The most spectacular errors in Polish politics.

The treaty of Versailles makes no mention of the Curazon line. Please stop lying.


I note that you have no comment to make on any of the facts which Lynne Olson lies about and which you lie 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.

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?

I look forward greatly to your attempts to answer any or all of the above questions and/or to deal with your lies about the London Victory parade.

Dream on. Without WW1 the official first language of the Polish people would be either German or Russian.

Not necceserily, Poland would become an influential minority in all paritioning countries, restitution of Poland was only a matter of time WW1 or not, you cant wipe a large nation off the map permanently without extensive genocide, especially not an old one like Poland where with history comes national integrity.

If oppression would have been unbearable before WW1, I would agree, but that wasn't the case. I believe that without WW1 the Poles simply would have continued to arrange themselves with the system and would have stayed "good" German, Russian or Austro-Hungarian citizens while keeping their Polish culture.

Which it was not since Polish culture thrived even in Prussia.


I hate romanticizing but there's no way around it, you would need to read some actuall books to realise just how absolutely uncompromising Polish patriotism was in times of crisis, of course some chose the easy path but ultimately assimilation would not happen, Poles did not let go for even an inch for 130 years, what makes you think they would magically change their position in 5 or 50 or 500 years?

If a nation holds on to an ideal for over a century despite such enormous odds its clear enough its not going to let go, ever.


Read up on the subject, some Poles chose to stay "good" and still work for Poland, by and large there was no acceptance towards occupation and no signs it would ever change.


However what happened was that Poland stayed "good" for 40 something years and the moment the opportunity came to kick the occupying forces out there was a nationwide rise to do it, history showed that Poland did not and would not give up so WW1 or not the first European conflict or crisis would see Poles take back whats theirs anyway.

Saying that we'd assimilate when we stayed strong for 130 years and never gave a sign of wearing down is pretty arrogant.

Why would that be arrogant? It happened to others countless times in the past, and it will happen again in the future. What makes you think that Polish people are completely

different than everybody else in this respect?

Because history proves otherwise which means you either dont know the history of the paritions or know it but ignore it.

130 years - 5 uprisings and constant resistance.


However Poland proved itself to be unique in this particular aspect.


History.

Show me a country that faced such odds for 130 years and then took back its independence without much support, a country that wouldnt grow weary during a century of occupation?

Yeah none, except Poland.

In a pill, during 130 years Poles fought 5 uprisings, 2 of which were regular wars which gave the occupants a run for their money, they established a continous underground thriving education system and kept their culture alive and thriving.

Some of the best Polish writers and poets come from the partition era writing about? Independence.

Then Poland goes peacefull for 40 years only to rise in arms the second an occasion comes which proves no one assimilated, no one gave up, everyone was waiting and the entire nation took a chance the moment it came.

In light of this it didnt matter whether the chance came after 130 or if it would come after 300, if our history under partitions doesnt prove we're absolutely unbendable regardless of time or odds i dont know what does.

This sounds as if each and every Pole waited for the revolution since the last partition happened. Very patriotic point of view, but isn't that more like wishful thinking combined with political propaganda (no pun intended)? Isn't it much more probable that the vast majority of ethnic Poles just wanted to live in peace - no matter who was ruling them? Villeins most likely didn't care whether their master was Polish, Prussian or Russian. Out of curiosity: do you have any reliable sources which show that the majority of ethnic Poles (instead of a minority of Polish intellectuals) supported the resistance/uprisings you've mentioned?


Portugal

!!???

Seems I have to check Portugals history. When were they occupied?!

Mr Grunwald

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Portugal#1580_crisis.2C_Iberian_Union_and_decline_of_the_Empire

The names Israel and Ireland, along with Korea, spring immediately to mind but obviously Poland is completely unique when it comes to reforming a country....

Interessting!
Still it was some 90 years of occupation.
I have allways wondered what was the thing between Spain and Portugal. Spain is alot bigger... Could easily take it over. Seems that it once did and didn't want to do it again!

All alone and everything hmm
Still only 1 occupant when thinking of Poland :=)
Think of Portugal beeing occupied by France, Spain and England!! That would be something to get independence from! Woah

Of course not each and every but a crushing majority.


Its not, if it is please point out which bit is innacurate, the point is that Polish romantic patriotism during the partitions era is absolutely unpararelled in terms of scale and intensity.


Completely different situation, not only was Portugal fully occupied for only 60 years as opposed to Polands 100+ but it was a dynastic issue, no one tried to wipe Portugals culture and national identity off the map, Poland at the same time was occupied by three superpowers two of which were interested in eradicating Polish herigate, i dont really see any comparison whatsover, in scale or scope.


Bullsh*t again i'm not sure whether you're completely ignorant of our history or just show bad will, the majority of Poles wanted to live independent in a sovereign Poland and were ready to go to war without blinking an eye, how about you read up on how many volunteers did the Polish army get in 1920 or how in 1830 there was no gold and silver in Warsaw because peace loving Poles melted down family heritage to fund the army.


en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesian_Uprisings

several Polish leaders were arrested during a general strike of about 140,000 mine workers.

Thats your inteligentsia? 140k polish miners.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War_in_1920

The Polish forces grew from approximately 100,000 in 1918 to over 500,000 in early 1920. In 20 August, 1920, Polish army had reached the strength of 737,767, so there was rough numerical parity between the Polish army and the Soviet forces acting against it.

There wasno draft at least half a milion of those are volunteers.

You are right in that initial uprisings were backed primarily by nobility only but 1830 one had a significant city backing and the silesian uprisings, the de-arming of occupying forces and the war of 1920 were supported by the entire nation.

