The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 344

Chance of Lwów once again became coming part of Poland


Palivec - | 380
14 Aug 2011 #121
Don`t be silly. The case is closed. No Pole will go and fight for Lvov.

Don't worry, Polish-Americans will do it for you... ;)
Seanus 15 | 19,706
14 Aug 2011 #122
I hope not, Palivec. It should be left alone.
pawian 176 | 15,176
14 Aug 2011 #123
Don`t worry. It will be only word battles. :):):):):)

But as we know, a pen is mightier than a sword, so even words about taking back Lvov are harmful.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
14 Aug 2011 #124
Very true, pawian. I accept that the older generation might bear some grudges but I really believe in the 'you have your own country' notion. Look at Albania. They were allowed to spill into Kosovo and called Kosovars but, to me, to speak of a Kosovar should be to speak of a third entity.
den_fcdk - | 28
14 Aug 2011 #125
What this thread is for?
Lviv is Ukrainian.
Seanus 15 | 19,706
14 Aug 2011 #126
Exactly, Ukrainian land
pawian 176 | 15,176
14 Aug 2011 #127
=den_fcdk]Lviv is Ukrainian.

Yes, but with quite a substantial Polish history, you can`t deny. :):):)
Seanus 15 | 19,706
14 Aug 2011 #128
History, yes. However, it has been reformed over time and we are in the present.
pawian 176 | 15,176
14 Aug 2011 #129
:):):)

Yes, we are but historia magistra vitae !
Seanus 15 | 19,706
14 Aug 2011 #130
Maybe but it's still Ukrainian ;)
pawian 176 | 15,176
14 Aug 2011 #131
I don`t question it. :):):)

However, if I am able to talk about and admit the German past of Wrocław, Gdańsk and Szczecin, I expect the same from Ukrainians - an acknowledgement of Polish contribution in Lwow. :):):)

That is why I don`t understand what your problem with my statement is: Lwow is an Ukrainian city with the Polish past.

:):):)
Seanus 15 | 19,706
14 Aug 2011 #132
Read post 130 again, pawian. Historically, there is no question that Poles made a huge contribution to its development.
MediaWatch 10 | 945
14 Aug 2011 #133
It was Poles that caused Poland to fall, not anyone else.

That's true. Those Poles who thought they would be "good Catholics" and "nice guys" and would allow non-Poles into Poland caused Poland to fall.
pawian 176 | 15,176
14 Aug 2011 #134
Lwów will be in Poland again no doubt about that but first we have take care of these post Soviet lithuanian monkeys and take Wilno back.It is going to be much easier task and will give us necessary experience regarding deportation of foreign individuals and administration of liberated territories.

Nice provocation. :):):):)

BTW, who do you mean by we? :):):)
MediaWatch 10 | 945
14 Aug 2011 #135
I don't think Poland should try to get Lvov and its surrounding territory back. That would only weaken Poland since it would only add land to Poland with non-Poles.
grubas 12 | 1,390
15 Aug 2011 #136
That would only weaken Poland since it would only add land to Poland with non-Poles.

No worries,Akcja Wisła II will take care of them,though this time we will be moving them East not West.
MediaWatch 10 | 945
15 Aug 2011 #137
LOL

Come on Grubas.

Only large population European nations can muscle the populations of other countries like Germany and Russia have done to other countries. That's what Russia did with Eastern Ukraine which Russia almost controls now. Russia with its huge population was able to muscle out ethnic Ukrainians from Eastern Ukraine into Siberia and then replace them with ethnic Russians.

Unless Poland gets its population up to at least 70 million people, Poland should just stay put and be happy with its borders.

Besides, why would Poland want to change its borders and have borders closer to Russia????? Unless of course Russia's own population problems get aggravated and Russia starts to implode making Russia weaker.

