The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 173

Mother tongue in Poland - acccording to 1931 census.


Ironside 47 | 9,586
2 Jan 2012  #1
A graph:

d

My take on this is that whoever talks about Poland discriminating or holding territories which shouldn't being to her is talking nonsense.
EM_Wave 9 | 311
2 Jan 2012  #2
I wonder what the "other" mostly refers to.
OP Ironside 47 | 9,586
2 Jan 2012  #3
* local
** local including Lithuanian
gumishu 11 | 4,955
2 Jan 2012  #4
I wonder what the "other" mostly refers to.

the others were mostly considering themselves 'locals' as over 60 per cent of the inhabitants of Polesie Voievodship did - they did not associate neither with Belarussian or Ukrainian nationality - there is much less others in other areas of the country - in Białystok and Wilno voivodeships the others could have been Tatars and Karaims who kept their national identity
sarahk - | 18
2 Jan 2012  #5
My take on this is that whoever talks about Poland discriminating or holding territories which shouldn't being to her is talking nonsense.

What do you mean?

It'd be interesting to see one of those charts for languages today.
a.k.
2 Jan 2012  #6
It'd be interesting to see one of those charts for languages today.

Why? It'd be very predictable chart.
delphiandomine 84 | 17,703
3 Jan 2012  #7
My take on this is that whoever talks about Poland discriminating or holding territories which shouldn't being to her is talking nonsense.

Your chart actually proves that at least three voivodeships had a minority of Poles, with another one showing clear local allegiance over national allegiance.
OP Ironside 47 | 9,586
3 Jan 2012  #8
What of it ? Honest question.
I don't regard that as a big deal provided that ethnicity in question never formed a state. As to local allegiance that doesn't exclude them being Polish,or becoming Polish given chance, right?
piktoonis - | 86
3 Jan 2012  #9
You use 1931 census, which didn't use nationality question, but instead "mother tongue". That means any jew, byelorussian or other who used polish at home was counted as a pole. Not to mention that pre-war chairman of the Polish census statistical office said that results were "fixed". Ironside, you are becoming more and more desperate. :D
Harry
3 Jan 2012  #10
at least three voivodeships had a minority of Poles

In at three voivodeships fewer than a quarter of the inhabitants were Poles. And that is after the results had been fixed!

I don't regard that as a big deal provided that ethnicity in question never formed a state. As to local allegiance that doesn't exclude them being Polish,or becoming Polish given chance, right?

Yes they did: it is called Belarus, as is made clear by two of the sources from the article which you took the chart. I wonder why you didn't link to the article.

Not to mention that pre-war chairman of the Polish census statistical office said that results were "fixed".

Edward Szturm de Sztrem was his name. It is mentioned in the article
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1931_Polish_census
which Ironside takes the chart from but mysteriously does not link to.

My take on this is that whoever talks about Poland discriminating or holding territories which shouldn't being to her is talking nonsense.

Yes, clearly Poland should have included huge areas where Poles made up an average of 18% of the population.
OP Ironside 47 | 9,586
3 Jan 2012  #11
You use 1931 census, which didn't use nationality question, but instead "mother tongue".

Even if what you claim is true that the language spoken at home has no bearings on once nationality than still doesn't mean that Wilno and surrendering areas wasn't populated mainly by Poles.

According to your logic I could claim that many people speaking Ukrainian at home were Polish. Indeed I'm aware of such a case.
Anyway the possibility you mentioned could be true for few cases but majority of people speaking the Polish language were Poles.
Interesting that you as Lithuanian would claim that the language has no bearings on once nationality. I would say that you should communicate that to your Lithuanian compatriots as their views are quite contrary.

Desperate ? Do you think that Poles are planing on getting Wilno back - nothing can be further from the truth but actions and acts of your government against Poles who are living there may and will persuade them otherwise. I think that your politicians and elite are idiots.

I wonder why you didn't link to the a

Because that was post-factual interpretation of events. If not for the WWII they could as well declare to be Polish.

