The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 143

Piłsudski, like Hitler and Stalin (according to some Lithuanians)


Nathan 18 | 1,363
29 Mar 2010 #61
Sokrates: And for Nathan life equals masturbation

Besides PF, this is the only thing that spices my life a bit, Socrates :)

Sokrates: preferably with people listening :)))))

I am quiet and my landlord is a bit deaf, this is why she basically lives behind my door :)))
porzeczka - | 102
29 Mar 2010 #62
the fact that they deny Poles the right to spell their names in Polish is not that funny.

The point 14 of the Polish-Lithuanian 'Treaty on friendly relations and good neighbourly cooperation' signed in Vilnius on 26 September 1994, states clearly that members of ethnic minorities have right to use their given names and surnames in the form appropriate to the language of the ethnic minority.

Au minium, there shouldn't be any suffixes added.
Bilingual sings can/should be introduced in municipalities where more than 20 percent residents belong to a national minority (as for European Union). Similar sings are present in German,

Lemko (in Cyrillic),

Lemko

Lithuanian

lith

... inhabited areas in Poland. When it comes to Lithuania, there are forbidden even in Šalèininkai and Vilnius districts where Poles constitute respectively 79 and 61 percent of inhabitants.

I hope they would finally appreciate what it feels like. But Lithuanians are angels in their current minority policies as compared to Poles in XVI-XVII centuries and 1920-1939. Nobody burns churches, nobody converts them into institutions of another confession, nobody burns libraries sending strzelcy groups, nobody forbids the publications.

So you want innocent people to have their rights limited and violated because of Polish-Ukrainian historical animosities and 'centuries old' grudges? Are you really such a narrow-minded person?

If I remember correctly, there was time when Orthodoxes oppressed Polish and Lithuanian Catholics/Uniates, and closed /destroyed/converted hundreds of Catholic and Uniate churches into Orthodox ones. Obviously Interbelum's Poles and Lithuanians (Orthodox churches were confiscated and destroyed also in Lithuania) strived to reverse that, and, without doubt, took revenge as well. If they reasoned like you, they would probably have slaughtered all Orthodoxes.

OUN's pamphlets were forbiden, but Szewczenko's works and Doroszenko's 'Narys istoriji Ukrajiny' published by Ukrainian Institute in Warsaw in the 30' or Orthodox, Church Slavonic bibles printed in Lviv in XVI, weren't.

c. 300,000 minority of Ukrainians (I think the numbers are higher, because in 1947 in Operation "Vistula" they forcefully deported 200,000 Ukrainians into Western Poland and it was 63 years ago, 3 generations past)

According to the census, only 27,000 Polish citizens declared themselves as ethnic Ukrainians.

don't have an opportunity to watch Ukrainian news for 26 minutes a month... Just simply having a program.

You have three Ukrainian programs in Polish public television (more than '26 minutes'/month). 'Ukraińskie wieści' is broadcasted every second Tuesday at around 6 p.m, 'Przegląd Ukraiński' - each weak, and 'Telenoviny' seems to be still aired.

Personnaly at home where I used to live, we had 2 Polish programs all day long!!!!!!!!!!, not 26 minutes a month.

That's hilarious :)
Jak odbierać ukraińskie media w Polsce
tryzub.pl/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=447&Itemid=159

If you don't like Polish Public Television you can always take your own advice: buy a ticket and leave :) Seriously, there are far more valid accusations (in regards to treatment of ethnic minorities) against country of your origin.

It seems like somebody had good life in Lithuania under communism regime. The same was with Russians in Ukraine. They got always better possitions and access to education. They weren't eager to support Ukrainian independance, because then the competition would start on the same line. This way communism always kept tension of everyone against everyone, but not against itself.

Why don't you quote the rest of the text:

In 1950s the remaining Polish minority was a target of several attempted campaigns of Lithuanization by Communist Party of Lithuania, which tried to ban any teaching in Polish language; those attempts where however vetoed by Moscow which saw them as too nationalistic. [28] Polish minority, still remembering the 1950s attempts to ban Polish language, [28] was much more supportive of the Soviet Union and afraid that the new Lithuanian government might want to reintroduce the Lithuanization policies. [28]

Do you know any sources confirming that Poles were granted better positions and access to education than Lithuanians? If not, stop manipulating please.

