The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 138

Is Jozef Pilsudski the king of modern Poles?


pierogi2000 4 | 229
23 Sep 2013 #121
You really think Germany, Poland (or even Japan) can't defeat a Russia that didn't have years to build up. Especially considering Germany would only be fighting a 1 front War?

Quick victory. Poland had just defeated Russia by themselves 20 years prior.

Normandy? Why bring up a battle involving a far diminished Nazi army at that point. I am speaking full strength and with extra outside assistance.

Many slavic nations joined Hitler. I don't see treatment worse than Hungary or even Japan. Especially if Poles helped rid their population of "inferior Jewish" citizens.....NOT natives

Jews were and are not Poles. Current Jewish hate towards Poland illustrates this. It was typical act before thinking that led to Poland declining Hitler's offer. One which I stated led to 50 year occupation and current day cleaning toilets of people we could have been occupying (England). But like I stated, I think Hitler stops at a Central, Eastern and Southern European Empire and allies throughout Asia, Arab and Africa. .
jon357 63 | 15,524
23 Sep 2013 #122
You really think Germany, Poland (or even Japan) can't defeat a Russia that didn't have years to build up.

They didn't.

Especially considering Germany would only be fighting a 1 front War

They weren't

Quick victory. Poland had just defeated Russia by themselves 20 years prior.

During a bloody civil war and revolution.

Why bring up a battle involving a far diminished Nazi army at that point.

Because that was what happened.

And you still haven't answered the most important question:
What sort of 'jobs' or indeed life would they Poles have had in a Reich that regarded them as racially inferior untermensch?
pierogi2000 4 | 229
23 Sep 2013 #123
Why are you ignoring the entire.....Poland joins Hitler part? Poland was the biggest domino in the War. Polands refusal to join Hitler led to Western Europe & eventually USA joining the War. England would have came to the defense of USSR?

Hitler's goal was to occupy Russia not fight a 2-War front. But you can't get to Russia without going through Poland.

You are aware Bohemia-Moravia had equal rights to Reich citizens? Hitler's hatred toward Slavs was geographical, Jewish and Russian (slavs). He didn't paint all Slavs with a broad paint brush or else he would not have included Japan. Polands arrogant refusal set the stage and Poland paid with harsher treatment than other nations. I don't blame Hitler for doing so. Maybe if my ancestors knew the Western promises were Phony (War) they would have acted more intelligently. Or else I would like to give them that much credit.
jon357 63 | 15,524
23 Sep 2013 #124
He didn't paint all Slavs with a broad paint brush or else he would not have included Japan

What does the alliance with Japan have to do with the Third Reich's view of Poland and other predominently Slavic countries?

Poland joins Hitler part?

Perhaps because that vile regime regarded Poles as inferior and certainly didn't want them as partners
Ironman2
23 Sep 2013 #125
Perhaps because that vile regime regarded Poles as inferior and certainly didn't want them as partners

Like British?
jon which is you cannot grasp? That Hitler wanted Poland in his camp as late as 1938 if not later? Or that idea of inferiority in his mind was flexible and afforded a lot of room to adjust.

If Poles were so inferior why this action when Polish children has been taken from their parents and send to Germany no less than 100 000 children turned into Germans this way.
Harry
23 Sep 2013 #126
With Polands help, Hitler defeats and occupies Russia

Spoken like somebody who has absolutely zero idea just how big Russia actually is.

If Poles were so inferior why this action when Polish children has been taken from their parents and send to Germany no less than 100 000 children turned into Germans this way.

Those children were considered to be racially Aryan and thus Polonized German children who could (and indeed should) be re-introduced to German society.
jon357 63 | 15,524
23 Sep 2013 #127
Like British?

Quite the opposite, as history showed.

hat Hitler wanted Poland in his camp as late as 1938 if not later?

That isn't quite the same as wanting a 'partnership', now is it, Iron? Next time you hear someone say "What big teeth you've got, Granny", don't go into their gingerbread house.

If Poles were so inferior why this action when Polish children has been taken from their parents and send to Germany no less than 100 000 children turned into Germans this way.

And this is what you would have preferred to your life in the PRL?

Spoken like somebody who has absolutely zero idea just how big Russia actually is.