But I think Poland should just do its best with the territory it has now, not worry about borders and be thankful there aren't predator nations trying to destroy it which happened so much in Poland's history.
MyMom 6 | 137
15 Aug 2011 #138
I think Polish strategy should be to demand not just Lwów but £uck, Równe, Stanisławów and Tarnopol as well - after a few years of such campaign the Ukrainians will be happy to give us "just Lwów" :D They will think it's a success in negotiations on their part ;)
delphiandomine 88 | 18,475
15 Aug 2011 #139
That's what Russia did with Eastern Ukraine which Russia almost controls now.

Wrong. If you'd been on the ground there, you'd actually know that while the area is populated with Russian speakers, they still very much identify with Ukrainian nationality and not Russian. Poor show, MediaWatch.

That's true. Those Poles who thought they would be "good Catholics" and "nice guys" and would allow non-Poles into Poland caused Poland to fall.

No no. You don't understand - it had nothing to do with non-Poles, and everything to do with the fact that the Poles with power were very reluctant to give any of it up to the normal Polish citizens. In fact, they were so consumed with the desire for power that they were willing to do deals with foreign enemies just to retain their personal kingdoms.

Certainly, for instance, the partitions were a disaster for Ukrainians - compare the situation in Lemberg with Poles vs Ukrainians.
MediaWatch 10 | 945
15 Aug 2011 #140
I think Polish strategy should be to demand not just Lwów but £uck, Równe, Stanisławów and Tarnopol as well - after a few years of such campaign the Ukrainians will be happy to give us "just Lwów" :D They will think it's a success in negotiations on their part ;)

Unless Poland massively increases its population, it should stay put and not do anything.

The reason why Germany/Germanics were able to seize Poland's territory during and before WWII was because the German population was much larger then Poland's and the Germans used their big population (and the resources that come along with having a big population) as a battering ram against Poland.

Russia is the biggest nation in the world, because it used its over sized population (and the resources that came with it) to bulldoze into non-Russian territories, overwhelm the non-Russians and SEIZE their territories.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,475
15 Aug 2011 #141
Russia is the biggest nation in the world, because it used its over sized population (and the resources that came with it) to bulldoze into non-Russian territories, overwhelm the non-Russians and SEIZE their territories.

Bit like the United States and most other countries, really.
MediaWatch 10 | 945
15 Aug 2011 #142
Wrong. If you'd been on the ground there, you'd actually know that while the area is populated with Russian speakers, they still very much identify with Ukrainian nationality and not Russian. Poor show, MediaWatch.

LOL

That's pretty funny Delph.

Is that why Putin said Ukraine is not really a nation?

Putin knows the value of having his ethnic Russians in sizeable numbers in parts of Ukraine.

No no. You don't understand - it had nothing to do with non-Poles, and everything to do with the fact that the Poles with power were very reluctant to give any of it up to the normal Polish citizens. In fact, they were so consumed with the desire for power that they were willing to do deals with foreign enemies just to retain their personal kingdoms.

I don't disagree with you that there were bad Poles who sold out Poland at the expense of Poles.

But how did these power hungry Poles hold onto their kingdoms if Poland was whiped off the map?? That doesn't make sense.

Bit like the United States and most other countries, really.

You are correct to a certain degree. Large population nations like to have large territories.

But Russia takes the cake on that one. The US has more than twice as many people as Russia yet it has about half the land of Russia. China has about 10 times the population of Russia yet has less than half the territory Russia has. These numbers kind of tell you about the massive greed and lust Russia has for territory at the expense of other nations. Look at a map of Russia. Why in Gods Earth does a nation with just 135 million people (which is dying) need to have all that territory???? That’s greed on a colossal scale.
convex 20 | 3,978
15 Aug 2011 #143
Why in Gods Earth does a nation with just 135 million people (which is dying) need to have all that territory???? That’s greed on a colossal scale.