It is mentioned in the article which Ironside takes the chart from but mysteriously does not link to.

Because he said all that AFTER the WWII in Soviet Poland ruled by the Kremlin, he got himself a job on Uni. I deem that claim of his - worthless and void. Anybody with any knowledge of the Polish history would agree with me.

Yes, clearly Poland should have included huge areas where Poles made up an average of 18% of the population.

The point is that Poles were majority in the country.Would you advice Lithuania to give up to Poland those areas were Poles are majority?

Would you kindly advice what Poland should do with the territories that used to be a part of Poland for centuries.
Harry
3 Jan 2012  #12
Because that was post-factual interpretation of events.

No, the number of Belarussians in Poland was known before 1931 and strangely it happened to officially go down and down and down during the life of the RPII, down from 3,000,000 (unofficial) in 1918 to 989,900 in 1931 (officially).

Because he said all that AFTER the WWII in Soviet Poland ruled by the Kremlin

You expect him to have spoken out against the orders of the regime while the regime was still in power? Most probably would have got him a ticket to Poland's pre-WWII concentration camp.

he got himself a job on Uni.

And yet again you avoid the truth! He worked at Polish universities before and after WWII.

The point is that Poles were majority in the country.

By that logic either Germany or Russia could today invade Poland and justify their annexation of the country on the basis that Germans/Russians are in the majority in the newly formed country.

Would you kindly advice what Poland should do with the territories that used to be a part of Poland for centuries.

Ever heard of something called 'self-determination'?
Oh, and Germany called: they'd like you to give back Stettin, Breslau, Danzig, Stolp, etc etc.
OP Ironside 47 | 9,586
3 Jan 2012  #13
No, the number of Belarussians in Poland was known before 1931 and strangely it happened to officially go down and down and down during the life of the RPII, down from 3,000,000 (unofficial) in 1918 to 989,900 in 1931 (officially).

Why strangely?I find that only natural provided that many so called Belorussians declared for Poland.

You expect him to have spoken out against the orders of the regime while the regime was still in power? Most probably would have got him a ticket to Poland's pre-WWII concentration camp.

That is quite a nonsense, nobody would be sent to prison for speaking the truth. You do not see the difference between Polish government and Soviet government in Poland.

The fact is that he was working for said

regime

and was happy with it. I think that you fail to understand to what extent Soviet Poland have been ruled by lies and deception.
He as an prominent person of per-war establishment to get a job at uni with soviets in charge he must have go to the extreme in criticism of the previous regime .

By that logic either Germany or Russia could today invade Poland and justify their annexation of the country on the basis that Germans/Russians are in the majority in the newly formed country.

What country Poland invaded and what country the minority in the two provinces in question could have joined ?

Ever heard of something called 'self-determination'?

Self-determination of what ? Two provinces ? How long would they would have survived bordering the Soviet Union ? Economical they would strugle, those provinces were the poorest region of Poland (mostly agriculture).

Ukrainians had no sufficient resources and educated people to run anything more than a county.

You are basically saying that you don't know what Poland should have done.
I must conclude that the only aim of your historical studies is to be used as a tool in moulding Poles into the shape of your PC views and beliefs.

Can you deny it?
piktoonis - | 86
3 Jan 2012  #14
Even if what you claim is true that the language spoken at home has no bearings on once nationality than still doesn't mean that Wilno and surrendering areas wasn't populated mainly by Poles.

Well, Vilnius city had more than 50% of jews, not poles. And considering those harsh conditions of polish occupation, it was dangerous to say that you are not a pole, or ticket to concentration camp was guaranteed. And i am not talking about Vilnius district, the same goes to Belarus and Ukraine. In short, 1931 census was nothing more but show to please polish nationalists.

I think that your politicians and elite are idiots.

I agree. But the same is with polish politicians.
Harry
3 Jan 2012  #15
many so called Belorussians declared for Poland.

Well, it was either that or suffer the discrimination that went along with Polonization.

That is quite a nonsense, nobody would be sent to prison for speaking the truth.

Thanks for the laugh! Although I said "concentration camp", not prison.

