The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 174

Mother tongue in Poland - acccording to 1931 census.


alxmac 5 | 27
4 Jan 2012 #31
my grandmother was from polesie and was an ''other, local'' which means poleszuk. poleszuk people are eastern slavic people who have thair own unique culture and languaue called polessian language which some considered a dialect of Ukrainian. most poleszuk people have Ukrainian last names and its thought that most poleszuki are closely related to modern day Ukrainians as they both descend from the same ancient Slavic tribes of Kieven rus!

also the poleszuk people where heavily russified before ww1 and then heavily polanized after ww1.
about 70% of poleszuk people live in northern Ukraine and the rest mainly in southern Belarus with small communities in poland and russia.

the polish community in polesie had little to do with the poleszuk '' locals''
Harry
4 Jan 2012 #32
according to your logic Britain after the war should have attack the Soviet Union to provide Poland with democratic and independent Poland.

Firstly the Anglo-Polish treaty specifically excluded the USSR. Secondly, Britain secured for Poland the promise of free and fair elections after the war: it is not the fault of Britain that Poland took 44 years to carry those out.

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

Really? Perhaps you could name some the treaties/agreements which interbellum Britain broke? I can name at least five which interbellum Poland broke.

the same rights Lithuanian have in Poland already?

You mean like the write to use all Lithuanian names? Oh, sorry, I forgot that Poland doesn't give that right.

Harry: 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?

I mean that the replacement for RPII, i.e. RPIII, is doing much better than RPII did when it comes to not breaking treaties/agreements, as anybody can see (anybody other than an idiot of course).

Only speculating here, but it would seem possible that ex-soldiers could have been given land in these territories,

Yes, that is precisely who were given land there. And also the first people to get the free holidays in Siberia winter of '39 (if they were lucky).
delphiandomine 88 | 18,455
4 Jan 2012 #33
Interesting question there - how would Polish, ex-military heroes treat Ukrainian peasants?
gumishu 11 | 5,681
4 Jan 2012 #34
there was no serfdom anymore so those Polish colonists worked they land themselves or hired local people to do it - it is not to say I know how the relations actually were just a hint at what was at the base of these relations
Harry
4 Jan 2012 #35
how would Polish, ex-military heroes treat Ukrainian peasants?

To judge by the speed with which they were identified by the locals when the Soviets arrived in 1939, not that well might be one of the answers. Although it could have simply been that those men had actually behaved well and were simply carrying the can (so to speak) for the oppressive policies of their government.
gumishu 11 | 5,681
4 Jan 2012 #36
Ironside:
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.

Harry please do post your other VIABLE options/solutions in 1921 and throughout the interbellum
Harry
4 Jan 2012 #37
Poland living up to the commitments which she had made in the treaty of Warsaw and the treaty of Suwalki would have been a good start.

Not following the policy of forcible assimilation via Polonization would most certainly have helped. Pilsudski's state-assimilation policy was a marked improvement on the ethnic-assimilation policy which came before it but by then a lot of damage had been done and what followed Pilsudski was fairly predictable too. The colonization policy wasn't exactly clever either.

It is entirely possible to make a state that is composed of different ethnic groups which speak different languages; look at Switzerland. However, due to racist morons like Dmowski being involved in the interbellum government, Poland didn't have much of a chance to become one of such states.
gumishu 11 | 5,681
4 Jan 2012 #38
I agree on all points actually here - just a note: free Ukraine was not viable in 1921 and throughout the interbellum
Harry
4 Jan 2012 #39
just a note: free Ukraine was not viable in 1921 and throughout the interbellum

