Polish history is 100% glorious

lol.. you got it nailed, mate. lol

I was being facetious, M-G. Sokrates seems to pull data from funny places. His knowledge of strategy and underpinning rationale for actions is very good but his stats and knowledge of the broader picture is sometimes lacking.

True, Seanus; details are nice, but they only serve to illustrate the bigger picture. But it's not only him, there's more here who do that. That wouldn't be so bad if it weren't that they actually draw conclusions out of those details/incidents for the bigger picture. A good example is that nonsense that Hitler and his Nazis were left-wingers. The ppl who state such base themselves on details, not on the bigger picture. Using elements of Socialism doesn't make you a Socialist, just like using Roman standards and greetings doesn't make you a Roman or using old Veda symbols doesn't make you a Veda-spiritualist. All missed chances to get a clear view, I would say.

>^..^<

M-G (busy)

Hey...the thread to discuss that is that way ---->


Sure it does!

When I start to wear a Swastika and use slogans about the Yid you would call me a Nazi, wouldn't you...and why? Because I use elements of the national-socialists...

we can say that they were left-winger in economics and right-wingers in ideaology... just like PiS ;D

Z-Y (a joke)

Ah, so all them neo-Nazis are in fact Romans and Veda-spiritualists because they use Roman greetings and Veda imagery?

Edit: but again, you go tell them neo-Nazis that they're in fact left-wingers and that they are de facto everything they hate. Good luck :) Wonder if they were so dreadfully mislead by the commie-propaganda too, like we all are in the West.

No, I will write a concluding post in that particular thread and then leave it to be. There is no point in discussing with sb who is so convinced of their own wrong ideas.


Perhaps, but for which part are the Nazis best known for? Their economics or their militairy ventures/racial ideology?

>^..^<

M-G (gets that all the time - apparently my sig appeals to the imagination of ppl)

Maaan, it was just not funny joke about PiS. Nothing more.

You mean compared to Holodomor, Gulags and the Berlin Wall???

;)


Well..you failed to convince any of us about the "wrongness" of our ideas...I hope I won't have to visit an re-education camp now...;)

You know you pop up with these things over and over again. What has that to do with Nazis? They were a totalitarian régime, of course they are going to bear resemblences to other totalitarian régimes, but that has nothing to do with the quintessence of the matter at hand.*) That's perhaps the mistake you and the others make in your reasoning in this discussion. And do me a favour, don't call me commie again, as I am not a commie. You're right-wing, but not a fascist, hence I don't call you a fascist. I am left-wing, but not a Communist, pls bear that in mind, ok? That's just black and white viewing and it's rather insulting to me.

*): Pinochet had camps, prosecutions, random killings and so on. So did the Colonels of Argentina, Batista, Pol Pot, Mao, Idi Amin, Bokassa, Franco, Salazar and a couple of others of your friendly neighbourhood dictators.


Yeah, when sb holds such a grudge towards anything left, it's hard to convince that person anyway. They have to find out themselves. I know that I am right, but try and convince ppl like that.

>^..^<

M-G (tiens)

Nun ja...should I forget about them? As you should about KZ's and the Holocaust???


Well....good for the rest that you know it at least! :)


I don't think you are a commie...I think you just don't know the difference between Social Democracy, Socialism and Communism and their cousins who come in different forms. You call yourself left and think about poor third world farmer who starve and want to help them to make the world better.

You have no idea what living in Socialism actually means...I don't blame you.

Maybe we should just leave it at that!

Of course not. I don't want you to forget them. Just like I won't forget the KZ's in which my family perished. But you can't use them as you compare ideologies as everybody knows they were the same. Ah well, in the gulags they didn't have gaschambers as far as I know. Pls see the edits that I made to my post.

>^..^<

M-G (tiens)

As shown by the windows of St Paul's Church in Sandomierz.

And I am not allowed to say that? Just because I am a historian, I was able to see the good and the bad sides of religion throughout the centuries and I have seen that the bad sides far outnumber the good sides (heck, in the Middle Ages it was virtually a political system), therefore I've come to the conclusion that religion doesn't offer any substantial to mankind and shouldn't have a place in 21st century society anymore.

I see you didn't study history, no need to give me a lecture on what history actually is. Not all historians are conservatists, you know. Ever heard of post-modern narrative history? No? read Braudel and you will know. It's easy accessible stuff, even for amateur-historians like you.