What country Poland invaded and what country the minority in the two provinces in question could have joined ?

Ukrayins’ka Narodnia Respublika. Remember that one? It was the country which Poland first invaded, and then formed an alliance with and finally sold to the Soviets for 60 million roubles. Funny how you always forget that place. Oh and you will find that there were three provinces where Poles accounted for less than a quarter of the population.

Self-determination of what ? Two provinces ?

No, the country which Poland had agreed would exist.

You are basically saying that you don't know what Poland should have done.

Poland should have kept its word. But instead it stabbed its allies in the back and sold them to the Soviets, locked all those to dared object up in internment camps and then started to brutally oppress the remaining people.
OP Ironside 47 | 9,586
3 Jan 2012  #16
harsh conditions of polish occupation

Well for once if you would stop fooling yourself as to:
- Polish occupation - it was self-determination done by the majority of said territory !
- as to allegedly harsh conditions - those conditions were most liberal in this part of Europe if not the world.

You must see that such a attitude is what is prompting your politicians to peruse that chauvinistic and unbecoming course of action.
The truth is the former GDL were divided into three parts Belorussian, Polish and what is called now Lithuanian.
All parts have been equally entitled to inheritance left by the former GDL !
Lithuanian part was weak, Belorussian very weak and Polish could count on support of the former Crown!
I personally wouldn't have anything against Wilno being a part of nowadays Lithuania if not for your government acting against Poles and their rights and treating Poland as an enemy.It has to stop!

The first step would be cleaning the Lithuanian history books from chauvinistic and politically motivated rubbish such as you have portended here.
See the truth instead of myths !
Then and only then we can build on mutual respect and that includes mutual respect of rights and borders.
Regarding census - even if the census is biased( which I doubt) it still doesn't change the fact that Wilno and area have been prodemintly Polish before the war.

Now, would you cease all territories with Polish majority to Poland? If not how would you explain your keen interest and indeed interest of your country before the war in obtaining area where Lithuanian population have been scarce at best.

Double standards ?

Ukrayins'ka Narodnia Respublika.

No such a country existed Harry. Aspirations are not counting. I think that your knowledge of history is failing you here.
Poland formed alliance with and military supported an atempt by Petlura to build the independent Ukrainian state.
Without support of the local population for such a state what would you expect Poland to do - fight for the Ukrainian state without Ukrainians support ? Why would excuse Britain than for not fighting Soviets alone, at least the have Polish army and population would support them?

Sold for money ? That money was retribution for lost property and war damages.
I see that you are reverting to your squabbling again ?

I must conclude that the only aim of your historical studies is to be used as a tool in moulding Poles into the shape of your PC views and beliefs.
Can you deny it?

Answer above !

No, the country which Poland had agreed would exist.

Don't be ridiculous, facts are facts and wishes are just wishes !
If you revert to your usual squabble I will ignore you.
Harry
3 Jan 2012  #17
No such a country existed Harry. Aspirations are not counting. I think that your knowledge of history is failing you here.

The state of Poland recognised the existence of that particular country and did so in the 1920 Treaty of Warsaw. But I can understand why you want to forget that particular treaty.

Sold for money ? That money was retribution for lost property and war damages.

And not at all for concluding a treaty which Poland had promised that it would conclude, oh no!

Answer above !

The answer is 'no': I let history shape my views.

Don't be ridiculous, facts are facts and wishes are just wishes !

And the very simple fact is that Poland recognised the existence of that state and promised certain things to it. And that the USSR then offered Poland some 60 million roubles, as well as a fair chunk of land, and Poland then broke its promises.
piktoonis - | 86
3 Jan 2012  #18
- Polish occupation - it was self-determination done by the majority of said territory !

Are you really that naive or just pretending? Military occupation using armed forces is "self-determination"?

those conditions were most liberal in this part of Europe if not the world.

LOL

I personally wouldn't have anything against Wilno being a part of nowadays Lithuania if not for your government acting against Poles and their rights and treating Poland as an enemy.It has to stop!