And not much idea about much, since he thinks Japanese people are Slavic! I know Toyotas used to be made in Bielsko Biala, but really.....
Ironman2
23 Sep 2013 #128
Those children were considered to be racially Aryan and thus Polonized German children who could (and indeed should) be re-introduced to German society.

Who is asking you for German's Nazis justification of that particular crime?The fact remains that as somebody said here - in a case of so called Slaves Nazis racism was geographical and political more than dogmatic..

Quite the opposite, as history showed.

The history showed nothing of the kind jon. It must be join-history that you mean.

That isn't quite the same as wanting a 'partnership', now is it, Iron?

Neither Britain wanted partnership with Poland- those were just offers and for Poland was to pick one - the more advantageous to her. I say that Hitler offer were better in the circumstances as history showed. Hungary or Finland is not by any notch worse off than Poland for all their alliance with Hitler. I say they are even better off for that.

And this is what you would have preferred to your life in the PRL?

Is that is a personal attack? If I would respond in kind would you cry to mods how bad and nasty Iron is and how he is attacking you personally and maybe stoking you (you wish) like accused WB lately of doing it? Do you consider yourself positively devious or just smart?

My life in the PRL was fine, thank you.
jon357 63 | 15,524
23 Sep 2013 #129
I say that Hitler offer were better in the circumstances as history showed. Hungary or Finland is not by any notch worse off than Poland for all their alliance with Hitler

Except Poland is not either Hungary or Finland. Neither were part of Greater Germany, neither nationality were considered untermensch.

cry to mods

No, just respond. I don't see any personal attack on youth though. Just an observation that life under the Third Reich, who you consider a better offer for Poland than democracy, might not have been as nice as you'd like it. Very few of us would like to live in a regime where education was not considered necessary, Poles were considered suitable for physical labour only and your next door neighbour would be taken away and killed because of their ethnicity or euthanised if they had a disability.
Harry
23 Sep 2013 #130
Who is asking you for German's Nazis justification of that particular crime?

You were. I suggest you read your own post a little more carefully.

The fact remains that as somebody said here - in a case of so called Slaves Nazis racism was geographical and political more than dogmatic.

Nope, you're just lying again, just like Ironside used to do so often here: the Nazis accepted the well known fact that in the Polish nation there were, among others, mainly Slavs, some Jews and a few Germanic types. See, for example, the Deutsche Volksliste which millions of Poles signed up for, declaring that they weren't, on reflection, Polish but had been partially Polonised.

My life in the PRL was fine, thank you.

One wonders why you left so quickly after the PRL ended.
Ironman2
23 Sep 2013 #131
Except Poland is not either Hungary or Finland.

Really?

Neither were part of Greater Germany, neither nationality were considered untermensch.

OK back to kindergarten jon. What was a cause and what was was the effect?

No, just respond. I don't see any personal attack on youth though. Just an observation that life under the Third Reich, who you consider a better offer for Poland than democracy, might not have been as nice as you'd like it. Very few of us would like to live in a regime where education was not considered necessary, Poles were considered suitable for physical labour only and your next door neighbour would be taken away and killed because of their ethnicity or euthanised if they had a disability.

What you are saying it is just an assumption that situation of Poland would be the same after their lost the war against German as would have been if they would became German Ally. It is an unreasonable assumption.

the Nazis accepted the well known fact that in the Polish nation there were, among others,

No sweetie, German accepted the fact they Poland refuted alliance with Germany and lost the war. Those where just consequences. If an example of Finland and Hungary, do not talk for itself, there is Slovakia, Croatia and Bulgaria not doubt Slavic people, not to mention Ukrainian SS Division or RONA. Are you another one who is confusing reasons with effects.

One wonders why you left so quickly after the PRL ended.

What is your nationality and ethnicity Harry?
Harry
23 Sep 2013 #132
German accepted the fact they Poland refuted alliance with Germany and lost the war.

Can you go into detail about the alliance which Nazi Germany offered to Poland? Thanks in advance.

What is your nationality and ethnicity Harry?

Varsovian is neither a nationality nor an ethnicity, although it is what I choose to be.
yesp
24 Sep 2013 #133
Piłsudski did not make peace with either the Reds nor the Whites because he wanted the Ukraine. The Germans knew Poland screwed itself by making enemies on all sides in the East, and they coveted a contiguous greater Germany, so there was no chance they would ever be lasting allies.
Ozi Dan 26 | 569
24 Sep 2013 #134
I firmly believe Poland has a MUCH different experience in WW2 with Pilsudski around.

