The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 341

Poland's biggest historical blunder?


Seanus 15 | 19,706
24 May 2011 #121
Koala, please don't insult my intelligence. I'm very aware of that fact but, with respect, you didn't answer my question. That's the second time you've sidestepped.
Koala 1 | 332
24 May 2011 #122
Koala, it does neither justify Gen. Zeligowski nor the Polish authorities who knew about that action, and the action was breaking international treaties. What had we got? Enmity of Lithuanians. Nowadays we have no Wilno, and do we suffer because of that?
Technically speaking, we should trade Wrocław for Lwów, too. Are you in? I'm not. Nowadays Wrocław is the purest Polish city.

What does this have to do with anything? Poland did note decide about post-WW2 borders, any trade was impossible. At the time there were very few Lithuanians in Wilno and surroundings. Lithuanians made alliance with a de facto criminal organization and aided them in war against Poland, they should have known it wouldn't go without consequences if Poland won the war.

Try to see it from the Lithuanian perspective. They are separate people who wanted their own land. The Russians helped them in that regard. Where else were they to go, the Soviet Union?

Koala, please don't insult my intelligence. I'm very aware of that fact but, with respect, you didn't answer my question. That's the second time you've sidestepped.

Intelligence is not the same as knowledge. You asked where else they should go to, but they went exactly to Soviet Union. The inhabitants of Wilno and the surroundings wanted to be a part of Poland, Lithuanians were the occupants after they entered the territory.
Harry
24 May 2011 #123
Poland did note decide about post-WW2 borders

Although the western borders were proposed by, er, the Polish prime minister in exile.

they should have known it wouldn't go without consequences if Poland won the war.

You mean they should not have thought that Poles were honourable people who would not break their word after signing an international treaty? Pity the Poles proved the Lithuanians wrong in thinking that. Just as they proved the Czechs wrong and proved the Ukrainians wrong and proved the Slovaks wrong....
Seanus 15 | 19,706
24 May 2011 #124
Where does the word Lithuania come from and when was it first a country known as such? Was Vilnius always Polish?
Koala 1 | 332
24 May 2011 #125
Although the western borders were proposed by, er, the Polish prime minister in exile.

It was supposed to be a Polish occupation zone initially though. Everything was ultimately decided by Stalin, what we wanted didn't really matter.

You mean they should not have thought that Poles were honourable people who would not break their word after signing an international treaty? Pity the Poles proved the Lithuanians wrong in thinking that. Just as they proved the Czechs wrong and proved the Ukrainians wrong and proved the Slovaks wrong....

Pretty much all countries broke treaties at some point. If this is supposed Poland's biggest blunder, than we are indeed saints compared to our genocidal neighbours.

Where does the word Lithuania come from and when was it first a country known as such? Was Vilnius always Polish?

Vilnius was Lithuanian at some point, but became gradually polonized during Polish-Lithuanian union.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
24 May 2011 #126
What does Lithuanian mean, Koala? At some point? You mean before any Polish influence there?
Koala 1 | 332
24 May 2011 #127
Lithuanians were a Baltic tribe/nation who had their own state and Vilnius was the capital of Lithuania in XIVth-XVIIIth century. At the beginning of the XXth century, Vilnius was inhabited mostly by Polish population.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
24 May 2011 #128
So they had their own state, Poles came in as guests and then what? They tried to take over the land? So, according to your logic, Koala, Kosovo should be Albanian, is that right?
Antek_Stalich 5 | 997
24 May 2011 #129
You asked where else they should go to, but they went exactly to Soviet Union. The inhabitants of Wilno and the surroundings wanted to be a part of Poland, Lithuanians were the occupants after they entered the territory.

Where should the Lithuanians have gone to? To Poland and ask Poland to give Lithuania back to Lithuanians?
It was Polish who became the occupants of part of Lithuania, not only Wilno. Perhaps a Free City of Wilno could be possible but we know the fates of the Freistadt Danzig, don't we.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
24 May 2011 #130
Surely Lithuanians would be most natural in, um, Lithuania ;) ;) They had their own state so where's the problem? Was there a formally agreed handover to Poland?
Koala 1 | 332
24 May 2011 #131
Where should the Lithuanians have gone to? To Poland and ask Poland to give Lithuania back to Lithuanians?
It was Polish who became the occupants of part of Lithuania, not only Wilno. Perhaps a Free City of Wilno could be possible but we know the fates of the Freistadt Danzig, don't we.

Wilno wasn't Lithuanian at the time, that the thing. It only became Lithuanian because Lithuania entered the battlefield between Poland and Russia. If you enter any battlefield (and aid one of the sides), you shouldn't expect to be immune to fire!

