The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 138

Is Jozef Pilsudski the king of modern Poles?


Ironside 49 | 10,616
5 Jul 2011 #91
He was OK.
One of the rare successful statesman from Poland in the last 300 years.
RobertLee 4 | 73
6 Jul 2011 #92
What do my fellow Poles think about my hero, Jozef Piłsudski?

Well, he did some great things for Poland and one has to admit that he was great Polish patriot, but he also did some very stupid things: like when he went to Japan asking for support of Polish uprising against Russia, which would result in just another bloodshed. Or when he organized a military coup d'etat. He was too crude and had too difficult, authoritarian character to be more successful politician in and outside of Poland.

I actually believe his political adversary Roman Dmowski had a better vision for Poland (he also went to Japan to... discourage the Japanese from supporting Piłsudki's plans).
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
6 Jul 2011 #93
I actually believe his political adversary Roman Dmowski had a better vision for Poland

Perhaps you believe that because he was an outspoken racist and fascist, which the great Pilsudski, a true hero, was most certainly not.
hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,377
6 Jul 2011 #94
In case you haven't seen this before: Pilsudski celebrating the battle of Vienna in Krakow in 1933-My relative's wife has the original photographs from that event on display in her restaurant in Krakow.


RobertLee 4 | 73
6 Jul 2011 #95
Perhaps you believe that because he was an outspoken racist and fascist, which the great Pilsudski, a true hero, was most certainly not.

Perhaps you believe that because in your gay leftist mindset, you feel threathened by the words "patriot" and "nation".
It's easy for politically correct ignorants with foam on their mouths to put labels on Dmowski NOW, but his fellow countrymen respected and loved him.
PolskiMoc 4 | 324
6 Jul 2011 #96
Perhaps you believe that because he was an outspoken racist and fascist, which the great Pilsudski, a true hero, was most certainly not.

Pilsudski was the first in a nation to stand up to Communists & Nazis.
If the West had followed Pilsudski there would have been no Nazis or Soviet Union.

Yes, I wonder why Brits love Oliver Cromwell when he was a Dictator who opressed Celtic people? Hmm?

I guess it is okay for Brits to love Fascist type people but it is not okay for anyone else huh? Am I right or am I right?
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
6 Jul 2011 #97
to put labels on Dmowski NOW

Because certain labels fit. Fascist is one - it was a label that fit at the time and still fits aptly. In his writings (I assume you've read Dmowski and aren't just shooting your mouth off) he openly admired Mussolini and Dollfuss, and espoused the fascist cause. Racist, certainly, from his first book, Thoughts of a young Pole, throught the least pleasant passages of Polityka Polska i odbudowanie państwa right through to organising boycotts of businesses based on their ownership.

words "patriot" and "nation".

Describing Dmowski as a patriot is interesting, especially as he initially(and strongly) supported the idea of Poland as an autonomous region of Russia. To talk about 'nation' too is odd - among the shared cultural values that make the Polish nation, both Christianity and tolerance play a large part - Dmowski despised both.

He was not fit to lick the boots of Pilsudski and Narutowicz.
RobertLee 4 | 73
6 Jul 2011 #98
Thoughts of a young Pole, throught the least pleasant passages of Polityka Polska i odbudowanie państwa right through to organising boycotts of businesses based on their ownership.

How a Polish patriot from the first half of the 20th century could not be "racist" when Poles were opressed or threathened by other nationalities? You could also compare pre-war Poland to today's USA, but the only thing you can prove this way is that you are nuts.

Describing Dmowski as a patriot is interesting, especially as he initially(and strongly) supported the idea of Poland as an autonomous region of Russia.

Dmowski played absolutely crucial role in the process of regaining Polish independence. He organized the Blue Army without which Poland would probably lose the war with Ukrainians and Soviets. Unlike Piłsudski, who was a crude soldier, Dmowski was educated and diplomatic and was able to successfully lobby for Polish cause in the Versailles.