I'm sure the Bangladeshis are asking the same thing about nearly every other country....
pawian 176 | 15,176
15 Aug 2011 #144
Russia has always been an empire. Yes, Russians conquered and subjugated many smaller nations. But that was a typical way to run a state in the past. Bigger fish ate smaller ones. Poland was created in the same way. The tribe of Polanie conquered other Slavonic tribes in the area. Simple.

You say it is Russian greed. I don`t think so. Russians were once subjugated by Mongols. They threw the yoke off, but never regained the peace of mind and have felt some internal urge to expand their territory in order to reduce the risk of becoming slaves again. And it worked twice quite well - during Napoleon and Hitler invasion of Russia/USSR. The vast mass of land saved Russia from another subjugation.
MediaWatch 10 | 945
15 Aug 2011 #145
That may have been true in the beginning but afterwards Russia was just greedy for other nation's territory.

Why did Russia try to seize half of Europe? Why did Russia seize the Baltic states, Ukraine and even part of Finland after 1945? Was that so that Russia "would not be subjugated by mongols"?

Its just a nation with colossal greed for other nations' territories.

Although having a lot of land helped, I think Russia's large population had more to do with saving Russia from Hitler and Napoleon than anything else.

I think the Russians instinctively knew if they wanted to seize and conquer other people's territory to "make Russia great" they knew they dam well had to boost their population as much as possible so that they could use their huge population (and the resources that come with it) to bully and bulldoze other nations into submission of their territories to Russia.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,475
15 Aug 2011 #146
Is that why Putin said Ukraine is not really a nation?

You know why he said that? It's pretty simple - up until 1991, there was no such thing as Ukraine. It never existed, unless you count the Ukrainian SSR - but that was still very much controlled by Moscow and with no real autonomy whatsoever. So - for a guy like him, it's no surprise that he thinks that Ukraine isn't really a nation. However, those of us who can think for ourselves know the truth - that Ukrainian identity is growing and growing irrespective of language.

It's a common attitude in Europe - you'll hear the Spanish say the same about Catalonia and the Basque country, the English about Scotland, the Germans about Bavaria - the list is endless.

Incidentally, if you knew Poles, you'd know that the attitude of "Ukraine isn't a country" is quite common here, too - especially among people living in the East and those who live in the "recovered territories".

Putin knows the value of having his ethnic Russians in sizeable numbers in parts of Ukraine.

Ethnic Russians aren't necessarily loyal to Russia, however. In the case of Ukraine, they look to Kyiv, not to Moscow. Look at Poland - the ethnic Germans here are looking to Warsaw, not to Berlin. The Czech minority thinks about Warsaw, not Prague. The list goes on...

But how did these power hungry Poles hold onto their kingdoms if Poland was whiped off the map?? That doesn't make sense.

Start by reading about the Targowica Confederation - you'll understand why they sold out to Russia. A read of the May 3rd Constitution and the ideals behind it wouldn't be a bad idea too - Catherine was far more in favour of strong nobles than the peasantry being given rights.

That may have been true in the beginning but afterwards Russia was just greedy for other nation's territory.

Not really - there's nothing in large parts of Siberia and so on. It's an inhospitable land, and they benefit from being joined to European Russia.

Why did Russia try to seize half of Europe? Why did Russia seize the Baltic states, Ukraine and even part of Finland after 1945? Was that so that Russia "would not be subjugated by mongols"?

The answer to that is pretty simple - "lebensraum". Stalin was understandably paranoid after WW2, and those buffer states meant that Russia was much further away from the rest of Europe.

Ask yourself MediaWatch - why did the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth stretch almost from sea to sea at one point? What was the need? Greed? They certainly didn't need all that land for the amount of people they had - but they took it. Was it because - as in Russia - the larger the territory, the more power they had?

The history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in terms of expansion wasn't much different to Russia, really.
MediaWatch 10 | 945
15 Aug 2011 #147
The Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth had a lot of territory in proportion to Poles and Lithuanians because they needed there own buffer territory since they were surrounded by other large hostile nations. Sadly European history was (and sometimes is today) a dog eat dog world. Unfortunately there is a lot of Shaudenfruede in European history (one nation's loss is another nation's gain). And when your a nation like Poland surrounded by other European nations with large populations that are willing to use their large populations in an aggressive way against you, you need all the help you can get against them.