Stop writing about history :)
Ironside 49 | 10,452
29 Mar 2010 #63
they will one day find their way home to Poland

they are morons, Wilno is a price I'm willing to pay to keep them away !
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
29 Mar 2010 #64
Hell no i'm with Torque, they're a historical part of Rzeczpospolita and need to find a way back, we should totally help them find their way back Żeligowski style, and then we could help Ukraine find their way back as well :)))
Seanus 15 | 19,706
29 Mar 2010 #65
Torq, I think you get me wrong. I am with what Kasparov is trying to do. Putin couldn't accept defeat after the first Chechen War. He obviously believes in 'if at first you don't succeed, try and try again'. I'm just saying that he tolerates no nonsense and Lech Kaczyński's stand in the Georgian issue could have inflamed the situation without knowing the full truth of it.

Fine, Nathan. NATO membership has logic for you and I see that. However, your politicians have hardly been rushing towards it and let's see how Ukrainians man up without NATO over Sevastopol or other conflicts with Russia. They can crush your country and you know it. It's just a shame that politics ruin(s) the relationships between people, i.e Igor Vovchanchyn and Fedor Emelianenko are a famous example but many common people too.

Maybe you should be talking to the French who have been supplying them with fairly advanced weaponry.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
29 Mar 2010 #66
Seanus: without knowing the full truth of it.

And whats the full truth of it that our president doesnt know but a school teacher does?

Seanus: However, your politicians have hardly been rushing towards it

Actually they have for quite some time now, its just that NATO isnt rushing towards them.

Seanus: Maybe you should be talking to the French who have been supplying them with fairly advanced weaponry.

They havent, Russia wanted to buy some assault ships but couldnt afford it.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
29 Mar 2010 #67
Nie twoja sprawa, bambo ;) ;) You can find just as many reports that Saakashvili set it up and overreacted. Just 3 weeks ago there was a 'misunderstanding' which could have flared up, Sok. I'm more likely to be more objective than that barking little bumptious git that looks like he leaped out of a pond.

Well, I don't see much rushing going on at all. The best hope lay with the last PM, Yushenko. The new PM is an unknown quantity to me.

My mistake, I assumed it was a done deal. The reports I read said so. Amazing that different reports say different things, isn't it? ;) ;) ;) The point is the French willingness to arm them through that worm of a man, Sarkozy. He brokered the ceasefire in Russia but only because he licked bal*s!
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
29 Mar 2010 #68
Seanus: You can find just as many reports that Saakashvili set it up and overreacted.

Set up invasion of his own country? You know Sean sometimes you make sense but sometimes you're heading downstream on the river of f*cking crazy.

Seanus: 3 weeks ago there was a 'misunderstanding' which could have flared up, Sok.

How?

Seanus: Well, I don't see much rushing going on at all. The best hope lay with the last PM, Yushenko. The new PM is an unknown quantity to me.

Thats mainly because they got burned in their unofficial attempts in the 90s, Ukraine can only officially aspire to NATO if they're certain they're in, no one except Poland wants them in so they cant come to the table openly.

Seanus: My mistake, I assumed it was a done deal. The reports I read said so.

Thats the press for you, "Russia is building 11 subs" "Russia is buying 4 assault ships" the only thing Russia bought in the last 10 years was a bunch of T-90 tanks.

Seanus: The point is the French willingness to arm them through that worm of a man, Sarkozy. He brokered the ceasefire in Russia but only because he licked bal*s!

French are a notoriously unreliable political partner Sarkozy or not, the problem with French is that they're not sure what their business is and is not so they keep shooting mouths at random.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
29 Mar 2010 #69
The 'invasion' was to quash disturbances, Sok. Georgia interfered in internal Abkhazian and South Ossetian matters, it was deliberate provocation. Iraq and Afghanistan, now they were invasions and Poland was a part of that.

How! (gives an Indian salute). There were fears of Russian troops reentering but they were quickly allayed as it was a false alarm.

No-one except Poland wants them in? I think America would play their card when the right time came around.