It seems you are brainwashed.
OP Ironside 47 | 9,586
3 Jan 2012  #19
Are you really that naive or just pretending? Military occupation using armed forces is "self-determination"?

Żeligowski,Piłsudski had the same right as any given resident of the former GDL to his loyalties and choices, you cannot deny him being ingenious Lithuanian as understood before the XX impostors.

Most of the division had been locals as well, they have been supported by uncontested majority of population there.
If you have a problem with comprehension of those simple facts then something must be wrong with your logic or ability to reason.
Occupation is a political term of politicians who claimed Wilno as their own but lost- it is unacceptable now.
I suppose that Lithuanian forces in Wino wouldn't have been - an occupation, right ?

LOL

lol on your own ignorance are you ?

It seems you are brainwashed.

Why ?because I do not agree with you ?

And the very simple fact is that Poland recognised the existence of that state and promised certain things to it. And that the USSR then offered Poland some 60 million roubles, as well as a fair chunk of land, and Poland then broke its promises.

The fact is that there was not such a state and never were. In fact there was only Petlura and couple of thousand of his soldiers. Poland provided such a assistance as they could, without popular support for Petlura in Ukraine there was nothing that could have been done.

As for the rest it is your interpretation and you should prove that properly not spreading it on thick on the internet forum.
Harry
3 Jan 2012  #20
The fact is that there was not such a state and never were.

The state of Poland said that there was such a state and made certain promises to that state. Promises which were ignored when Poland was offered some 60 million roubles and a good chunk of territory.

As for the rest it is your interpretation

What the treaty said is a matter of historical fact, although those are inconvenient facts for you, so no wonder you try to claim that they are not facts.

Another inconvenient fact for you is that even a fixed census shows us that in three voivodeships Poles accounted for an average of just 18% of the population.
piktoonis - | 86
3 Jan 2012  #21
Most of the division had been locals as well, they have been supported by uncontested majority of population there.

Locals, right... it was polish division renamed to be "locals", that was used to back stab Lithuania.

Why ?because I do not agree with you ?

Because you are repeating the same what Russia's and Poland's foreign ministries say, while EU finds no problems.
delphiandomine 84 | 17,703
3 Jan 2012  #22
Oh and you will find that there were three provinces where Poles accounted for less than a quarter of the population.

Funnily enough, those were the ones that were supposed to be autonomous (according to the agreement made with the League of Nations), but were then denied autonomy too.

Breaking promises seems to have been a speciality of the II RP.
Harry
3 Jan 2012  #23
Funnily enough, those were the ones that were supposed to be autonomous (according to the agreement made with the League of Nations), but were then denied autonomy too.

Yes, the 1920 treaty of Warsaw also made certain promises about minority rights. Funny how those got forgotten when tens of millions of roubles were put on the table.

Breaking promises seems to have been a speciality of the II RP.

Lucky that its replacement is doing a lot better.
OP Ironside 47 | 9,586
3 Jan 2012  #24
What the treaty said is a matter of historical fact, although those are inconvenient facts for you, so no wonder you try to claim that they are not facts.

I already said that that is your interpretation, according to your logic Britain after the war should have attack the Soviet Union to provide Poland with democratic and independent Poland.

As for minority in Poland there is nothing inconvenient about that, nor about census. As for that census being fixed is only an interpretation I disagree with.

Locals, right... it was polish division renamed to be "locals", that was used to back stab Lithuania.

Really ? Do you have anything to prove your claim, I mean the list of soldiers from said division and their place of birth. That would be easy to verify.

Back stab Lithuania ? Lithuania was in concert with the Red Army which Poland was fighting. You deserved whatever was coming, you choose the side !
Do you think that Lithuania would survive long without independent Poland and with Soviets in her place?
Poland could have wiped out that state of yours in no time.
Frankly nobody in Poland care any-more about Lithuanian.No more special treatment. The only fool who was doing that was Kaczynski.

Because you are repeating the same what Russia's and Poland's foreign ministries say, while EU finds no problems.