But why in God's name does Russia which has nukes (so nobody is going to attack it) NEED EIGHT TIME ZONES worth of territory when there is NOBODY who would dare attack Russia????

You blame Stalin for Russia seizing land for Russia. Well then why doesn't Russia today give back land Stalin SEIZED from Finland? Surely Russia does not need this Finnish land especially when Russia is so huge. The reason why Russia today will not reverse Stalin's SEIZING of Finnish land is because the Russians like it when their leaders seize more territory for themselves.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,475
15 Aug 2011 #148
Why does America need 6 (in the 50 states), not including the time zones for Guam, American Samoa, Wake Island and more?

I mean, if we're counting here - the United States has just as many time zones as Russia, if not more. I've given up counting, but so far - America has territory in at least 9 different time zones. I'm sure there's more, though.

You blame Stalin for Russia seizing land for Russia.

Never heard of the phrase "Stare decisis et non quieta movere"?

Generally speaking, international law when it comes to territory tends to follow this principle. If you want - tell us - why doesn't Kosovo return the North Mitrovica area to Serbia? Why isn't the Republika Srpska part of Serbia? Why doesn't Spain allow independence for the Basque Country? Why doesn't South Tyrol get returned to Austria? What about Schleswig being returned to Denmark?

Modern European history is littered with examples - Russia is hardly unique.
den_fcdk - | 28
15 Aug 2011 #149
Guys, if we start looking F-A-R back into the history, we may see the Kyiv Rus with no Moscow etc. So, maybe it was & still is a "Great" "Big" "Large" Ukraine?

Let s live today! We have modern Ukraine. You have modern Poland. Russians have their modern Russia.
That s reality!
About LVIV: this city has long and uneasy history. It includes Polish, Austrian, Jewish, Georgian influence.
But it is UKRAINIAN city! And trust me (i am Ukrainian who lives in Kyiv and loves Lviv a lot!) - it is 100% Ukrainian city.

Some posts here look agressive. You really want to take our territory? But you realize that nobody will give it to you.
So, what do you want in fact? Do you really want confrontation?
I hope, you don t.
You, the Poles, have mostly good attitude here in Ukraine.
Don t loose it.
It s better to be friends.
MediaWatch 10 | 945
15 Aug 2011 #150
Why does America need 6 (in the 50 states), not including the time zones for Guam, American Samoa, Wake Island and more.

Yes and thank God America does have all these territories. But considering their area they still pale in comparison to Russia. America also has the power to seize Canada and territories in all of the Western hemisphere but it does not. Russia on the other hand went far beyond seizing the amount of territory Russia needs for its population. That tells you something.

America also had a time zone in Germany (West Germany) as did Russia (East Germany) but can you guess who the Germans preferred having in their country? The Americans or the Russians?

Modern European history is littered with examples - Russia is hardly unique.

Yes why isn't Kosovo returned to Serbia? I'm all for that. Part of the reason why Kosovo was seized from Serbia was because it was flooded with non-Serbs. That's parallel to how Russia seized most of its territory and influence in other countries. By pushing in chunks of the Russian population like in Eastern Ukraine and now Russian "peacekeepers" in parts of Georgia which Russia is now seizing for itself.

Russia is unique when you just look at the raw size of the country in proportion to the amount of Russians living in it. How can a nation be that greedy for territory? No other nation comes close to having that greed for territory in proportion to its population. Hopefully the Chinese will gradually seize southern Siberia by pushing its population into it to balance Russia's disproportionate greed for territory. The Chinese deserve that land more than the Russians since it used to be their's and their growing population needs it more than the diminishing Russian population.


Home / History / Chance of Lwów once again became coming part of Poland
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.