What makes a man a Pole? what does it mean to be a Pole?

The Polish version of history is always correct?

Fits with the romantic ideals over pragmatism.

There is no Polish version of history.

There is an interpretation of history based upon recorded events which clearly indicates that there was a Poland during the times that it was occupied.

The history of Poland didn't stop at any point in the past, the language and culture also survived despite the best efforts of the occupying powers.


I don't really understand what you mean about pragmatism vs romanticism in this context. There is nothing romantic about being ruled by people who speak a different language and have a different religion and culture.

A colonial view of history doesn't consider any of those things it is more like an accountant's ledger

There wasn't a Poland, as recognised internationally. For Poland to have existed, it would require that crucial thing - sovereignty. It didn't have any.


Just because the language and culture survived means nothing - it would be like claiming that Slovakia has existed for many years because the Slovak language and culture survived. Or Slovenia, or Croatia, or many other countries that are new.

A good example is Montenegro. No-one in their right mind would claim that Montenegro existed as anything other than a subdivision of Yugoslavia between November 1918 and independence in 2006.


You might want to start with the Czech pragmatism versus Polish romanticism

On which day did Polish history stop?


Delph what do you mean, please explain

Are we talking about the people or the country?

The lack of a country doesn't stop the history of the people from existing. Poland may have vanished from the map, but the people were still Polish.

Nationality isn't tied to the presence of a nation state.

That's the point, and why the description of occupation is correct.

Except it isn't. No-one recognised Poland as being occupied, no-one considered it to be occupied (especially as things such as the Free City of Krakow existed) and no-one outside of Poland except those blinded by ideology consider it to have been occupied.

The presence of a people on some territory doesn't indicate occupation.

Except Polish people and the Ottoman empire.......

Oh, there is. Just one simple example: the so-called "regained territories". A purely Polish propaganda term that no one in his right mind and outside of Poland would ever use.


Can you prove that? I believe that the majority of ethnic Poles had arranged themselves with their new Prussian and Austrian rulers after more than a century and moved on with their life. BTW: do you know what percentage of the ethnic Polish population actually took part in one of the uprisings and what social background they had (e.g., nobles, city dwellers, peasants)? Are there any sources?

That's the problem you believe but don't have any evidence to support your picture of happy content polish people in someone else's empire. There is however plenty of evidence for the suppression of Polish cultural life while occupied by foreign powers.

All those refugees didn't arrive in the US telling everyone they were Prussian, Austrian or Russian they were Polish.


Regained territories is a political term which sounds better than reparations it's not a historical term.

Yes, that one is pretty much an all-time classic. Another of my favourites is Bereza Kartuska Isolation Camp (i.e. Bereza Kartuska concentration camp).

As usual Harry you miss the big picture..............

And as usual you deal with the facts showing that you are wrong trying to make the discussion personal.

There is a Polish version of history, as has been shown above.

There is history and like science it's universal if you are a **** poor historian you are a **** poor historian independent of nationality or faux lack of....

If you want to bring up science, I'd suggest you sit down with a German nationalist and a Polish nationalist and ask them about the nationality of Copernicus, see how universal that history is.


Still trying to make those pathetic little digs then? Ah, bless.

I wouldn't have thought that a set of opposing Nationalists would be a good example of objective history.

Differences are simply a question of terminology and weighting.

Anyway as this is going nowhere I'm away to bed

Actually, I do. I've researched a lot of my family history and had the opportunity to interview some of my great grandparents about life in Prussia before WW1. They were ethnic Poles on one side and ethnic Germans on the other, and they grew up in the then province of West Prussia. What they all had in common was the memory of a peaceful rural life where Germans and Poles were separated along religious lines and traditions, but got along well otherwise. Nothing about Polish patriotism, brutal oppression, forced germanization or similar stuff - just the simple life of farmers. Don't know about the situation in the cities, but in the countryside good relations between neighbors - no matter which ethnicity - was the norm, not the exception. Even between the wars.

But that was the stuff of Polish literature, mostly romantic, which fed on the stereotype of martyrdom - the view about Poland's innate moral superiority and being unblemished by any evil, and the equally innate, complete bestiality of Poland's Russian and German persecutors.

Imre Kertész said something that could I think apply to Poland as well.

If we put in place of "Hungarian" "Polish" we can identify the identity of a Pole:

It seems that the soul of a small Eastern European nation, the soul that suffers from the father complex and is immersed in sadomasochistic perversion, is unable to exist without a great oppressor, whom it could blame for its historic failures, nor without a national minority, this scapegoat, on which it could vent, releasing the surplus of hatred and resentment, which accumulated in the course of daily defeats. Without anti-Semitism, what kind of identity would a person have who is incessantly preoccupied with his or her specifically Hungarian identity?

Back to topic people. The rest will end in the bin.

Though History is an art it's not literature but I like your style.

The point is that even without a free country called Poland there were still Polish people.

When was the first issued then?


How do you know he had a Russian passport then?


Oh, but Warsaw had sewers thanks to Russian partition! Did you know that?? Every Russian nationalist will tell you that! So Warsaw "flourished" too...

lol
Although there is a gradation, of course, the Austrian partition is seen as the best of the three partitions, then comes the German one and Russian is considered the worst.

Sure, TheOther, my forebears were farmers too, just living in the Russian partition. Most of them probably didn't experience any Russification either because... they didn't go to school. They couldn't read nor write.