Whether or not that Dmowski statement was sincere to Russians is debatable, but one thing is certain: at that time there was no Poland at all, so an autonomous region within Russia was certainly better than no Poland at all, especially given the fact that the Russians were somehow less successful at russification of Poles, than the Germans were at germanization.

To talk about 'nation' too is odd - among the shared cultural values that make the Polish nation, both Christianity and tolerance play a large part - Dmowski despised both.

Here you have all those despised Christians attending his funeral:

He was not fit to lick the boots of Pilsudski and Narutowicz.

Piłsudski, despite his disagreements with Dmowski, was a big enough Pole to appreciate what Dmowski did for Poland. You are not.
pawian 173 | 13,488
6 Jul 2011 #99
Is Józef Piłsudski the king of modern Poles?

He contributed a lot to Poland regaining independence in 1918 but later on he abolished democracy and introduced the military semi-dictatorship in Poland. A very controvercial person.

Certainly he isn`t my spiritual king.
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
6 Jul 2011 #100
How a Polish patriot from the first half of the 20th century could not be "racist" when Poles were opressed or threathened by other nationalities?

Quite easily, many including Pilsudski were not.

Whether or not that Dmowski statement was sincere to Russians is debatable

His own writings and actions at the time leave no room for debate about his views. Pilsudski strongly (and wisely) opposed him tooth and nail on this matter. If he had not, the history of Europe may well have been very different.

especially given the fact that the Russians were somehow less successful at russification of Poles, than the Germans were at germanization.

Lifted pretty well word for word from Wikipedia. So you really are talking about matters you don't understand.

all those despised Christians

Read what he actually wrote about Christianity - he detested its values. He also detested the concepts of tolerance, diversity and liberalism - which may well have contributed to his failure and Pilsudski's success.

Piłsudski, despite his disagreements with Dmowski, was a big enough Pole to appreciate what Dmowski did for Poland. You are not.

This from someone a continent away who has contributed nothing to Poland and only likes the idea of Dmowski because of his openly racist views.

Pilsudski, on the other hand (who loathed Dmowski and his ilk) was a true Polish patriot, liberal, tolerant and at the same timke both idealistic and pragmatic. What by the way is your take on Pilsudski's contemporary and ally, President Narutowicz?
joepilsudski 26 | 1,389
6 Jul 2011 #101
BTW, Pilsudski was not a king...He was a soldier and leader who founded the modern Polish state...He also had no particular flair for diplomatic and political subtlety.

Dmowski was a technocrat, no?...He didn't care for music.
sobieski 107 | 2,128
6 Jul 2011 #102
Dmowski was a technocrat, no?.

Dmowski was an antisemite who thought Poland belonged to the "birthers". Piłsudski was - for all his shortcomings - a cosmopolitan and the true Father of modern Poland.
RobertLee 4 | 73
6 Jul 2011 #103
Quite easily, many including Pilsudski were not.

Like I said, Piłsudski was a rough man, who didn't write books. That's the only evidence of his lack of "racism" as understood from today's perspective.

His own writings and actions at the time leave no room for debate about his views. Pilsudski strongly (and wisely) opposed him tooth and nail on this matter. If he had not, the history of Europe may well have been very different.

Without Dmowski's and Paderewski's work Poland would be too weak to oppose the Soviets. There would be no opportunity for Piłsudski to build his legend. No to mention the fact that the history of Europe would be very different.

Lifted pretty well word for word from Wikipedia.

Really? That would mean that hatred towards Dmowski is a hobby of a small group of Polish leftists and foreigners, while the most of society recognizes him as a great patriot. Do you get foam on your mouth every time you drive through this?:

maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&q=&ie=UTF8&om=1&z=17&ll=52.229804,21.012082&spn=0.004876,0.010042&t=k

Read what he actually wrote about Christianity - he detested its values. He also detested the concepts of tolerance, diversity and liberalism - which may well have contributed to his failure and Pilsudski's success.