In fact it shows something counter to your claims, if anything Poles got more determined as time passed rather than settling in.

You may call it what you like but Poland taking back its independence post WW1 shows integrity unseen in history worldwide, no other country managed such a feat against such odds, ever.

No need to get personal. I'm just questioning your point that a vast majority of ethnic Poles were desperately waiting for their independence since 1772.


I would say that you were granted independence by Britain, France and the USA in the Treaty of Versailles.

hmm... i don't agree with any except the part that pl should never trust the reds.

Why is that?
That Poland took Zaolzie in 1938 wasn't a political blunder?
Poland should never trust reds 100% sure
So you support Kosovo?

Oh come on. You're a grown up guy, are you? Be glad that I didn't make a sarcastic remark your way. Would've been much worse :)

M-G (grmbl)

Yeah? well, I grand your independence buster !
From now on you should be grateful !

(Iron-Side) (think that you are an idiot if you mean it!)
anyway he wonder if MG noticed copy-cat

Absolutely agree, the phenomenon saw itself increase from just nobles and some citizens in 1772 to the entire nation in the 1919.


I thought you didnt know history, now i can see you just have a bone to pick with Poland.

Poles disarmed Germans without any help, then proceeded to kick Ukrainians untill they stopped moving and then proceeded to beat Soviet Russia all by their merry selves, Britain, France and USA could do nothing but acknowledge Polish independence since Poles just beat the living crap out of everyone who wanted to take it.

We were granted nothing, we took everything ourselves and i'm lost how can you say that France, UK or US did anything for our independence, they just acknowledged the state of affairs as is since they had no real choice.

Wasn't that the part that EVERYBODY in the government had the right of veto, in practice making Poland unrulable and is the direct cause of the Polish partitions?

Polish political errors:

I think the remarks of the Polish president (or prime minister, one of the twins) about Germany on a very recent EU summit. That annoyed virtually everybody and did the Polish cause not much good. Also his remarks about gays did not help.

M-G (nearly weekend)

Yes, that was the gist of it. The "liberum veto" combined with legally accepted foreign influences could not have worked well for Poland.

"Everybody" was limited to nobility though. The so called "democracy" at the time was pretty progressive at the time, but still very far from what we understand it to be today.

Poland did not loose its independence in 1772. It was the year of the first partition after which the country still existed on an area of approx. 500.000 sq. m., which was roughly of the size of today's France. Principal reforms to the country's political system had been introduced after that date, reforms which in fact led to the Russian military intervention as Catherine II did want of Poland a vasal state, not a sovereign one. Generations deperately waited for an independence afterwards and gave their share of blood for it (with villages of Polish descendants still existing to this day in Siberia as a result of thousands of insurgents sent there by the Tsarist regime). We indeed lost our independence in 1792 as a result of a lost war with Russia, after which the 3rd of May Constitution and most of the reforms were eradicated. Formally, however, the independence was lost in January 1795.

It is true, however, that the Piłsudski military movement for independence didn't get much attention from the ethnic Polish population at first before and after 1914. There are numerous reports saying that the Polish people were shutting window covers when Józef Piłsudski's legions marched through towns of the Kingdom of Congress (such as Kielce, if I remember well). There are also numerous reports that it was the Russian army which the Polish population of the then Congress Kingdom called "our army", instead of assigning this patriotic name to the Piłsudski legions! The mood had changed later on, of course, but it should be stressed that the independence (definitely fought for by Poland owing to the most favorable external circumstances, and not at all granted by the treaty of Versailes) was so unexpected for the Polish people that the saying reflecting this suddeness: Ni z tego, ni z owego, a tu Polska na pierwszego, was very popular in the first months which followed the event.

yes.

Sokrates do not talk to TheOther or Harry about Polish people as they are not Polish they will never understand what is to be Polish they have excuses and false propaganda.

I pointed some books to Harry to read his response was the authors are lairs so what the point trying educate someone.
They will never understand what this mean on Polish battle flag " Bog ,Honor , Ojczyzna "
" God , Honor , HomeLand "

Actually I called them liars. They are lying about the invitations sent to Polish airmen to take part in the London Victory parade. Don't just take my word for it, read the memoires of General Anders or The Times newspaper from June 1946.

Theoretically yes, practically no, if you were some low class, medium noble no one would give a crap about your veto, only influential people would be heard.

Veto in itself was a problem but the larger one was that the kings were elected from weaker less wealthy families and didnt have a large backing (Sobieski p*ssed on veto on the regular basis but he was the last king with such a backing and even he lost the civil war meant to establish regular monarchy in Poland).

@Marek.

I dont even read Harry or Sjam anymore, there's a chance that The Other is not a sock account of one of them though and that he genuinely is ignorant of our history.


Mainly because they suspected him to a be a German proxy.

Remind me once more what you claim to be true !

" apology from Tony Blair regarding the British Government's failure to invite the Polish armed forces to the 1946 Victory Parade (covered in the FT on 5th September 2003: "UK finally makes amends for Poland's 60 years of hurt"). "

Not at all.

IMHO, Piłsudski was extremely important for Poland's independence, but without Wilson's 14 point speech and the subsequent Treaty of Versailles, he wouldn't have stood a chance against the German military. Maybe Poland would have gained independence after all, but not in the borders of the Second Republic. That's why I said that Poland was "granted" independence.


You're right. Sorry about the mix-up.


So only Polish people are entitled to have an opinion about Poland and its history?

I understand that Polish politicians and the Polish society have an interest in seeing their country's history in a certain light, but that doesn't mean that the rest of the world automatically shares this particular view.

see you do not understand Polish people


the same add as Poles had against Russia in 1920 war