Poland's biggest historical blunder?

Norman Davies most certainly is not 'my' anything, and remember why he was denied tenure as a professor of history? And by the way, how deep into Poland were the German army after 14 days?

As for his comments, perhaps he can explain how Britain was supposed to attack Germany with "70 ready to fight French divisions"? Yet again Davies ignores the facts and tells Polish readers what they want to hear.


I'm not from a nation which ethnically cleansed land: you, however, are.


Yes, it is the same one which the international court in the Hague adjudicated Poland to have broken. Other treaties Poland broken include the 1918 interim agreement with Czechoslovakia (broken twice), the 1920 treaty of Warsaw (after which Poland sold her allies to the USSR) and the Czechoslovak-Polish Treaty on 24 April 1925 (which Poland broke by leading the joint Polish-Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia).

Poland's biggest historical blunder?

That must be that the Poles did not take advantage of the Deluge like they should have done. With great losses they actually won the war so they should have just continued the war and fu*ked every nation that went against them.

They should have annexed Prussia and they should have never signed the Eternal Peace Treaty of 1686 with Russia.

in 1921(?)-about 15% were Polish, 20 years later one third less, according to Versal treaty the postal system, railway and military were Polish but it was boicoted as much as possible by the German administration. I understand why You see it as multicultural, however I cant agree seeing how overwhelming Germans were there, it is just not my definition of multicultural place


so how You determine the boarders?isnt it by history and self determination?in that case Lwów and Wilno should be Polish


minorities were threated long before 19 century, if for example the city rebelled-minorities were punished much more severely,and I was not pointing out whose fault it was, simply stating the facts.



and the privileges were given by who????
I wil check the taxes as I am quite sure they were paying taxes to the crown, the privilege of raisinig their own taxces does not exclude paying to the crown, it just gives them more freedom, but I will come back to You on that

Gdańsk was defended by Polish army many times, this simple information You can find even on wikipedia, again having its own army does not exclude it

No mister your argument is wrong because case of Gdansk is not about the Middle Ages. It is about the fact that Gdansk was an important royal city in the long history of Kingdom of Poland well into the XVIII century.

The city regardless of enticing was forcibly incorporated into Prussia,, and you cannot pass over partitions with dismissing notion of yours, because partitions of Poland are the key and basis on which you can discuss history of Poles and Poland from XIX century onwards. Ignoring that would make attempt at disusing said subject into mockery and somebody who would try to do discus the subject seriously regardless into a twat.

And Poles never ever edit Wikipedia so it tells lies dear to their hearts, do they!

WTF you prattling on about you wierd fish? 1920? My Ancestors? WTF? My ancestors in 1920 had just got out of 4 years of fighting in WW1,you know,that real war that happened a couple of years before those forgoton eastern skirmishes.....

Not sure just where you think I come from hunny bunny,but in 1920 WTF did irish or scottish people have to do with whatever the hell you are talking about?

edit,just read a few of your posts.....LMFAO,they read like some fooking PRAVDA lecture...dont worry about facts or anything,oh no,just make dam sure you paint Poland as the biggest fooking cry baby "me me me" moany wimpy ungreatfull bunch of lily livered ingrate whingers who bang on about mutual comitment and then sit on their arses while we cowardly westerners still do all the fighting.......so,get fcuked you silly cow,when I see Polish planes over libya or the death toll of Poles in afgan nearing 500 then maybe we can talk again.....

By asking the people, how it was done in Upper Silesia and Masuria when Poland was re-established.


And I simply answered to your remark that multicultural Danzig ceased to exist when Prussia took over the town. Which isn't even true, since Prussia was also a multicultural state.


Doesn't matter in this case, since the city could have decided to allow only Germans to settle in the town. So, the decision to be multicutural wasn't a Polish but a civic feat.


The royal city is another PR stunt blown way out of proportion. The Polish king was "allowed" to stay in the city for three days a year. How royal is that?

And again: the legal basis for territorial claims in our times is the self-determination of the people. Not Polish people in Krakow or Warsaw could have decided over the fate of Gdansk/Danzig but only the inhabitants of the city itself. But interestingly they weren't asked when Poland was re-established after WW1, whereas in all other disputed regions plebiscites took place.

Palivec, you are right in most of cases, and I was wrong thinking there were lot of Poles in pre-war Gdańsk (why should we build Gdynia otherwise?). Thank you for the correction.