I think that that is debatable at best. Do you really think that if Poland had said to the USSR after winning the Polish-Soviet war in 1921 "If you want peace, you must agree that a free Ukrainian state will be set up and will be a democracy." the Soviets would have said "In that case, screw you: we fight on!"? Remember that Poland actually refused some of the territory which was offered by the USSR (including Minsk). And one of the main reasons that a free Ukraine was not possible during the interbellum was that neither of the two nations which had partitioned Ukraine wanted to see a free Ukraine.
gumishu 11 | 5,681
4 Jan 2012 #40
use your imagination a little bit Harry - and some knowledge - in western Ukraine nationalist movement was anti-polish (and could have then allied themselves with the Germans) - there was also possible infiltration by communists - if the free Ukrainian state was somehow hijacked by one of these forces Poland would become very vulnerable - so yes, Poland could well have given a lot of autonomy to Ukrainians and not pursued the policy of trying to polonize (such policies were neither constant nor consistent) them but granting them independence would have been a folly by the Poles back then - and you cannot compare the situation with the Baltic States or even Lithuania - there was real anti-russian (and so anti-soviet) sentiment in Lithuania after over 100 year of Russian rule - there was also big wariness of the Germans in Lithuania (yes Lithuanians did collaborate with the Soviets in 1919 but I think they quickly realised what a threat the Soviets pose)
Harry
4 Jan 2012 #41
in western Ukraine nationalist movement was anti-polish

Some were anti-Polish and some were in favour of working with the Polish, such as the ones who signed a treaty with Poland.

and could have then allied themselves with the Germans) - there was also possible infiltration by communists - if the free Ukrainian state was somehow hijacked by one of these forces Poland would become very vulnerable

How exactly was Germany going to get arms to those Ukrainians? Through Poland or through Germany? And was Germany really a threat to Poland then? If so, what were Polish forces doing attacking German forces?!

but granting them independence would have been a folly by the Poles back then

If Poland didn't want a free Ukrainian state, Poland shouldn't agreed that one existed. Saying that it existed and then back-stabbing the allies for 59 million roubles and a slice of territory pretty much guaranteed that things were not going to end well between Poland and Ukraine.
alxmac 5 | 27
5 Jan 2012 #42
poland oppressed ukraine and belarus and tried to polonise its people they banned ukrainiana belarusian language and tried to convert them to catholic church for many hundreds of hears. they mostly failed at it
Harry
5 Jan 2012 #43
I noticed your presents here twit. Now shoo !Do not pollute my thread with BS!

The supression of mother tongues in interbellum Poland is very much on topic for this thread. Although I can well understand why you tell people not to discuss it.
delphiandomine 88 | 18,455
5 Jan 2012 #44
The supression of mother tongues in interbellum Poland is very much on topic for this thread.

What's also interesting is how the Poles and Austrians collaborated to keep Ukrainians out of education prior to 1918.
Harry
5 Jan 2012 #45
Interesting question there - how would Polish, ex-military heroes treat Ukrainian peasants?

According to what appears to be a reasonably well sourced wikipedia article:

The tensions between the settlers and local population were further aggravated by the fact that only 4 percent of the newly-arrived settlers lived on their land, while the majority either rented their land to local farmers at a high price or abandoned their land altogether, a situation unacceptable to many inhabitants of the overpopulated and land hunger-stricken region.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osadnik#cite_note-Pob.C3.B3g-4
delphiandomine 88 | 18,455
5 Jan 2012 #46
Interesting - they no doubt would have inflamed the local (majority Ukranian/Belarusian) population through such measures, though as is typical of the II RP, they made a total mess of it.
gumishu 11 | 5,681
5 Jan 2012 #47
The supression of mother tongues in interbellum Poland is very much on topic for this thread.

first of all - no mother tongue was forbidden to use in public - though I am pretty sure that only Polish was allowed in formal contacts with the administration - I don't really know about the school status of these
Harry
5 Jan 2012 #48
no mother tongue was forbidden to use in public

Yes, you are right, there was no ban on any of the languages which I know of.

though I am pretty sure that only Polish was allowed in formal contacts with the administration

That's the same information which I have. I wonder whether the current policy of only permitting Polish diacritics to be used was also in place (I would imagine that it was).