>^..^<

M-G (history as a science made a big shift towards post-modernism at the time I was in college, actually a little before that)

Like Communists?
I have come to the conclusion that spiritual need is one of the elements which consist full human being and therefore religion is needed.
You blame religion for society errors - however is goes deeper than that and religion is not to blame:)

Stop dragging the commies into everything. You've had no Communism for about 20 years, time to call it quits blaming everything on them. It looks a bit childish and refusing to take responsibility for one's own deeds.


You should go work for Xerox. They make excellent copiers.

If you have spiritual needs, you go read a book or go meditate. You don't need religion. Religion is an archaic artifactal leftover from a time when ppl indeed needed explanations for the things they could not explain themselves. The Church has scandalously abused this need by terrorizing ppl into submission, while living off their flock's proceeds like parasites, while producing nothing but fear. On the side it has created wars, quests for power and has refused any form of renewal and resisted any form of change either by burning the reformists or creating an atmosphere of hatred towards the ppl who wanted change. Some say witch hunts and -trials were the Church's answer to sociological changes (women becoming more and more equal to men). I cannot subscribe this statement yet as I haven't read myself into it, but it makes sense, given the Church's policy of maintaining it's state of power of the ppl it has as Deo Mundo. When it turned out that Muslims were starting to take over the Holy Land of Israël, they created a mass hysteria in order to be able to recruit enough soldiers to go and "liberate" the Holy Land of Israël. On the way to Israël, many innocent bystanders in the form of Jews, Muslims or anybody else who didn't feel urged were brutally savaged and killed, all in the name of religion. Wherever Christians took over the role of the existing religion (without asking the natives whether they agreed or not) tolerance made way for intolerance. Compare the events in Spain and other countries where Catholicism became the dominant religion after Islam or Judaism had been the dominant ones before. In the 21st century a lot of things that needed to be explained have been explained by science and ppl have become more and more aware of themselves. They know now that they have the right to think for themselves and that they don't need a Church anymore to decide what they can or can't do. This, the reasons I have given above and the fact that we now have politicians to take care of matters, can only lead to one conclusion: we don't need religion anymore. Churches are beautiful buildings and I like to visit one in any new city I visit. I go there to see the architecture, art and the like. Furthermore I see them as relics of a mistake we collectively made thousands of years ago and for which we had to suffer until some 50 odd years ago when we realised it didn't matter anymore.


For most things are religion-based and therefore religion is to blame. It deprives ppl of clear and rational thinking and instead find the easy way out. The easy way out of not having to take the responsibility of their deeds themselves, but blaming God or "the will of God" and being afraid to praise themselves for an accomplishment they made, instead thanking God for it. In the latter case I soberly would ask: "so, you made it through school? And you thank God for it? Did you cheat? Did you have God come over to your place and do your homework, your tests and attendence for you? No? Then why do you thank God? Thank yourself for it and be proud of your accomplishments. It's no shame when you are proud of what you've done. When it's sth good, of course."

>^..^<

M-G (shadaroba)

Like MG was rightly writing. The commies are gone for more than 20 years. Why moan about them? Buy a book about them in DSH.
The antisemitic gits are staying forever in this country.

It's an easy excuse, which is used way too often on this forum. When will they stop using the commies as an excuse and take up responsibility for their own deeds? I guess it's typical Polish to do so. Poland is not the only country to be occupied by the commies, but I've so far never heard of any post WW2 pogroms against Jews other than in Poland and Russia. And those other countries had big portions of Jews within their borders as well. But instead of looking in your own backyard, it's of course much and much easier to blame the commies for all of it. Also their inbred hatred of Jews is of course thanks to the commies. Could it be that they are just naturally anti semites? Heck no, that would mean taking responsibility for their own deeds. No, let's blame the commies yet again. Well guess what, anti semitism is still there and the commies have long gone. Wonder how they explain that?

Kielce? Communist did that. Hitler was right-wing? Communist propaganda. Poles perpetrated nasty business between 1935-1939? All commie lies. And the list goes of course on.

It's very tiring and above all it doesn't show any matureness. It's like the murderer who says he did it because his parents abused him. Or in this case, his grandparents abused his parents.

But I guess it will take a few decades still for Poland to overcome this. They will get there, just a matter of time.

>^..^<

M-G (tiens)

hey! communist had the same opinion like you about religion, that the fact!


Well, who was in charge then? Don't be daft you know that somebody who is in charge is responsible - somehow in the years 1921-1939 something like that never happened and there was about 3mln Jews and a lot of tension - then Poles were in charge!

Kielce - commies were in charge and their were responsible - face it like a man, don't be a *****!


What nasty business ?


But the only country attacked by joined Soviet-Nazi forces, only country being in Allies camp to the last day of the war, the only country who from brother in arms and formal allied power that was reduced to soviet slave with former allies looking other way.


what the **** are you about? Its my own original thought!