Poland hold off till 28th of September


You are ommiting everything I wrote chose some words out of context, this is Your reply?
so You are saying that Davies lies when he says that Britain didnt fire a single bullet?
Ironside undertook to bomb German cities the way the Wechrmacht would bomb Polish one, Britain dodnt do even that

he doesnt write what Poles want to hear, if You read his books You would know that they are often very critical, I myself disagree with him often, but I dont dismiss the facts


can You just for once answer the question?stop changing the subject whenever You dont have the answer. Now I of course have to ask You where and when was the ethnic cleansing done by Poles?and the next argument starts, it is a pity we cant talk like adults


5 November 1918 Polan and Czechoslovakia agreed to the borders of Śląsk Cieszyński in accordance with the ethnicity of the land, hovewer Czechoslovakia using the chaos ruling in Poland because of Pol-Ukr war and Wielkopolskie uprising invaded Polish part of Śląsk Cieszyński on 26 January 1919. 16 thousand army attacked 3 thousand Polish one. During the conflict they have murdered about 20 Polish POW. They managed to take over most of the Polis part od Śląsk Cieszyńskithen Poland regained then they had it again. Between 28-30 of January indecisive battle took place. The pressure of the Entente caused armistice. Czechooslovakia wanted to incorporate the whole Śląsk Cieszyński, after the much pressure of Western countries they agreed to negotitions. On 3rd of February the agreemnet was signed defining temporary border(Czech side gained south-western part of county of Cieszynand Frysztat).However Czechoslovakia didnt want to honour the agreement, and didnt withdrown the army(few times attacking Poland-the last battle -21-24 of February)until more pressure from the West on 25 February. On 3rd of February 1919 Czechoslovakia agreed to plebiscite, however during summer and Tuchaczeswkis offensive on Warsaw, Benes using the situation in Poland on the conference inSpa pushed the idea to drop the plebiscite (remember?the nation self determination-supposedly so important for You)almost all the land at issue was given to Czechoslovakia. Polish goverment agreed with the decision provided Czechoslovakia would let the transports of weapom for Polish Army through its territory. Despite the declarations Czechoslovakia didnt fulifill the agreement. Then in 1938 Poland took what belonged to Poalnd


oh pleaaaasseeeeee!!!!Harry

in 1920 Britain also was supposed to help Pl....
I dont care about Your impression about my post, and I dont understand the refernce to Libya, stop with the personal comments as they are even more silly on the public forum when You dont know me personally


agreed,


Poland allowed it to happen, what more do You want?


hmm, again not my definition of multiculturalism

Even Davies wouldn't be stupid enough to say that. And if he did, I can point out numerous sources that would show him to be a liar.


Apart, of course, from the fact that British people were fighting and dying in September 1939 in a war which had been declared because Germany refused to remove her forces from Poland.


And on 6 November 1918, Polish forces invade what they the previous day agreed to be Czechoslovakia.


No, Poland prepared to exercise sovereign rule over the territory in violation of the interim agreement. Czechoslovakia asked them not to, Poland ignored the request. Czechoslovakia told them not to or to face the consequences: Poland chose the consequences. Keep lying all you want: the facts remain the same.


How many Jews did the Polish army murder from 1919? At least 35 in a single city.


No Poland took what it had agreed was part of Czechoslovakia. And Poland kept it for just a year. Then the rule of 'you get what you give' took effect.


Check the article about the Pole who was found guilty by a British court of taking part in the holocaust.


Says who? You claim a treaty did? Poland ignored treaties every time it was to their advantage: you get what you give.

WTF are you about ? As if killing natives all over the globe is somehow essential or emasculating in the orders of things. Gee,, ihu2 you must have taken to drinking early, of late.


That is the ultimate prove of your ignorance!


That was everywhere in the Commonwealth, each royal town or city had a slightly different agreement with Crown, nevertheless Royal was as close to a present meaning of state as it can be, not Royal towns were privet onces.

That is the ultimate prove of amount of freedom and tolerance in Poland of old and you twist it and judge it all in the light of a set of rules in a totalitarian modern state.

In the Kingdom of Poland written communication was often than not done in the language of minority (to use modern term), which is seen nowadays as a peak of civilization.That is the measure of multiculturalism not so called multiculturalism of Prussia where it only meant that minorities lived there, not that Prussia was particularly tolerant.