I don't really know about the school status of these

There used to be information about that at the wikipedia article about Polonisation but for some reason it has almost all been removed. Pity, from memory it gave precise numbers of non-Polish language schools which were closed and students from each ethnic group.
gumishu 11 | 5,681
5 Jan 2012 #49
poland oppressed ukraine and belarus and tried to polonise its people they banned ukrainiana belarusian language and tried to convert them to catholic church for many hundreds of hears. they mostly failed at it

you confuse the policies of the Catholic church in the ages past with those of the Polish state - there was no serious polonisation effort nor any catholicisation effort on the part of the Polish (Polish-Lithuanian state) for the most time Polish state occupied these territories
aphrodisiac 11 | 2,442
5 Jan 2012 #50
what a nice state of denial you are placing yourself in. Is it because you are not able to face the truth? Strange indeed.
gumishu 11 | 5,681
5 Jan 2012 #51
hmm - there was no state education in the Polish state until the 19th century - and in the 19th century anything that was under influence of any Polish statehood was Księstwo Warszawskie and Królestwo Kongresowe - none of which had any powers over present day Belarus and Ukraine - so what policy of polonisation was there ? there was hardly any central administration in the Polish Lithuanian-Commonwealth - when the personal union united Poland and Lithuania the Polish language was for a long time not present in public affairs in Lithuania - Ruthenian was the language of law at least up until the creation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1569 (Union of Lublin) and I guess even long after eventually giving way to Polish because the elites of the Lithuanian Grand Duchy went to embrace Polish language - W roku 1697 na Litwie, na wniosek miejscowej szlachty (tzw. zrównanie praw) wprowadzono język polski jako urzędowy, w miejsce dotychczas obowiązującego języka starobiałoruskiego. : Polish language as a legal medium was only introduced in Grand Duchy of Lithuania in 1967

the actions of catholic church were quite independant of these of the Polish state
OP Ironside 50 | 11,142
5 Jan 2012 #52
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.

there basic informations :
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_Lithuanian%E2%80%93Belarusian_Division

No one is stopping. They already have them.

don't you be smartie here, they do not have the same rights.

Maybe if you stopped your smear campaigns,

since when the truth is a smear campaign ?
The point here is that Lithuania after WWI wanted those territories where Lithuanian ethnicity was almost non existent.
Your history books and you are taking nonsense and rubbish and you think that you making some points here ?
We can discus side issues but crux of the matter is that Lithuanians wanted to impose themselves by force on the local population.Majority of said population were Polish.
Zman
6 Jan 2012 #53
Gumishu, just tell them all to visit Minsk and check how polonized its inhabitants are. Or Brest, for that matter. Oh ,you should see their russian faces if you even try to speak belorussian to them there!
boletus 30 | 1,366
6 Jan 2012 #54
Ruthenian was the language of law at least up until the creation of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth

And here is something that actually demonstrates the above [I hope that those jpg images will be accepted, otherwise you would have to download the entire album yourself. But it is worthy the trouble.]

The Statute of Lithuania, in the first edition from 1529 and the privileges for the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Codex of Olbracht Gasztołd, the Chancellor of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Manuscript in West Ruthenian.
First half of the 16th century. 21.5x16 cm, II+229 leaves (458 pp.). Period binding, wood and leather. Call No.: rps BOZ 77

From the album: Treasures of the Polish National Library, eAlbum "More Precious than Gold"

bn.org.pl/download/document/1236004326.pdf

"Statut litewski" included regulations of civil law, penal law and judicial procedure, and defined (in 13 chapters divided into 282 articles) the state system and social organisation of the Grand Duchy. Based on caselaw and individual privileges and containing certain borrowings from Roman, Ruthenian, Polish and Saxon-Magdeburg laws, the Statute was to be binding on all inhabitants of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.