Dmowski wrote much stuff over a period of long time - in particular his views of Christianity evolved a lot, which you somehow failed to mention. Speaking of tolerance, liberalism and Piłsudski in one sentence - well, you made me laugh.

This from someone a continent away who has contributed nothing to Poland

What did you contribute to Poland?

Pilsudski, on the other hand (who loathed Dmowski and his ilk) was a true Polish patriot, liberal, tolerant and at the same timke both idealistic and pragmatic.

Piłsudski didn't loath Dmowski, he respected him for what he did for Poland. Only a bunch of Polish leftists (surprisingly often gay) and foreigners loath him - in the first case probably because Dmowski became adopted hero of some ultra right-wing groups (which is not his fault) - in the second case - because he put the interests of Poles above anything else.

Most of his ideas are of course no longer suitable for modern-day Poland, but so is the politics of Piłsudski, unless you want somebody to organize a coup d'etat, killing several hundred Poles and establishing authoritarian rule. But it doesn't mean the two weren't Polish patriots back in their time.

What by the way is your take on Pilsudski's contemporary and ally, President Narutowicz?

I would be happy to learn more about him.
joepilsudski 26 | 1,389
6 Jul 2011 #104
Dmowski was an antisemite who thought Poland belonged to the "birthers". Piłsudski was - for all his shortcomings - a cosmopolitan and the true Father of modern Poland.

You oversimplify, to the extreme...By birthers, you mean Poland belonging to native Poles?...What an outrageous idea!

Pilsudski a 'cosmopolitan'?...What, did he patronize a coffee house in his youth?
RobertLee 4 | 73
6 Jul 2011 #105
Dmowski was an antisemite

You oversimplify, to the extreme...By birthers, you mean Poland belonging to native Poles?...What an outrageous idea!

I don't even know why he brought that up. Perhaps he thinks that a person's attitude towards Jews is the most important factor, by which we should judge whether or not somebody was a Polish patriot - the nicer for Jews, the greater the patriotism, of course.

Seriously, is there any area of Polish affairs which should not be evaluated in terms of it's influence on Jewish well-being? Hint: it's getting boring.
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
7 Jul 2011 #106
Like I said, Piłsudski was a rough man, who didn't write books.

Actually quite educated and very, very cultured.

That would mean that hatred towards Dmowski is a hobby of a small group of Polish leftists and foreigners, while the most of society recognizes him as a great patriot.

Here in Poland he's largely a footnote in history, whereas Marshal Pilsudski is regarded as the father of the modern nation.

Only a bunch of Polish leftists (surprisingly often gay) and foreigners loath him -

A weird thing to say.

Most of his ideas are of course no longer suitable for modern-day Poland, but so is the politics of Piłsudski, unless you want somebody to organize a coup d'etat, killing several hundred Poles and establishing authoritarian rule. But it doesn't mean the two weren't Polish patriots back in their time.

One issue is that Pilsudski was quite realistic about his role and its pragnatic place in history whereas Dmowski the demagogue, ever sniping at Poland's leadership from the sidelines and organising boycotts when he didn't agree with election results had rather less humility.

I don't even know why he brought that up. Perhaps he thinks that a person's attitude towards Jews is the most important factor, by which we should judge whether or not somebody was a Polish patriot

At that time and place in history, when many people were both Poes and Jews, it is significant. And again, the great Pilsudski is to be admired for his actions.
joepilsudski 26 | 1,389
7 Jul 2011 #107
And again, the great Pilsudski is to be admired for his actions.

Thank you Johnny, and I will do my very best never to get a swelled head.
JonnyM 11 | 2,620
7 Jul 2011 #108
With pleasure Joe - and be careful not to get a swelled head - it sounds like a serious medical emergency!
Ironside 49 | 10,616
7 Jul 2011 #109
At that time and place in history, when many people were both Poes and Jews, it is significant.

