that time, was full of broken promises. They were all building up and should have witnessed trends better.
Harry  
3 Sep 2009 /  #53
International law may well have been. But the Anglo-Polish treaty of August 1939 was not broken by Britain!
Seanus 15 | 19,706  
3 Sep 2009 /  #54
Only according to a very strict canon of interpretation, perhaps, but it was by no means blatant. Nothing like flagrant violations going around at that time.
Harry  
3 Sep 2009 /  #55
Only according to a very strict canon of interpretation, perhaps, but it was by no means blatant.

Rubbish! The treaty was stuck to by the British, both in spirit and to the letter!
southern 75 | 7,096  
3 Sep 2009 /  #56
But the Anglo-Polish treaty of August 1939 was not broken by Britain!

Maybe the Munich treaty was broken?
Harry  
3 Sep 2009 /  #57
What does that have to do with the relationship between Poland and Britain?
southern 75 | 7,096  
3 Sep 2009 /  #58
By Munich treaty it was supposed that GB sacrificed Czechoslovakia to gain sovereignity guarantee of Poland by Nazis.
Harry  
3 Sep 2009 /  #59
Let's say, for the sake of argument, that you are right: how did Britain break the Munich agreement? And why should Poland (a country which you might remember took part in the 1938 invasion of Czechoslovakia, just as she did with the 1968 invasion of that same country) be annoyed even if the British did break the Munich agreement?
Marek11111 9 | 816  
3 Sep 2009 /  #60
The Versailes treaty was not favorable to Poland it gave Germans Polish land that had majority occupied by Poles the east border was suppose to be curson line that in history of Poland the line never existed.

As to Poland getting it's independence was created by Józef Piłsudski, Poles and Polish legions.
Harry did I hit your button the liar here is you.

Archives - 2005-2009 / News / The most spectacular errors in Polish politics.Archived