The Statute is written in West Ruthenian, the official language of the Grand Duchy used in the chancellery and in literature, enriched by elements of Church Slavonic and, as regards legal terminology, by Polish. The text is adorned by ribbed initials and the titles of chapters.

The first of the pages reproduced here presents the text of the first two paragraphs of Chapter XI dealing with penalties for injuring and killing a servant, a bee keeper or a craftsman. The second page presents the preamble to the Statute with the Bogurodzica (an early mediaeval hymn to the Holy Virgin). The 17 stanzas of the hymn are written in a mixture of Polish and West Ruthenian.


  • Penalties for injury or death

  • Preamble-Bogurodzica
OP Ironside 50 | 11,142
6 Jan 2012 #55
Ah Britain secures the promise ? that's funny !
Poland recognized right to existence of said Ukrainian Republic, is not the fault of Poland that Ukraine took 72 to carry those out.

You mean like the write to use all Lithuanian names? Oh, sorry, I forgot that Poland doesn't give that right.

no like all the other right Lithuanian minority in Poland have and Polish minority in Lithuanian do not have !

RPIII, is doing much better than RPII did when it comes to not breaking treaties/agreements, as anybody can see (anybody other than an idiot of course).

How does is matter to the topic ?gee ...

Real solution and bag of wishes !
Nobody would cherish a minority whose a main aim is to declare an independence (regardless circumstance )and grab as many land of the host as possible.

Frostbite assimilation my ass. Using nomenclature and standards of nowadays you are right for some few states, mostly the EU. And even there, there are countries like Lithuania whose educational policy can be call a first step to forcible assimilation, yet you take her side against Poland,

Switzerland is the only state it works,
Internal policy of prewar Poland have no bearings on her fate.

The suppression of mother tongues in interbellum Poland is very much on topic for this thread. Although I can well understand why you tell people not to discuss it.

According to times and mentality there wasn't nothing wrong with that, what about right of Poles in Lithuania ?I can argue that limiting high schools with the Ukrainian Language was to integrate them with the state they lived in, and to improve their chances for getting a job !

By the way in the territories with considerable concentration of minority there were signs in two languages.
And non language was banned, unlike For example Welsh in the uk at the time.The Polish language was the language of administration and rightly so !

So stop that Bull !

what a nice state of denial you are placing yourself in. Is it because you are not able to face the truth? Strange indeed.

If you talking unities - I think that was a mistake, those five million unites considering themselves Ukrainians would be otherwise Catholics and Poles.

The Parliament was against that, the issue was forced by some clergy, the Vatican and the King( Swedish ass-hole without understating of the country )
In Poland at the time there was no administration to force anything on anybody. Massive fail !So what ?
The only reason to discus that are some morons with the dirt under their nails and with their scruffy appearance trying to play the blame games - why don't you **** off on the palm tree !
Harry
6 Jan 2012 #56
Poland recognized right to existence of said Ukrainian Republic, is not the fault of Poland that Ukraine took 72 to carry those out

Actually it is: in 1921 Poland agreed with the USSR that the territory which in 1920 it had agreed with the Ukrainians to be part of the Ukrainian National Republic was instead part of the USSR.

no like all the other right Lithuanian minority in Poland have and Polish minority in Lithuanian do not have !

Perhaps you would like to list all those rights? I doubt it.

Switzerland is the only state it works,

Really? So the United Kingdom is to you a failed state? South Africa does not exist? Belgium has a single ethnic group? So does Canada? And so does India? Multi-ethnic group states are very common and they usually work, provided that the most powerful group does not impose its will on the minority groups. Guess what mistake interbellum Poland made?

I can argue that limiting high schools with the Ukrainian Language was to integrate them with the state they lived in, and to improve their chances for getting a job !

You certainly could, but it would mean that you support the limiting of high schools which use Polish in favour of high schools where only English, the language of the EU, is used; that would certainly help the students' chances of getting a job.

For example Welsh in the uk at the time.

