PolishForums LIVE  /  Archives [3]    
   
Posts by Sokrates  

Joined: 19 Jan 2009 / Male ♂
Last Post: 1 Oct 2011
Threads: Total: 8 / In This Archive: 1
Posts: Total: 3335 / In This Archive: 1313
From: Poland
Speaks Polish?: Yes
Interests: Many and varied.

Displayed posts: 1314 / page 4 of 44
sort: Latest first   Oldest first   |
Sokrates   
21 Jun 2011
History / Controversial Chapters: Polish-German history texbook [8]

Too early, Germans still feel Poles are inferior and Poles still find Germans a bunch of Nazis, it'll take another 50 years for such a book to come out.

Germans and France are able to now, with Germany and Poland it will take awhile longer.

Aye but Paris is still standing no? The rift is too deep, it'll take at least two centuries to heal completely.
Sokrates   
21 Jun 2011
History / Why does the idea of a "Slavic Union" with Poland seem so popular on this site? [96]

They shouldn't be too afraid of having something Dutch in them. (Might make them a bit taller too!)

Poles were never afraid of mixing :)

What are you referring to exactly? The R1a haplogroup in general is not carried by 44% of the Polish population.

R1A1 group is just a single group mentioned in Wiki, for example the central european Slavs (Czechs, Slovaks and Poles) make up a group R1a1a1, Poles after undergouing the mutation L260 aquired a group R1a1a1g2 which is visible also in the Czechs and is believed to be natively Polish.

Essentially Slavs have the same basic grouping which becomes divergent but similar through a series of mutations, it doent take an R1a combination to be a Slav, all it takes is the same root identified in all Slavic peoples, the root itself contains several different but similar, neighbouring genes.

In layman terms, there's a group of genes that underwent specific mutations, together they create a cluster of genes specific to a certain genetic group, Slavs have them and they prove the common genetic ancestry - ie there was a small specific group of peoples genetically outfitted in a similar manner who went on to become Slavs.
Sokrates   
21 Jun 2011
History / Why does the idea of a "Slavic Union" with Poland seem so popular on this site? [96]

Nope, they carry a different yet common combination, the only real divergence is with Serbs and Macedonians who mixed with an indigenous Balkan population over 1500 years ago to a point where their genetics were altered and they're the only truly divergent genetic cluster, otherwise Slavs are the tightest knit genetic ethnic group.
Sokrates   
21 Jun 2011
History / Why does the idea of a "Slavic Union" with Poland seem so popular on this site? [96]

What percentage of Poles do date back to those times?

Genetically, i imagine some 95-99% WW2 took care of that.

I didn't know that definition of Slav was set in stone officially.

The Slavic people are an ethnic and linguistic branch of Indo-European peoples, living mainly in Eastern Europe and Central Europe.

Anthropologists do not state that two people with R1a must be part of the same ethnic group.

If the combination appears in the correct recurring order, yes they do.

See how many things you learned tonight?:))))
Sokrates   
21 Jun 2011
History / Why does the idea of a "Slavic Union" with Poland seem so popular on this site? [96]

Clearly, English isn't your first language, otherwise you'd know that "most" means "not all".

Yes all, thats why all of them have the specific common genes straight from the article you posted :)))))

Piece of advice Dolphin, read the stuff you post it helps avoid humiliation when a nosy bugger like me who actually does read what he's given catches you on a massive blooper like that :)))
Sokrates   
21 Jun 2011
History / Why does the idea of a "Slavic Union" with Poland seem so popular on this site? [96]

If a Pole doesn't date back to the early Slavic tribes, that doesn't mean he/she is not Slavic.

All ethnic Slavs date back to the early Slavic tribes, thats what makes them Slavs, if a Pole doesnt date back to the early Slavic tribes via his geenes he's not a Slav.

Not necessarily. Also, according to modern science, we all have a common ancestry in Africa. :-)

Yes neccesarily thats how genetic mapping works in antropology, thats also how we suppose we came from Africa.
Sokrates   
21 Jun 2011
History / Why does the idea of a "Slavic Union" with Poland seem so popular on this site? [96]

I just quoted the article you posted:

According to the authors most Slavic populations have similar Y chromosome pools - R1a. They speculate that this similarity can be traced to an origin in the middle Dnieper basin of Ukraine during the Late Glacial Maximum 15 kya.[29]

You can't argue with genes, the common ancestry is proven and the fact that you dont like it doesnt change the fact that you were idiot enough to post something that disproves your opinion:))))
Sokrates   
21 Jun 2011
History / Why does the idea of a "Slavic Union" with Poland seem so popular on this site? [96]

The article you posted actually proves that quoting: According to eastern homeland theory, prior to becoming known to the Roman world, Slavic speaking tribes were part of the many multi-ethnic confederacies of Eurasia - such as the Sarmatian, Hun and Gothic empires

All Slavs share a common heritage.