Why? Could you elaborate ?
snake - | 1
7 Jul 2011 #110
Marshall Piłsudski was outstanding Polish politician, but nowadays Central European reality is diametrically different than before Second World War.
Bidi
22 Sep 2013 #111
He never considered himself Lithuanian. Always spoke of himself as a Pole. Was very particular about it!
Poles and Lithuanians have a bit of a history after the union in 1385 ;). However to say that Pilsudski was not polish is a bit of a crime! ;)
pierogi2000 4 | 229
22 Sep 2013 #112
I firmly believe Poland has a MUCH different experience in WW2 with Pilsudski around.
Crow 139 | 8,394
22 Sep 2013 #113
He considered himself a Lithuanian raised in Polish culture, he never called himself an ethnic Pole.

If it could be truth that Pilsudski was an ethnic Lithuanian, by his complete political thoughts, it means that he considered Lithuania to belong to the Slavic civilization, what is after all historical fact.
delphiandomine 85 | 18,254
22 Sep 2013 #114
I firmly believe Poland has a MUCH different experience in WW2 with Pilsudski around.

Not really, unless you're suggesting that Pilsudski would do a deal with the devil in order to save Poland.

In fact, it may have destroyed the Pilsudski mythology completely.
pierogi2000 4 | 229
22 Sep 2013 #115
Couldn't we have joined forces with Hitler and then switched sides at the end (We wouldn't have lost though) like most of Europe did?
delphiandomine 85 | 18,254
23 Sep 2013 #116
Only if you think that exterminating millions of Polish citizens made sense.
pierogi2000 4 | 229
23 Sep 2013 #117
Sacrificing citizens would have saved natives. I think that's a fair assessment.
jon357 63 | 15,524
23 Sep 2013 #118
Sacrificing citizens would have saved natives

That doesn't make any sense unless you make a morally obscene distinction between citizens.

Couldn't we have joined forces with Hitler and then switched sides at the end (We wouldn't have lost though) like most of Europe did?

You would have lost.
pierogi2000 4 | 229
23 Sep 2013 #119
Haha what?

Natives as in those people still connected to Poland today and don't bad mouth the nation every chance they get on television, movies and literature. There is a distinct difference between natives and citizens. Citizens come and go, natives are forever tied to the nation. Are you trying to say Polish natives were worth the sacrifice of Israeli's? That's laughable

With Polands help, Hitler defeats and occupies Russia. If truly needed he could have persuaded Japan to help. At that point Central, Eastern and Southern Europe are transformed into the centrum of the World. Considering no one did come to the rescue of Russia or the Jews, I'm going to take a wild guess and assume no one still does.

There is no point to head farther West as Hitler's mission has been accomplished. By that time the new powerful region has atomic capabilities so USA loses all it's weight.

Germany, Japan, Russia: 3 of the 6 (5 if you take away defeated Russia) most effective fighters in the War + most of Europe (Who backed Hitler before jumping sides when defeat was apparent), some parts of Africa, Arab world & Asia and Russia's resources versus USA, England & France? Laughable. Do I really have to bring up Dunkirk?

Us Poles made the stupid decision and paid for it by 50 years of Soviet occupation. We should have joined Hitler, helped occupy the Soviets and laughed at UK/France's Phony promises. Instead today, Poles have to do lower paying jobs in England. What a stupid decision to fight Hitler.
jon357 63 | 15,524
23 Sep 2013 #120
We should have joined Hitler

Hardly 'we' since you're a citizen of another country and were born in the 1990s!

Are you trying to say Polish natives were worth the sacrifice of Israeli's?

Israelis?

With Polands help, Hitler defeats and occupies Russia.

Germany's defeat in the Soviet Union was so decisive that it would have taken more than 'Poland's help'.

Do I really have to bring up Dunkirk?

Or Normandy.

Instead today, Poles have to do lower paying jobs in England. What a stupid decision to fight Hitler.

What sort of 'jobs' would they have had in a Reich that regarded them as racially inferior?


Home / History / Is Jozef Pilsudski the king of modern Poles?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.