So they had their own state, Poles came in as guests and then what? They tried to take over the land? So, according to your logic, Koala, Kosovo should be Albanian, is that right?

Poles didn't come as guests, they had lived there for centuries. I don't know about Kosovo, is that what people over there want? They're not a part of Serbia or Albania in any case.
gumishu 11 | 5,701
24 May 2011 #132
So they had their own state, Poles came in as guests and then what? They tried to take over the land? So, according to your logic, Koala, Kosovo should be Albanian, is that right?

Poles never removed Lithuanians from the lands Poland occupied in 1921 and only took the land lands that had Polish majority - maybe it still was a wrong thing to do (Lithuania and Lithuanians became stauchnly anti-Polish and went on to Lithuanize its Polish minority (yes there was a serious Polish mionority in the pre-war Lithuania
Seanus 15 | 19,706
24 May 2011 #133
Scots have lived in Poland for centuries but do we claim Poznań or Kraków as ours? You are basing your argument on the Commonwealth, yes? So what if Brits, through having the Queen as their own, decided to call Brisbane or Sydney British? Would that be ok?

So Poland was an occupier in your eyes, gumishu? You think Iraq should be American?
Harry
24 May 2011 #134
Pretty much all countries broke treaties at some point. If this is supposed Poland's biggest blunder,

Other than the Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact and the Soviet–Polish Non-Aggression Pact, can you name a treaty which involved Poland and was broken by the other party? And try to remember that Poland was in a less than advantageous position geographically and so needed to make sure that other countries around her knew that they could trust her. If Poland had managed to form a strong alliance with Czechoslovakia and Lithuania, they might have been able to fend off the Germans (meaning that the Soviets probably wouldn't have invaded too). Or even better, form a strong alliance with Czechoslovakia and Lithuania and a tactical alliance with Germany and then all three go kick the shiit out of the commies.
Koala 1 | 332
24 May 2011 #135
Scots have lived in Poland for centuries but do we claim Poznań or Kraków as ours? You are basing your argument on the Commonwealth, yes? So what if Brits, through having the Queen as their own, decided to call Brisbane or Sydney British? Would that be ok?

So Poland was an occupier in your eyes, gumishu? You think Iraq should be American?

Are 60% of Poznań's population Scottish? Are 60% of Iraq's population American?

Other than the Polish-German Non-Aggression Pact and the Soviet–Polish Non-Aggression Pact, can you name a treaty which involved Poland and was broken by the other party?

Pretty much every invasion on Polish territory throughout centuries. And why do we have to list breaking of treaties against Poland only?
And your suggested alliance, while beautiful in principle, couldn't have worked. Germany would still overwhelm us.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
24 May 2011 #136
So if China sent 10 million people over to Kraków, it would become a Chinese city?
Koala 1 | 332
24 May 2011 #137
Pointless question as we wouldn't allow that many Chinese into our territory in the first place. Poles had been tha majority in Wilno and surroundings since XVIIIth century, maybe even earlier.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
24 May 2011 #138
Should Lithuania presently have the right to govern Vilnius?
Harry
24 May 2011 #139
Pretty much every invasion on Polish territory throughout centuries. And why do we have to list breaking of treaties against Poland only?

I asked you to list the treaties which were broken by the party other than Poland. Interesting that you haven't done that. Other than the two treaties broken by genocidal maniacs, you seem unable to support your claim that all countries break treaties.

Poles had been tha majority in Wilno and surroundings since XVIIIth century, maybe even earlier.

And Ukrainians had been in the majority in the Lwow region for far longer than that, but Poland still stole half their country and sold the rest to the Soviet Union.
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
24 May 2011 #140
Should Lithuania presently have the right to govern Vilnius?

Sean to answer your previous post.

Lithuania aided the Soviets because it, as all Europe believed that Poland would fall and hoped for lenient treatment from their future russian overlords.

A few moths later Poland crushed the Red Army in two major battles and suddenly the lithuanian world was upside down, not only did their capital have a vast polish majority (over 60%) but they were now viewed by victorious Poland as an enemy since by the act of aiding the Soviets they broke any sentiment Poles had towards them prior to the war.

Once Lithuanians started to opress the vast local polish population they effectively sealed their fate, soon enough Poland moved in and took Vilinus as its own.

Obviously present day Vilinus is Lithuanian though the mark of the polish culture in this city is undeniable and very significant.