According to the authors most Slavic populations have similar Y chromosome pools - R1a. They speculate that this similarity can be traced to an origin in the middle Dnieper basin of Ukraine during the Late Glacial Maximum 15 kya.[29]

Another quote.

Stop humiliating yourself posting articles that prove my point:)

They're shared as much as Anglo-Dutch affinities are.

Quite a bit more i'm afraid :) Linguistic similarities, cuisine, music, there's much much more in common between say Poles, Slovaks and Russians then between French, British and Dutch.
Sokrates   
21 Jun 2011
History / Why does the idea of a "Slavic Union" with Poland seem so popular on this site? [96]

Nope, not all.

So which Slavs are the ones who according to you do not share the common "lingoethnic" ancestry?

You really do know absolutely nothing about Poland if you think that there's any support for "common ancestry" among Slavs.

Common ancestry is not supported because its not a theory, its a scientific and antropologic fact and as such it is acknowledged.

If you meant there's no support for Panslavism, you're correct there's none but Panslavism says all Slavs should unite based on their ethnicity, that there is a common ethnic background to Slavs is a fact, the issue is what to do with it, majority of Poles think - nothing.

As for "shared cultural affinities" - again, that's an American viewpoint. Those of us actually living here can tell the differences between Polish and other Slavic culture.

Which does not change the fact that there are shared cultural affinities between all Slavis peoples.
Sokrates   
20 Jun 2011
News / Lithuanian ambassador 'Poles not loyal citizens' [63]

But they are not Poles. If you are living in a country for 2 or 5 centuries

They speak polish, they have polish culture and are ethnically polish so yes they're Poles.

Let's say I am a Ukrainian through my parents born in Chili.

No such thing as Ukrainian, there's Poles, Russians and monkeys inhabiting Ukraine, you're either a Pole a Russian or a monkey :))
Sokrates   
20 Jun 2011
News / Lithuanian ambassador 'Poles not loyal citizens' [63]

Maybe they don't wanna be Lithuanians.

What does Lithuania have to offer? Rich culture and tradition perhaps?

What did I say on the other thread about Poles in Lithuania? They're mad that Poles have been living there in large numbers for 2 centuries

For 5 centuries.
Sokrates   
16 Jun 2011
Po polsku / Parafia Św. Józefa w Słupsku otrzymała relikwie Jana Pawła II [6]

Heheheh nie poważnie, jestem chrześcijaninem i katolikiem głównie dlatego że mnie ochrzczono, wierze w Boga ale pomysł że czyiś kciuk jest błogosławiony tudzież że decyzją KK zostaje się świętym to dla mnie abstrakcja.
Sokrates   
15 Jun 2011
History / The Greatest King of Poland? [117]

You don't get to rule till down to the Balkans in the wake of this battle if you are destroyed...

Yes you do, Austria had one main hub and it was Vienna, no Vienna meant literally no Austria.

When Poles fighted the Ottomans alone they weren't as successful....allies were needed!

Given that Poles were the only country to stop the Ottomans alone yes they were succesfull, see Battle of Khotyn.
Sokrates   
15 Jun 2011
History / The Greatest King of Poland? [117]

It's similiar to the bragging about the Battle of Britain...yes Poland played an important part innit but they wouldn't had stand a chance if there weren't the Brits

Oh please not German chauvinism again, Battle of Britain is different from Battle of Vienna in that in BoB Poles caused something like 13% of casualities whine under Vienna it was more than 90% small difference no?

The same with the Battle of Vienna, it was a war mainly between the Habsburgs and the Ottomans.

No its not, the Habsburgs were beaten, their capital besieged more than half their army destroyed.

Without the alliance with the Germans and others and not to forget the long, brave resistance of the Viennese people, holding out in the brutal siege, where would the proud polish troops be.

Bear that in mind!

Well? They'd still be under Vienna, still charging downhill and winning? You did make the case in point that Vienna held out for a long time but my point is that on the fields before it there were Poles and Turks and Germans were just a sideshow.

The brutal truth of the time was that outside of Poland no one really knew how to fight Turks, they had a string of victories and a powerfull army with an exotic and effective way of doing things, the only equally effective force in Europe were the Poles and it showed on the fields before Vienna.

If it makes you feel better both Poland and Turkey would be overshadowed in the next 30 years but at Vienna its Poles vs Turks and everyone else is cannon fodder.
Sokrates   
15 Jun 2011
History / The Greatest King of Poland? [117]

The treaty moreover defined that Austria had to pay 500.000 Reichthaler to Poland and take over all Polish debts from the war against Sweden...

See? Not only are you an ignorant but also a liar, there was nothing about the debts, the sum or the amount of forces involved, the exact wording was "all available forces" which is focking vague.

Oh, did they count the Turks killed by Poles separately? You know, since the combined cavalry attacked the Turks and not the Poles alone.

The charge was not combined, the only place where it was combined is wikipedia, Germans got stuck on countercharging Sipahi units that numebered some 6000 men, Poles broke through and did all the fighting.