Russia has been modernising its tanks but it found that even its old ones serve its interests well.

France has almost always been that way. Let the Muslims ask them questions.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
29 Mar 2010 #70
Seanus: The 'invasion' was to quash disturbances

Except for the part where they invaded Georgia itself.

Seanus: Georgia interfered in internal Abkhazian and South Ossetian matters

Which are related to Russia how? Ukraine interferes in Belarusian matters -> Poland invades Ukraine, makes about as much logic ie none at all.

Seanus: it was deliberate provocation.

Again, these countries were not russian protectorates and their govts did not ask Russia to help untill the Red Army was already in them then suddenly they were all too eager to ask.

Seanus: Iraq and Afghanistan, now they were invasions and Poland was a part of that.

Waste of money and resources, dont give a sh*t about the moral aspect, sorry.

Seanus: Russia has been modernising its tanks but it found that even its old ones serve its interests well.

Yeah when invading midget countries.

Seanus: France has almost always been that way.

Yes it was but its not going to arm Russia for free and money is thin in Moscow.

Seanus: No-one except Poland wants them in? I think America would play their card when the right time came around.

Yes it would but no it wont, US is NATO and they want Ukraine as a regional loudmouth since Poland is smarting up but that doesnt mean they want to invest in a country thats so weak and unstable and a potential hotbed for war.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
30 Mar 2010 #71
Abkhazia and South Ossetia asked for protection, they felt intimidated. They voted for their independence and Saakashvili was not ok with that.

They stepped in and sorted the matter out. Neither of us know what really went on behind the scenes but they restored order.

I agree that Russia casts the net too wide given their imperialistic streak. However, they pulled out quick enough. It was not an occupation and Polish troops were in Iraq and Afghanistan for much longer.

Those autonomous states have unquestionable leanings towards Russia. They fear further Georgian action against them.

I agree that intervention wasn't the best decision on the table but Putin did it, I think, because he missed a chance some 6 months before to take a firm stand on Kosovo. He took an easy option and should be glad that McCain didn't get in. He would have stamped that out very quickly. Bush and Putin have remarkable similarities.

Weak and unstable? There was Torq telling me that the EU would turn that round full circle. With Ukraine on board, America has an excellent strategic asset. They want that. Invest? Who said anything about investment?
Nathan 18 | 1,363
30 Mar 2010 #72
How a part of a country can have internal matters?

Iraq and Afghanistan, now they were invasions and Poland was a part of that.

How was Georgia different?

Abkhazia and South Ossetia asked for protection, they felt intimidated. They voted for their independence and Saakashvili was not ok with that.

Abkhasia and Southern Ossetia are territories of Georgia and Russia has no business there at all. You don't have to compare Poland in Afghanistan to justify Russia's invasion of Georgia. Over decades and especially during Soviet Union, when intelligentia was eliminated, Russian pigs were settling in every republic possible with huge support from state. This was done to dilute the nationalistic feelings and sense of belonging. These immigrants were as a rule military staff with good pensions and apartments. Now Russians use these links to present their pretenses of defending their population in foreign countries' territories.

agree that intervention wasn't the best decision on the table but Putin did it, I think, because he missed a chance some 6 months before to take a firm stand on Kosovo.

the net too wide given their imperialistic streak. However, they pulled out quick enough.

They stepped in and sorted the matter out.

Pretty clear what you are standing for, Seeanus. You justify invasion of Georgia who tried to prevent separatist movement on its land and now you probably support together with Nicaragua (unrecognized by any other sober-thinking state) territories. On any other issue you are as we say `buttery butter`, but as soon as it comes to Russia, you seem a lot bolder. Interesting.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
30 Mar 2010 #73
They voted for what they got, that's how :)

Georgia was temporary, VERY much so in comparison.

Maybe they have just "manned up", Nathan ;)

Buttery butter? I'm just more aware of how Western pretexts and behind-the-scenes motives work, Nathan.

Also, I'm Scottish. I find Poles and Ukrainians to lack objectivity when it comes to Russia in a MAJOR way. You all appear to be experts but, sorry, are guided by bias.
Nathan 18 | 1,363
31 Mar 2010 #74
Also, I'm Scottish. I find Poles and Ukrainians to lack objectivity when it comes to Russia in a MAJOR way. You all appear to be experts but, sorry, are guided by bias.