What Russia has to do with this ?
Lithuanian minority in Poland has certain rights granted to them by Poland. On the other hand Polish minority in Lithuania doesn't enjoy the same right.

What the EU has to do with that ? Do you have to be told or ordered to do the right thing?

Breaking promises seems to have been a speciality of the II RP.

Nope that was and is a speciality of the western powers.

Lucky that its replacement is doing a lot better.

Are you for real Harry ? You must be an idiot then, if not explain to me what do you mean?
piktoonis - | 86
3 Jan 2012  #25
Really ? Do you have anything to prove your claim, I mean the list of soldiers from said division and their place of birth. That would be easy to verify.

I don't have the names, do you have them? From what i found it had mostly poles. So naming it Lithuanian-belarusian is for propaganda only.

Lithuania was in concert with the Red Army which Poland was fighting. You deserved whatever was coming, you choose the side !

Did Lithuania sign military alliance with Soviet Russia and attacked Poland? Following your logic, then Poland got what it deserved at the begining of ww2.

What Russia has to do with this ?Lithuanian minority in Poland has certain rights granted to them by Poland. On the other hand Polish minority in Lithuania doesn't enjoy the same right.What the EU has to do with that ? Do you have to be told or ordered to do the right thing?

Only Russia and Poland claim that Lithuania violates minority rights. if it were true, EU would have intervened, yet we heard nothing. You can say what you want, but Poland is

far from perfect in granting rights for minorities.

Nope that was and is a speciality of the western powers.

Of course, how could Poland be wrong :D
OP Ironside 47 | 9,586
3 Jan 2012  #26
From what i found it had mostly poles.

the key is a place of birth.

Did Lithuania sign military alliance with Soviet Russia and attacked Poland? Following your logic, then Poland got what it deserved at the begining of w

I don't know what you are following but definitely it is not logic. Lithuania was cooperating with Soviets its worse than formal alliance its sneaky.

You can say what you want, but Poland is
far from perfect in granting rights for minorities.

What is stopping Lithuania from granting to Poles the same rights Lithuanian have in Poland already?

Of course, how could Poland be wrong

What are you doing here ? In this thread ? I give you facts, arguments, logic and issues and all feedback I get is all same old.

Discussion with you is pointless, you are proving that talk with Lithuania is pointless as well. Do what you have to do and Poles will do the same.
piktoonis - | 86
3 Jan 2012  #27
the key is a place of birth.

I looked in to that division and was composed of people from various eastern region you call Kresy. However before Suwalki treaty it suffered heavy casualties and many replacements came from Poland. So it was Lithuanian-Belarusian only on paper. Interesting fact, that some who where from Vilnius district and found out that they were going against Lithuania, they deserted. Any other information is scarce and misleading.

I don't know what you are following but definitely it is not logic. Lithuania was cooperating with Soviets its worse than formal alliance its sneaky.

The only cooperation i know is transit rights through territory that Lithuania gained after Lithuania-Soviet peace treaty. No direct military action or any support against Poland. Speaking of sneaky, Poland showed that no one can best her there.

What is stopping Lithuania from granting to Poles the same rights Lithuanian have in Poland already?

No one is stopping. They already have them.

What are you doing here ? In this thread ?

Maybe if you stopped your smear campaigns, everyone would be happy?
Prof 2 | 5
4 Jan 2012  #28
My grandfather was born in Ropczyce in 1900 and fought in the war against Russia. After the war, probably in 1922, he moved to a city near Tarnopol, where my father was born in 1925. Could anybody tell me what were the government promisses to ex-soldiers in order they could leave their hometowns and go eastern beyond the Bug River?
delphiandomine 84 | 17,703
4 Jan 2012  #29
Only speculating here, but it would seem possible that ex-soldiers could have been given land in these territories, especially in order to marginalise the Ukrainians living there.
Zman
4 Jan 2012  #30
Prof.... why the Bug river at that time.... have you read basic history? Research where Tarnopol is.


Home / History / Mother tongue in Poland - acccording to 1931 census.
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.