I disagree, that has nothing to do with religion but with social tension.


As for the rest I'm familiar with those "arguments", to be honest I'm really disappointed I thought you will do better then that!

Invasion in the name of religion Christian learned from Muslims and after years of abuse, raids and invasions - they let them test their own medicine.

As for abuse of power and all bad things in the Church is only human nature in action - but for one bad thing you could find hundreds good things - for shameful episode in CC history - 10 deed that one could be proud of !!

I-S (enough for today)

You know what, I really don't care anymore if you're disappointed. If I say black, you say white and if I say white, you say black. You're just disagreeing with me for disagreement's sake and that is so very boring and annoying. It not only annoys me, you know, others as well.

But a few points anyway and I am sure you will disagree with me, of course you will disagree with me as you obviously don't have a clue - proven by yourself over and over again:

- The Commies are gone. No need to keep going on about them. They left 20 years ago. That means they are gone, vanished, disappeared, finito, basta, NOT THERE ANYMORE.

- The Czechs were even more screwed and betrayed by the West than you guys were. Cooked and given away on a silver platter to Germany and forbidden to even fight. All in the name of peace. And after the war the true allies were dumped behind the Iron Curtain. So also in that respect Poland is not alone. At least you guys got the chance to fight. They didn't even get that because France and Britain forbade it for "peace in our time". "Our time" lasted 18 months in total; Czechoslovakia was sold for 18 months of peace. During the war CZ was split up, humiliated and kicked dead; and what was left of it was made a marionet-state. And after the war as a thank you for saving Chamberlain's face, they were dumped. And you guys complain that you were betrayed by the West?

- Actually the Commies weren't in power in Kielce in those days. As you may know or may deny, it was a Polish officer who made the decision NOT to stop the events during the incident. It were Polish citizens who perpetrated the deed; how on earth can you blame the Communists for this??

- About your remarks concerning religion: hahahahahahaha...Haaaaahahahahahahaha...HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! What an excruciating nonsense. I would suggest you read a book about Church history and then one that spans about 2000 years. Then, once you've done this, you can come back and mingle in the discussion, not being biased or trebled by any religious objection or indoctrination.

Good Night.

>^..^<

M-G (tiens)

But this is the Polish way, M-G. One of my favourite students, Krystyna, told me all about it. It goes way back and it really caused problems at the time of the Polish Constitution of 1791. Potocki was a known dissident. They trip themselves up with their locking of horns, rather than listening to others.

Here, this sums it up, ...

Yes,but there is a big difference.The Czechs became the Protektorat which was considered to be Third Reich part prone to germanization and their living standards remained the same or even went up during Heindrich's administration.There were no executions etc till Heindrich's death.On the other hand Poland lost even its name and became eastern lands with Frank as an Oberfuhrer.KZs were built first for Poles and their fate was to become slave workers for the Reich with education till elementary school while all their intelligentsia was systematically exterminated.

Maybe you should stop being so ignorant?

Lets check some Pre WW2 pogroms MR ignorant ;)

There was a Pogrom, in Ireland in the late nineteenth century.

Census returns record one Jew in Limerick in 1861. This doubled by 1871 and doubled again by 1881. Increases to 35, 90 and 130 are shown for 1888, 1892, and 1896 respectively. Having fled from persecution in Lithuania, a small number of Jewish tradespeople began arriving in Limerick in 1878. They initially formed an accepted part of the city's retail trade, centred on Collooney St. The community established a synagogue and a cemetery in the 1880s. Easter Sunday of 1884 saw the first of what were to be a series of sporadic violent antisemitic attacks and protests. The wife of Lieb Siev and his child were injured by stones and her house damaged by an angry crowd. In 1892 two families were beaten and a stoning took place on November 24, 1896. Many details about Limerick's Jewish families are recorded in the 1901 census that shows most were peddlers, though a few were described as drapery dealers and grocers.

Some more cases OUTSIDE Russia and Poland

In 1945, anti-Jewish rioters in Tripoli, Libya killed 140 Jews.

In 1927, there were pogroms in Oradea (Romania).

In the Americas, there was a pogrom in Argentina in 1919, during the Tragic Week

On 1–2 June 1941, the Farhud pogrom in Iraq killed between 200 and 400 Jews.

Massacres of Jews at London and York in 1189–1190.

Mobs in Fez murdered thousands of Jews, leaving only 11 alive, in 1465

During the World War II Vichy regime which had collaborated with the Gestapo to detain Jews, as for example in the Vel' d'Hiv Roundup of 16–17 July 1942.