I`d like to see your objectivity if Scotland was in Siberia.

Maybe they have just "manned up", Nathan ;)

And translation, please?!
Seanus 15 | 19,706
31 Mar 2010 #75
If Scotland was in Siberia, it wouldn't be Scotland as we know it and would be in Russian territory anyway.

They are breakaway regions with many Russian passport holders, simple.

Russia wasn't there to occupy and eventually build pipelines.

Russia stepped in and sorted it out, they were manly and got the job done.
Nathan 18 | 1,363
31 Mar 2010 #76
Russia stepped in and sorted it out, they were manly and got the job done.

Yes, they are and they are part of Georgia. And they can be filled with Russian passports, who cares? This is Georgia. Point. And Russia for you was manly enough to invade an independant country. Well, I hope Islam followers explain their position on that issue in more lay terms, because too many `intelligent` approaches are made in regard to human rights by fat asses in secure Europe.

Regarding your BBC video, as you might notice it has big `RT` letters on the side, which means `Russian Television`. And if you base your opinion on the news delivered by an agressive part only, well, here you go. Good luck.
marqoz - | 195
31 Mar 2010 #77
Abkhazia and South Ossetia asked for protection, they felt intimidated. They voted for their independence and Saakashvili was not ok with that.

You're so funny Seanus with your russophile bias.
There were majority of Georgians in Abkhazia before 1989. Abkhazians were minority but granted by Soviets with over-representation in local authorities. Now almost all Georgians from Abkhazia are expelled and live in temporary camps in central Georgia, while most of Abkhazia is deserted. Almost all Abkhazians have Russian passports and South Ossetians as well.

South Ossetia is FSB-ruled mafia state similar to Transnistria with smuggling as main industry.
Invented to destabilize Georgia and to eliminate its prospects for NATO membership.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
31 Mar 2010 #78
So a bit like Kosovo then, marqoz? ;) ;) I'm not a Russophile, there were serious allegations of genocide by Georgian troops and the Russians couldn't allow that.

Russia Today seems to give neutral commentary and I don't find them leaning overly towards Russia. There were claims of harsh treatment by Georgians and that isn't acceptable. Remember, I am pro-Kasparov and not pro-Medvedev or Putin.
Nathan 18 | 1,363
31 Mar 2010 #79
South Ossetia is FSB-ruled mafia state similar to Transnistria with smuggling as main industry.
Invented to destabilize Georgia and to eliminate its prospects for NATO membership.

Great point, marqoz. This is exactly what they are trying to do all along, in different countries: to destabilize and destroy. They invest huge money into media, which spreads the lies to cover what they did in Chechnia and Georgia. Russian journalist Anna Politkowska was murdered for shedding the light on Chechnia war as did Alex Litwinenko who clearly showed what is done to perpetuate this cycle of aggression.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
31 Mar 2010 #80
This I can agree with. The treatment of those was abominable! The police state rearing its ugly head. Chechnya, right or wrong, was fighting for its indepedence and Russia saw it as a strategic asset. As if Russia isn't big enough.

Russia got what was coming to them in a way. RIP to those innocent lives lost. Marty Burns was at the hospital to see them.
Nathan 18 | 1,363
31 Mar 2010 #81
there were serious allegations of genocide by Georgian troops

By whom? Russian passports?

Russia Today

Why don`t you check out Georgian newspapers? To get a more broad view on the war.

There were claims of harsh treatment by Georgians and that isn't acceptable

By whom? If tomorrow they write that Ukrainians ``treat harshly`` Russians, you would also read only Moscow Today and base your opinion on that?
marqoz - | 195
31 Mar 2010 #82
What I've noticed is that many Poles play on the Słowacki/Mickiewicz connection to bolster their claims but they are but 2 men.