So yeah its safe to assume that out of these 15.000 casualities more than 90% were caused by Poles, its a historical fact that the success was achieved by polish cavalry while german elements were completely ineffective, especially infantry which not only failed to dent the turkish units but suffered appalling losses itself.

The German troops you mention were mostly light infantry, the heavy cavalry of 20.000 troops you mentioned comprised of both Polish and troops of the HRE, and the Turks collapsed after both flanks attacked.

I'd be worried about your dislike of Poland if not for the fact that you're an ignorant dumbass, 20.000 charging troops consisted of 8000 heavy cavalry and 7000 light cav such as Woloskie banners for a grand total of 15.000 Poles and 5000 German and Austrian Cuirrassiers and Reitars who got bogged down for the remainder of the battle.

The German troops as such consisted of pikemen, musketeers and a few companies of roundshielders, they got a bloody nose from the Turks and did not participate in the main charge nor in the pursuit.

So yes the battle was fought and won by Poles, they could probably do it without the german support since in reality it was nil and even after Poles broke into the camp the german reiters could not disingage the Sipahi, it took the support of petyhorskie banners (again Poles) to salvage that situation as well.

So back to square one, yes Poles won under Vienna, no it could not be done without them, yes they could win if they were there alone since they did most of the fighting anyway.
Sokrates   
15 Jun 2011
History / The Greatest King of Poland? [117]

Tartars and Turks knew, and feared, and fled from.

Thats not really true, the Turkish army at the time was among the best and outside Poland no one could shoulder it, before the general flight of the turkish army the polish charges were met by turkish cavalry repeatedly, only when the Turks ran out of cavalry and got their front infantry lines broken did they flee.

Ingratitude? Poland and Austria signed a treaty. Poland provided military support, Austria paid for it. They were even. It's as simple as that... at least outside of Poland. And Poland didn't save Austria, since the Polish military contingent was the smaller one in a coalition army.

No they were not even an no the treaty did not oblige Poland to go in full force, Poland could for example send a 1000 infantry and thats it, the point is Poland saved the existence of Austria and Austria took part in destruction of Poland less than a hundred years later.
Sokrates   
15 Jun 2011
History / The Greatest King of Poland? [117]

He's correct though, its only the presence of polish forces that won the day.

The German forces fought without effect for hours, the Poles took about 45 minutes to break the back of the army, Poles not only did most of the fighting but all of the winning.

You mean in a battle against 100.000 Turks 20.000 Poles won the battle?

No, against Turks approximately 8000 Poles won the battle since thats how much heavy cavalry was there, in the space of under half an hour in 3 charges they killed and wounded over 15.000 men, scattered the turkish centre, killed almost all HQ officers, destroyed the camp and artillery.

Germans at the time were busy fighting small detachments of Sipahi and completely unable to do anything but cling on for dear life.
Sokrates   
15 Jun 2011
History / The Greatest King of Poland? [117]

He was a king who was working for good of his kingdom as he understood it.

Rubbish, he was a king who did not think about the good of his kingdom at all, by your logic i become king and murder half my nation because thats how i understand the good of it?

He wasn't keen on the last ditch defense or some other romantic hero

The 1792 war was not a last ditch defence neither was Poland losing dramatically and thats what makes his treason all the more disgusting.

the worst you can say that he had no balls but traitors - please do not repeat Hugo K propaganda!

Did he leave his own side and join Russia? Yes he did thats treason.

He was trying to salvage war which was going badly for Polish forces - he miscalculated, but that was his choice!

He was trying to salvage the war by capitulating and joining the other side? You're ******* with me Iron right?
Sokrates   
15 Jun 2011
History / The Greatest King of Poland? [117]

Kołłątaj supported his decision to join Targowica but its the king who had the final say and he f*cked us ll up royally so how does it change anything, Poniatowski was a bloody traitor and deserved the french solution.
Sokrates   
12 Jun 2011
News / Jerusalem Post: Poland's good intentions [30]

Can`t Jews or their successors start a private litigation in Polish courts to claim particular properties? Let them take their cases to court and prove the ownership. Poles who lost property under communism do it.

Point in fact is that most Jews have no claim to polish properties so what they call restitution is downright extortion.
Sokrates   
9 Jun 2011
History / German Traitor And Polish Pig [96]

Uh that's what i said. I know it was adults that's why i dont understand their actions, they should be smarter and more humane.

Even today Germans, our BB included believe themselves to be a superior species.
Sokrates   
9 Jun 2011
History / German Traitor And Polish Pig [96]

That is because all Germans in Silesia in 1945 were 1. murdered 2.murdered during "evacuations" to the West 3. murdered in ex-Nazi concentrations camps 4. deported to Siberia 5. Pretended to be Polish to save their skin.

And your point is?

I could sort of understand if it was stupid teenagers pulling something like that, but for adults to do that to them, messed up in the head.

Who do you think ran Wechrmacht, Gestapo, SS, NSDAP etc, teenagers?