I can go on forever with this...

Marvelous. Please feel very free to do just that.

Whatever...

[quote=MareGaea]- The Czechs were even more screwed and betrayed by the West than you guys were. Was Czechoslovakia a main playground for Soviet and Nazi's "military games" just like Poland was? No.

Were Czechs executed on similar scale as people were in Poland? No.

Sorry to say but the losses (both material and demographic) of Czechoslovakia weren't even close to Polish losses, mainly because the Czechs haven't even tried to fight when they could, they just surrendered and welcomed the nazi's. If they would really have tried they would have probably bigger chances of success than Poland had, even without any help coming from the allies (Poland also didn't had such help), because of:

- Better developed industry (Polish industry could only dream of something like the Czechs had. (Skoda))
- Better terrain topology (surrounded by mountains and having long country borders)
- Not being between two powerful totalitarian-militaristic neighbors.
- Nazi Germany's war machine wasn't then as developed as in the invasion of Poland when the nazi's already controlled all of the Czech industry.

king polkakamon said it right. Actually that marionet "Czechoslovakia" had almost a luxury situation compared to Poland even though they were also betrayed by the west (or rather preferred being a protectorate of the nazi regime than wanting to stood up and fight when they could, no matter if with allies or without them).

I thought Polish people would be happy that the Czechs didn't fight when invaded: that certainly saved some of your soldiers' lives, seeing as Poland took part in the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia.

I guess being attacked by Germany, Hungary, and Poland, you don't really have much of a choice. They also had a tiny army compared to that of Poland. It also didn't help that about a third of the population were German...

Basically Hitler knew that Poles would fight as he regarded them as romantic.That is why his bluff with Danzig worked.He did not want only Danzig.He wanted the whole of polish population to work for him.

With Czechs he was sure they would not fight due to their passive aggressive nature.That is why his bluff worked in Munich conferece.

Well the Czechs were actually "happy" in 1919...


And much smaller landmass to defend, more and better equipment, richer economy per capita, better developed post-habsburg industry and technology, mountains almost anywhere arround. The only agressors they could have been actually affraid of was the Germany, if they would defend themselves Poland probably wouldn't even intervene, and Hungary was even smaller country than Czechoslovakia and nowhere as developed, Hungary maybe would also stay back from the fight if they would have seen the Germans have problems in Sudetens and Bohemia. The only direction they would have problems with defence would be the south and the west of the country. Compared to Poland's situation which had to defend far larger landmass with almost 0 natural borders and worse equipped army from the even more powerful Germany from the West and North, from Gigantic Soviet Union on the East, and Slovakia on the South... It sounds like a scenario with far more probability of success.

Well, then maybe it's time to join the big happy European family and learn that the Polish way is not applicable everywhere and that not everybody appreciates to be disagreed with for the sake of disagreement. I have nothing against a good and thorough discussion (as far this is pssbl with some of them "historical experts" on here), but that is sth completely different than constantly going against what one is saying. For a while it may work, but after that it just starts to annoy. I've brought in pretty good arguments here and all I hear constantly is that I'm being ignorant of the Great Glorious Polish State and the Great Glorious Ppl of Poland who just couldn't do anything wrong, even if they tried to, that I'm a liar, and I'm being insulted over and over again by the same persons who start immediately crying when you return the favour, that I'm anti Polish or whatever. Yet none of these belligerents have successfully rebuked any of my arguments so far. So in a way I'm not worried, it just annoyed me, this constantly disagreeing and disagreeing and disagreeing. If you disagree with me, fair enough, but come with decent arguments, not with the standard Glorious Poland propaganda -guess that's one of the things the commies left behind locked in Polish minds- or with the Pro Catholic BS that I've heard over and over again and again and again and again, they are defending an institution that has been horny for power every since it's got a foothold in Europe after kicking out the original religions and nowadays makes it a sport to whitewash pedophiles - unbelievable that some still want to defend such an instution that's rotten to the core. It had the chance to substantially cleanse itself lately, but it's all peace and quiet again, so I take it that yet again, nothing gets done about the problem they have. Missed chance, I would say, but it fits in the image they have by now.

Prague was not destroyed because there was no fighting involved - France and Britain just gave her to the Germans in exchange for 18 months of prolonged peace. And that what this remark was aimed at: sb said that Poland was betrayed by the Allies in 1939 and when it was all over, it was dumped behind the Iron Curtain. Within that context, the Czechs were just as much screwed as the Poles were, if not worse. Only within this context this remark was placed. Not in the light of later events.

>^..^<

M-G (darn)