No, Seanus. There was one political nation of Poles-Lithuanians. They were fighting together against Muscovites in November and January Uprisings. Even the greatest early Lithuanian poet Baranauskas knew perfectly Polish and his greatest poem Anyksciu forest was a response to Mickiewicz's Pan Tadeusz. He also undersigned with his Polish version of the last name - Baranowski. And your guide in Wilno was just telling about their citizenship and loyalty to the state where they live, not about their ethnicity. You as a Scotsman with a Celtic nick should understand this small difference.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
31 Mar 2010 #83
No, Russian passport holders ;)

Well, I'm open to suggestion, Nathan.

It's only the Press and neither of us were there so we don't know the whole truth.

In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Russia overreacted at all. Putin and Medvedev clutch at straws to get themselves more power and influence.
marqoz - | 195
31 Mar 2010 #84
So a bit like Kosovo then, marqoz? ;) ;

What a ********. In Kosovo Serbians were just outperformed in the field of fertility and 'affection' to their heimat. The process lasted a few centuries, supported of course by barbarian Osman methods but only supported not made. And Italians added something to this misfortunate effects during WW2.

While in Abkhazia, was quite the opposite. There was centuries-long integration process between different regions of Sakartvelo. And in effect there were majority of Georgians there.

They were expelled during the civil wars in 1989 and lost in 1991/3 by the poet-president Zviad Gamsakhurdia.

You can compare it to the abstract situation when Russians supported Serbians to expel all Albanian speaking Kosovars from Kosovo in 1-3 years.

And if we're talking about Kosovo, I'm against de jure independency of this region. It should be administered under auspices of an international body or even one country (not Russia - of course, and not Albania or Turkey as well) - maybe Canada?
Seanus 15 | 19,706
31 Mar 2010 #85
I understand that small difference, yes.

'Great post' doesn't need to be censored ;)

Kosovo was a part of Serbia in 2006 and was removed from Serbian control. Because the Albos bred like rabbits doesn't mean that it's their land.

Ach, the Russians are dirty fighters anyway. They sell weapons to their very enemies. As my wife said, there are many wild people there.
marqoz - | 195
31 Mar 2010 #86
They sell weapons to their very enemies.

Everybody sell weapon to everybody. And it's better situation to know all strengths and weaknesses of your enemy's weapon. And what is better known than own production well tested on your firing range by your best soldiers.

Soviet soldiers in 1939 - were generally reported as dirty. But now, I suppose they have enough soap ;-)

However, if we look at current Russian external politics, we just must beware and not forget that there is no free media there to uncover mystifications and ignore redherrings.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
31 Mar 2010 #87
Very true! The crackdown is so strong and I'm surprised that they don't just come out with it, Putin Press. Or maybe Media Medvedev? They will always be viewed with suspicion and soundbites to the media or niceties on camera fool no-one.

The Art of War clearly isn't understood by NATO or even Russia. Let's see how China employs it in the future ;) ;)

Piłsudski, the thread. Well, he organised resistance through the AK and anyone that can find fault with that needs their head checked. He often worked underground, more covertly than the other 2. The others were hardly fighting for freedom. Piłsudski saw a lot and his famous outburst shortly before his untimely death was unheeded. 1935 wasn't too late to put Poland back in the frame as a major power but, by late 1936, Germany was most decidedly ahead. The great general warned his people but politicians of that time bungled left, right and centre.
OP Mr Grunwald 23 | 1,661
31 Mar 2010 #88
Well, he organised resistance through the AK

I hope you ment Army Kommand or something cause else I would ask: "Are you on crack?"
Armia Krajowa was created during WW2 after the death of Marshal Piłsudski
Seanus 15 | 19,706
31 Mar 2010 #89
I did indeed :) Piłsudski was a man of limited success in 1920. The lessons of the First World War hadn't really sunk in. However, he learned a few things in the next 15 years but I don't think that he won the battle with his ideological rival, Dmowski.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
3 Apr 2010 #90
Sorry Sean but interwar Poland was not in any shape to become a major power without vast external investment, US and UK were pumping cash into Germany and France was in crisis (even if it wasnt France was and still is notoriously cheap and unreliable as an ally).

Interwar Polish economy was probably the fastest growing in the world but only with local investment, without outside money there was just too little time.


Home / History / Piłsudski, like Hitler and Stalin (according to some Lithuanians)
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.