I agree. Had Pilsudski still been head of state of Poland before and during WW2, I think the sheer force of his personality and his prestige could have caused different paths to have been taken in the crucial stages of WW2 that ultimately effected Poland.

No doubt Pilsudski's presence would have solidified the London Government and I'm fairly confident the liberties HMG took with the Poles would not have occurred. Whether for good or bad, Pilsudski, when ascertaining the depth and perfidy of HMG's betrayal, would have cancelled Polish support of the Allied war effort and focussed attention on Poland fighting for Poland's freedom, rather than someone else's, and with no prospect of support in kind.

Teheran would not have occurred because Pilsudski would not have let it occur. He would have demanded to be present or to have it made known what were the terms of the agreement in principle reached between the Powers there. If Poland was treated as an unpaid wh*re by the Allies, Pilsudski, at the very least, would have been the pimp beating down doors demanding payment and recognition for services rendered.

The Promethean principle promulgated by Pilsudski too could have gained better purchase just prior to the commencement of WW2. Whilst it engendered some revulsion, it was inherently sound and a common sense proposal for that region of Europe at that time, having regard to the fact that the region was bordered by two of the most bloodthirsty regimes in modern European history. Could the Cold War and Poland being left to the Soviets after WW2 have been averted as a consequence of the Promethean principle? Probably, but we'll never know.

Would Anders have been released from HMG's servitude had Pilsudski exerted pressure on Churchill? Again, most likely. Sikorski was a great man but I think he was too "nice". Pilsudski, I think, had a better grasp of realpolitik - this is what was needed for a leader of Poland through WW2.

A Pole fighting for someone else evinces praise as being the 'gallant Pole'. When the Pole passes the cap around searching for some help in kind, the comment is usually 'that quarrelsome Pole' trying to undo the established order. Europe has never understood Poland, and whilst Poland has understood in part how Europe works, it has rarely grasped the correct manner to deal with Europe. Pilsudski understood the dynamic well, and, more importantly, knew just how to play the game. He was mostly a man of honour and chivalry, but also understood that honour and chivalry won't stop a German or Russian bullet, nor would it compel Poland's 'Allies' to stick to their word.

Of course, the above is pure speculation, but the possibilities could have been far different.

Piłsudski did not make peace with either the Reds nor the Whites because he wanted the Ukraine.

With respect, incorrect. Pilsudski did not join the Whites because, amongst other things, he foreshadowed Denikin's absolute intolerance to Polish Independence, not to mention Denikin's position that Ukrainian independence would have been tolerated even less. Pilsudski in part saw the resurgent Whites as more of a threat than the Bolsheviks too.

He decided to let them fight it out amongst themselves whilst building on Poland's strength for the coming showdown with the victor. Both were anathema to Poland, and Pilsudski had no obligation to help.

Realpolitik as practiced by Pilsudski.
Harry
24 Sep 2013 #135
HMG's betrayal

Yawn. That would be the same betrayal that you love to whine on and on and on about but you can't actually give any details of, right? Anyway, just for the sake of form, I'll now ask you to go into detail as to what aid it was within HMG's power to give to Poland in September 1939 which was not given. You of course will fail to do that.

Teheran would not have occurred because Pilsudski would not have let it occur.

You mean he wouldn't have let a certain world leader propose the current western border of Poland? Which world leader was that?

If Poland was treated as an unpaid wh*re by the Allies

Forgive me if I'm wrong here, but Germany wanted to fcuk Poland, Britain did not.

Pilsudski, I think, had a better grasp of realpolitik

What an interesting way of expressing the fact that he couldn't be trusted and was noted for breaking agreements that he'd very recently OKed.

The Promethean principle promulgated by Pilsudski too could have gained better purchase just prior to the commencement of WW2. Whilst it engendered some revulsion, it was inherently sound and a common sense proposal for that region of Europe at that time

Bit of a pity that in the interbellum years (i.e. a time when Poland was dominated by Pilsudski), Poland did such a good job of thoroughly p!ssing off every country around her that the only people interested in standing up for Poland were on the other side of the English channel.

Pilsudski understood the dynamic well, and, more importantly, knew just how to play the game. He was mostly a man of honour and chivalry,

There are a few Lithuanians who would have had something to say about that statement, and a few Ukrainians, Czechs and Slovaks too.
yesp
24 Sep 2013 #136
Realpolitik as practiced by Pilsudski.