I suspect they had good relations with neighbours too, although I don't know if any of them were Russians. I don't think Russians had the same policy as Germans - I'm talking about the Prussian Settlement Commission.

If you ask Poles about the PRL times they'll tell you they didn't have anything against Russians either, just against their state...

However, both Germanisation and Russification were historical facts.
And if those succeeded and Poland didn't regain independence there would be no Poland anymore and who knows, maybe there would be no Poles either. I know it wouldn't be a problem for you, delphiandomine, Harry, AdamKadmon, etc. But I am so happy they didn't succeed. I'm glad Poland remained Poland and Poles remained Poles. I'm even more happy about it when I read comments from people like you, delph and AdamKadmon :)

Sorry, I just had to share my joy ;) We've won in the end! :P Ain't that grand or what? ;)


Pragmatism won in the end, of course. It was called "organic work". That's what every Polish kid learns at school. But how would you know that? You didn't go to Polish school :)

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_work

The only uprisings that succeeded were those in the German partition, with the last one being:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Poland_Uprising_(1918%E2%80%9319)


Poland isn't "new". It existed before the partitions.


Well, that's one way of looking at it. Still, in Polish schools we don't have seperate history textbooks titled "The histoy of Poland" and then "The history of Polish People" and then again - "The history of Poland" ;)


The German/Western/Russian version of history is always correct? :)

@Paulina: it does not matter when Chopin's first French passport was issued since according to French law (at least until a few years ago), the French nationality is automatically issued at birth to whomever has a French father. Chopin being both French and Polish, it is normal that he first of all spoke French and was also attracted by his father's home country so why trying to pretend that Chopin was mostly Polish? ;). Like all kids born and raised in binational couples, he was both and why should he have chosen? He belonged to 2 nations and that's it. Not only he moved to France for better conditions but also because he was also French, he could have moved out of Poland to go to England, Germany, Italy, Russia, Brazil, or the moon. Why masturbating your brain? "lol"

If a dog is born in a stable you dont call it a horse

I am aware of that, Harry explained it to me, but I'm asking about his first French passport :)

You haven't read absolutely anything of what I have written in this thread (beside my questions about passports, of course lol), have you? :)))
Typical.

Btw, today is the Day of Solidarity and Freedom :)

Just a few additional remarks, because we are slowly drifting off topic:


Mandatory school was introduced in Prussia in 1717, so long before the partitions. Ethnic Poles were given the same educational "treatment" as their ethnic German counterparts; especially in the 19th and 20th century.


The Preussische Ansiedlungskommission was founded in 1886. That's almost a hundred years after Polish territory became Prussian. Bismarck's Kulturkampf only lasted 12 years. That's a fraction of the time that Poles lived under Prussian rule.


I'm sure that Poles would live like the Sorbs in Eastern Germany. Keeping their language and culture.


It's the world's version of history vs. the Polish... :)

@Paulina! Hi! My comments to your post were only re Chopin's passport and the rest of my message was more general. What I meant was that your question as to when his first French passport was issued is completely irrelevant since as per French law, he was automatically French at birth because of his father. Although a lot of Poles don't like the idea, Chopin was a binational (let me assume that Chopin is a French name, isn't it? ;)

Yes his father was a French emigrant in Poland. However he was born to a Polish mother, grew up and received his education in Poland. His music although has been made general by his genius and appeals to all creeds at the core is so profoundly Polish that nobody who know first thing about Polish music can doubt him being Polish. There is not a formula on hand ready with one you can measure who is what and in what degree. In the case of Chopin is has been proven without doubt by experts that he was Polish and it is hard to argue about that given the fact that he believed himself to be Polish.

It is just foolish to argue otherwise as if Poles would call Chopin Polish in a spur of the moment without study and consideration.

As usual on this forum.


Meaning - they had to study in German, German history from the German point of view, German literature, to study religion and pray in German.

Have you heard about the strike of students from Września?


And for how long Poles couldn't build a house on their land?


I'm not sure. It was a different situation, Poles weren't such a tiny minority like Sorbs and they had their own country before and they wanted to get it back. What if Germans decided that they were too dangerous and they just had to be Germanised?


Wow... Woooah... Really? I must say my jaw just dropped to the floor o_O
German and Russian version of history is... "the world's version of history"? :D My God, TheOther...
Your arrogance is mind-blowing... o_O

Tell me, TheOther, have you ever read my history text-book I studied from at school? Do you have any idea what was written there?


Your "general" message was useless, because we already discussed this issue on previous pages. You would know that if you had read them.

You would also know my opinion about Chopin's nationality and you wouldn't make a fool of yourself and you wouldn't write about "masturbating my brain", you arrogant and ignorant man.

I'm writing about your ignorance because you wrote "it is normal that he first of all spoke French". Where did you get that he "first of all spoke French"? Have you read his letters? His Polish was more beautiful and sophisticated than mine! LOL He grew up in Poland, ffs! ;D

Honestly, some Westerners... are.. wow...


Polforeigner, have mercy on yourself and stop writing already ;D You have absolutely no idea why I was asking about his passport... lol
Oh dear...

*sigh*

1835


There are various different sources, for example letters from his father. Also, he was known to have had problems with the Russian embassy in Vienna not wanting to give him a passport for travelling to France.

1835?
Is it this one?:
diaph16.free.fr/chopin//chopin7.htm


Was that when the November Uprising began?