For example the university of Vilinus was founded by the polish king and staffed with polish scholars, churches, houses, schools... For a lithuanian city Vilinus is sure full of Poland.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
24 May 2011 #141
OK, so let me see what you are trying to say here, Sok. Vilnius was Polish due to a takeover by default or by formal agreement? It seemed more de facto than de jure. So, assuming Vilnius to have been Polish, what changed to make it Lithuanian? Why didn't Poland set up a parliament there?
Sokrates 8 | 3,346
24 May 2011 #142
OK, so let me see what you are trying to say here, Sok. Vilnius was Polish due to a takeover by default or by formal agreement?

The question is what it means to be Polish? Vilinus was a city founded by Lithuanians but for centuries developed and inhabited by a polish majority.

So, assuming Vilnius to have been Polish, what changed to make it Lithuanian?

The indigenous population of Poles was mostly exiled or murdered and the new Lithuanian settlers made up a majority, Polands claim to the city was its population and polish investment in the region for the past centuries, when the population element is not there Polands claim becomes fragile but still exists.

Why didn't Poland set up a parliament there?

What? Why Vilinus did not became Polands capital? Because Warsaw is, Lithuanians set their capital there because it was the largest and wealthiest city in their country, the point is that its size and wealth are the direct effect of polish investment in the region.

Even the castle at Vilinus was built by Poles!
Harry
24 May 2011 #143
what changed to make it Lithuanian?

That would be Poland signing a treaty in which Poland agreed that the city was in Lithuania.

Of course, Poland broke that treaty the day after it had been signed.
Bzibzioh
24 May 2011 #144
Poland after dealing with the fact that Russian market collapsed picked up the steam and has been more dynamic ever since. That's as good measure of energy as any.

Hmmm...that's why millions of Poles left for better shores?

That proves Polish vitality. They are not sitting on their collective ass and expecting a miracle, or for someone else to provide for them. I think it's admirable quality.

First British troops left for France on 10 September.

So which strategic points in Germany they reached? Beside bombing Denmark by mistake with those old rusty planes?
gumishu 11 | 5,701
24 May 2011 #145
K, so let me see what you are trying to say here, Sok. Vilnius was Polish due to a takeover by default or by formal agreement? It seemed more de facto than de jure. So, assuming Vilnius to have been Polish, what changed to make it Lithuanian? Why didn't Poland set up a parliament there?

Seanus - what was the situation de jure ?
Seanus 15 | 19,706
24 May 2011 #146
Founded by Lithuanians for Polish people? I hope the rates were good for developers then ;0 ;)

So territory is governed by numbers and not who founded it or had original claim? Why not just call Kosovo Albania then? It has, after all, an Albanian majority. Did Vilnius residents (Lithuanian) do nothing to make the city theirs?

Germany, through the auspices of the EU, invests a huge amount in Polish cities. They also have historical claims to places like Gdańsk. Should it be restored to its former name of Danzig?

Largest city in "their" country? So how do you propose to classify the status of Vilnius retroactively? Province of Poland? Free city?

Assuming it was Lithuanian first, Poles then came later. Flooding or swamping to form a majority like Albanians did doesn't mean that the core right should change, does it? That would mean that all weak states with a legitimate claim to land would have to cede that territory to the greater number from outside.

By de jure, I meant that it was formally Lithuania's. It was within their territorial boundaries.
aphrodisiac 11 | 2,443
24 May 2011 #147
That proves Polish vitality. They are not sitting on their collective ass and expecting a miracle, or for someone else to provide for them. I think it's admirable quality.

yah, like rats leaving the sinking ship;).

Many young people after finishing their studies (almost for free) are planning to leave Poland for better postures.
Ironside 50 | 11,056
24 May 2011 #148
So they had their own state, Poles came in as guests and then what? They tried to take over the land? So, according to your logic, Koala, Kosovo should be Albanian, is that right?

gee Sean just read some of my post on the subject !
only one point - from 1791 there was one country Rzeczposopolita -period.

It is getting tiresome ...
Antek you are an ignorant as to the facts, I'm sure you have an opinion but it doesn't count for much.
gumishu 11 | 5,701
24 May 2011 #149
By de jure, I meant that it was formally Lithuania's. It was within their territorial boundaries.

by what rules - there were no state borders in the east in 1918 - did Poland try to grab the whole of Lithuania??
Seanus 15 | 19,706
24 May 2011 #150
I-S, bear with me. I am not that well-up on this part of history so am just trying to flesh out the position based on logical questions. So Lithuania didn't exist after 1791??? ;)

Wasn't it the case that Lithuania was the largest country in Europe in the 1500's??


Home / History / Poland's biggest historical blunder?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.