If he was a master of realpolitik then he would have recognized Denikin's diplomatic ploy. Most of the other Whites were in favor of a Poland constituted on ethnic Polish territory.

not to mention Denikin's position that Ukrainian independence would have been tolerated even less

Pilsudski destroyed independent Ukraine.

He left Poland in a terrible position with no possibility for lasting peace with its neighbors. The Germans had no reason to ally with Poland because they saw two countries to the East that were far weaker and they coveted a large empire like the British and the Americans.
Ozi Dan 26 | 569
24 Sep 2013 #137
Yawn. That would be the same betrayal that you love to whine on and on and on about but you can't actually give any details of, right? Anyway, just for the sake of form, I'll now ask you to go into detail as to what aid it was within HMG's power to give to Poland in September 1939 which was not given. You of course will fail to do that.

This has been canvassed between us several times, the last of which was contained in the thread "How different would WW2 have been if Poland accepted Hitler's offer". If memory serves, the ball was left in your court after I served what may well be regarded as an ace. I'm not in the habit of bidding against myself either, so it's your turn Harry...

Ozi Dan: Teheran would not have occurred because Pilsudski would not have let it occur.You mean he wouldn't have let a certain world leader propose the current western border of Poland? Which world leader was that?

I have absolutely no idea what you're on about. No need to rephrase however, as I'm wholly uninterested in what you have to say.

So you agree he was a master of Realpolitik - good!

If you'd bothered to read up on the Promethean principle you'd realise it had nothing to do with Great Britain (snigger).

There are a few Lithuanians who would have had something to say about that statement, and a few Ukrainians, Czechs and Slovaks too.

Cool story bro. You know them no doubt? Why don't you dredge them up from a blog to speak for you, like you did when you lost the debate on Family Law in Poland and the Hague Convention - you do remember that embarrassing incident don't you?

If he was a master of realpolitik then he would have recognized Denikin's diplomatic ploy.

I'm unfamiliar with this ploy, and, in any event, I never attributed Pilsudski as being a wizard who could read people's minds to ascertain their ploys.

Pilsudski destroyed independent Ukraine.

Okay, you've won me over. Well argued.

The Germans had no reason to ally with Poland because they saw two countries to the East that were far weaker and they coveted a large empire like the British and the Americans.

Sorry, I'm not sure where Germany comes into this. Could you link it in somewhere rather than springing it?
Harry
24 Sep 2013 #138
If memory serves, the ball was left in your court after I served what may well be regarded as an ace.

You mean the post in which you trotted out yet another of your tired lies about the RAF? Yes, that would be the one. I called you on that lie and am still waiting for your second serve all these months later.

I have absolutely no idea what you're on about.

Tut tut tut, lying again Dan: we both know exactly which world leader first raised the idea of Poland's western borders being where they are now, it was the leader of Poland.

So you agree he was a master of Realpolitik - good!

Interesting that to you when a Polish leader orders agreements/treaties to be broken, he's a "master of Realpolitik"; but when Britain doesn't break a treaty and suffers massive loses as a result thereof, you claim that that is British "betrayal". How nice of us to again give us an example of your hypocrisy.

If you'd bothered to read up on the Promethean principle you'd realise it had nothing to do with Great Britain (snigger).

No need to read up about it, I'm well aware of that particular pipe dream and the fundamental misunderstanding of the Polish nation that it is based on.

As for Great (snigger) Britain, which did you enjoy more, cobber, the Lions tour of Australia or the Baggy Green tour of England for the Ashes?

Why don't you dredge them up from a blog to speak for you, like you did when you lost the debate on Family Law in Poland and the Hague Convention - you do remember that embarrassing incident don't you?

I certainly remember a thread in which you claimed to know more about Family Law in Poland than any other poster but where every poster who had had experience in Polish family courts told you that you were utterly wrong and pointed out that Poland has been repeated found to have breached European Convention of Human Rights when it comes to child abduction. I can well understand why you would have felt embarrassed by your ignorance of law, given that you like to claim to be a lawyer. BTW, as an aside, one of the court orders that I myself referred to in that thread three years ago is still being completely ignored, the one about payment of child support; given that you're an expert in Family Law in Poland, perhaps you could advise on the best way to get a parent to pay child support?


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.