I'll answer tomorrow.
Sure thing. Catch you around.
But these times were like this...and what would had happened without it?
Poland would probably have remained sovereign and un-partioned?? Dunno?? What's the answer when someone says what would have happened if I didn't steal something from you? I'll take a real stab here and guess that the thing wouldn't be stolen...
Are you playing daft with purpose?
How can one who is daft be daft with purpose? Being daft presupposes that you have no purpose, doesn't it? Oh, I see, you're pretending to be daft with purpose by saying my daftness is purposeful, but your real purpose is to purposely pose a daft question when you know that a daft answer will prurposely be given. Understand?
By the way - nice way of avoiding my proposition that if Prussia thought it was going to be taken by a nation it should have pre-emptively taken them instead. It's daft to think that I would miss that or your other non responses. Are you pruposely being daft in not responding or is it the case that you have no legitimate answer and are again trying to smoke and mirror me?
I gather you are not a European?
The "Ozi" in my nick certainly doesn't suggest I'm Austrian.
Poland descended into anarchy precisely because they were involved in so many wars before...
Insightful. And here I thought we were talking about the partition and Prussia's role in it, but yet again, you choose to deflect with obtuse and irrelevant arguments. In any event, the involvement in so many wars was certainly not the precise cause of Poland's decline into anarchy. It may have precipitated and caused the underlying destabilising effect that propelled the political vacuum that ensued in anarchy, but it was not the principle cause.
Better read that link and some books:
Great response! When I'm next confronted with a tricky proposition that I don't agree with but can't argue against, I'll tell my adversary to go read a book. Can you tell me what book to read and precisely what I should be looking out for, because you are effectively saying that your response will be contained within the text of such book. As I can't read minds, you'll need to let me know what from the book backs up your position.
Bye
Ah, the joy of the internet forum. When you've got nothing relevant to say, say bye, log out and pretend it's all going to go away... no 'donning of helmet' this time eh? And here I thought you said you were going to defend Prussia in one of your old posts? I suppose you can't polish a turd though, can you...
But yes, annexing another people is bad...but at least they weren't expelled as the Germans were in the annexed german territories later.
So sorry - but it was a case of expel or be expelled. You know,
those were the times.
Actually, I'll qualify that and say that the expulsion of Germans was wrong purely because German children were adversely effected and probably suffered horribly as a result of the expulsion. To my mind, children, no matter what nationality, are sacred and sacrosanct, and any act that effects children adversely should be abhorred as an evil. I hope your nation has learned that poisoning your own children's minds and giving them guns to kill others, as it did in the past, is reprehensible - think carefully if you intend to reply with 'those were the times'.