Please provide sources which state that Welsh was banned in the UK during the interbellum period. Actually, please provide sources which state that Welsh was ever banned in the UK: I'm willing to bet that this is just yet another of your anti-British lies.
piktoonis - | 86
6 Jan 2012 #57
don't you be smartie here, they do not have the same rights.

Same old song, still full of hate towards lithuanians.

since when the truth is a smear campaign ? The point here is that Lithuania after WWI wanted those territories where Lithuanian ethnicity was almost non existent. Your history books and you are taking nonsense and rubbish and you think that you making some points here ?

Nothing new, when out of ideas, start insulting others and falsify history.
Harry
6 Jan 2012 #58
when out of ideas, start insulting others and falsify history.

Yes, that is Ironside's standard practice.

I can't wait to see how he tries to get out of his lie about Welsh being banned in the UK in the 1920s and 1930s!
OP Ironside 50 | 11,142
6 Jan 2012 #59
Actually it is

Consequently it is Britain's fault for dropping the Polish Government in Exile like hot potato and securing the promise of the democratic election in Poland.

I can secure the promise from my friend if you pay him 10 000 $ he will pay you 20 000 in three month time. However, if he will not pay do not blame me I secured the promiseand you can only blame yourself for not getting promised monies.

Please provide sources which state that Welsh was banned in the UK during the interbellum period. Actually, please provide sources which state that Welsh was ever banned in the UK: I'm willing to bet that this is just yet another of your anti-British lies.

Just that you remember about that a next time when you will enrage in your anti-Polish spinning diatribes.
Here:
bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-13080586
bbc.co.uk/wales/history/sites/themes/society/language_tudors.shtml

You certainly could, but it would mean that you support the limiting of high schools which use Polish in favour of high schools where only English, the language of the EU, is used; that would certainly help the students' chances of getting a job.

The EU is not a single country as yet.

Really? So the United Kingdom is to you a failed state? South Africa does not exist? Belgium has a single ethnic group? So does Canada? And so does India? Multi-ethnic group states are very common and they usually work, provided that the most powerful group does not impose its will on the minority groups. Guess what mistake interbellum Poland made?

It is not that simple as you make it sounds. There is one language (or two)as the language used for administration and teaching purposes. Except for Switzerland.

Poland couldn't be arsed because language minorities in question weren't interested in common country but in a land grab.

Perhaps you would like to list all those rights? I doubt it.

You can read Polish right ?
there you go:
kurierwilenski.lt/porownanie-sytuacji-polakow-na-litwie-i-litwinow-w-polsce
Harry
6 Jan 2012 #60
You mean recognising the government of national unity in Warsaw rather than the self-appointed unelected government in London.

I can secure the promise from my friend if you pay him 10 000 $ he will pay you 20 000 in three month time. However, if he will not pay do not blame me I secured the promise and you can only blame yourself for not getting promised monies.

I would certainly not blame you: I lent him the money and I failed to collect it. Much as Poles failed to hold the free elections promised to them.

Just that you remember about that a next time when you will enrage in your anti-Polish spinning diatribes.
Here:

Thank you for that. Unfortunately I have read both of those sources and there is not a single word in either of them to support your lie that Welsh was banned in the UK. In fact, from your first source ""But it is a clear example why protecting people's freedom to speak Welsh at the workplace has been included in the new Welsh language legislation, which will come to force next year." and from your second source: "In 1549 Edward VI passed the Act of Uniformity, which came into law in 1552 and required all acts of public worship to be conducted in English instead of Latin. ... Nonetheless, in 1563 Elizabeth I introduced legislation which appeared to contradict the 1549 act. It required all churches in Wales by 1567 to have Welsh translations of the Book of Common Prayer and the Bible alongside the English versions." So even your own sources shows you to be a liar!

Poland couldn't be arsed because language minorities in question weren't interested in common country but in a land grab.

Of course they were interested in a land grab: the Polish state had grabbed their land and claimed it to be part of Poland!


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.