The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 115

The smallest Poland ever?


Polonius3 1,000 | 12,448
21 Apr 2011 #1
Today's Poland is the smallest independent Poland ever, smaller by some 20% than the already truncated 2nd Republic (1918-1939), and only one-third the size of the Rzplita Objga Narodów. This is not counting the tiny Napoleonic satellite known as the Duchy of Warsaw, which was hardly independent, nor the fluctuating statehood of early mediaeval Poland before Casimir's time.

Today's compact, ethncially homogenous Poland was Dmowski's dream, whereas Piłsudski's conception was more Jagiellonian in scope.
The disadvantage of being a medium-sized rather than a big country are obvious in terms of smaller economic, demographic and cultural potential as well as being internationally less reckoned with.

One obvious advnatge is the lack of minority problems which plague Russia, the USA, France, Britain, Gdermany et al.
And other pluses and minuses you can think of? Are you satisfied with Poland's current territorial extent?
gumishu 11 | 5,442
21 Apr 2011 #2
such comparisons are useless, pall
Ironside 49 | 10,626
21 Apr 2011 #3
Are you satisfied with Poland's current territorial extent?

No, Poland should incorporate, Kalinigrad region, Lwów area, Grodno and Lida, as for Wilno the Lithuanian chauvinistic fascist swine's, should be brought to their senses regarding discrimination of Poles there, if not Wilno should also be incorporated.
convex 20 | 3,978
21 Apr 2011 #4
Increase territory while decreasing the population. Interesting approach.
Ironside 49 | 10,626
21 Apr 2011 #5
Isn't it in line with your Malthusian philosophy ?
convex 20 | 3,978
21 Apr 2011 #6
Of course, but once you lose the population and spread yourself thin, what's to prevent a neighbor from rolling in and taking it all again? Aggressive neighbors make for, well aggressive neighbors.
Bratwurst Boy 7 | 10,462
21 Apr 2011 #7
The disadvantage of being a medium-sized rather than a big country are obvious in terms of smaller economic, demographic and cultural potential

So...the bigger the country the more cultural and economic potential????

Do you really want to say that?
Ironside 49 | 10,626
21 Apr 2011 #8
what's to prevent a neighbor from rolling in and taking it all again?

Nuclear weapon is a powerful deterrent.
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
21 Apr 2011 #9
The smallest Poland ever?

Nope.

I really like this animation of Polish Borders 990 - 2008
pgtx 30 | 3,158
21 Apr 2011 #10
yes, thanks for posting it...
Havok 10 | 912
21 Apr 2011 #11
Hi PGTX

Look at you Pani moderator :) Moving up in the world :)

The animation looks awesome. I like it too.
David_18 68 | 982
21 Apr 2011 #12
Are you satisfied with Poland's current territorial extent?

Not really... Are you?
Harry
21 Apr 2011 #13
I really like this animation of Polish Borders 990 - 2008

It's nice but one can't really call it accurate.
gumishu 11 | 5,442
21 Apr 2011 #14
care to elaborate on it??
Harry
21 Apr 2011 #15
For a start it clearly misses the 1951 territory exchange with the USSR.
Trevek 26 | 1,702
21 Apr 2011 #16
And other pluses and minuses you can think of?

Less money to spend on road repairs (if that's possible),

Less money spent policing the borders, perhaps.
gumishu 11 | 5,442
21 Apr 2011 #17
For a start it clearly misses the 1951 territory exchange with the USSR.

a pretty minor thing
Harry
21 Apr 2011 #18
Actually the largest peaceful territorial exchange in Polish history, but don't let that get in the way.
gumishu 11 | 5,442
21 Apr 2011 #19
yeah sure peaceful - like bend over and take it - Russians learned about coal deposits in the area and they wanted to have'em - and the communist puppets obliged - end of the story
Harry
21 Apr 2011 #20
Worked out better than the 1930s attempt to deal with the Soviets.
Torq 32 | 2,909
21 Apr 2011 #21
But worse than the 1920s one.
Harry
21 Apr 2011 #22
Expecting another miracle were you?
Torq 32 | 2,909
21 Apr 2011 #23
It wasn't a miracle actually (in 1920, I mean), but a sheer brilliance of Piłsudski, proverbial bravery
of Polish soldiers, and supplies sent to us by our Hungarian friends, that made it possible for Poland
to repel the Soviet invasion.
Harry
21 Apr 2011 #24
Pour me a pint of that bimber, I clearly have some catching up to do.
gumishu 11 | 5,442
21 Apr 2011 #25
@Torq
you have missed very important point - that the Polish cryptologists broke a couple of Russian codes they used to command and coordinate their armies (using radio communication) and the cryptologists even managed to feed the Bolshevik troops with fake orders (that created a gap in Russian forces that the Polish counter-offensive exploited)
Torq 32 | 2,909
21 Apr 2011 #26
Good point, Gumishu!

See, Harry - that was sheer Polish brilliance, not some miracle.
Harry
21 Apr 2011 #27
Same again please Torq, can I have a bit of lemonade in it this time please?
Nathan 18 | 1,363
21 Apr 2011 #28
And other pluses and minuses you can think of? Are you satisfied with Poland's current territorial extent?

Pluses: being alive and have a piece of land which you can claim to be yours; not having Russians on your east borders. Minuses: having Ironside and his pathetic dreams and quackings.

and only one-third the size of the Rzplita Objga Narodów.

It was Lithuania and now Lithuanians may claim Warsaw, Ironside included in the package :)

Polish cryptologists broke a couple of Russian codes they used to command and coordinate their armies

What code? You learnt to open a bottle of vodka? Russians think only one step ahead - destroy and level off. The next thing is getting drunk and search for sties to sleep in. There is no code, especially of honour.
MediaWatch 10 | 945
22 Apr 2011 #29
Nothing is perfect. It would always be nice for a country to have more land, but what good is it if you have more land but ethnic populations within that extra land don't have loyalty to the country as a whole and only to their ethnic enclave?? That was the position of Poland before 1795.

Thank God Poland has a larger population today then 70 years ago and its mostly homogenous. Poland's territory maybe more compact then before but at least it doesn't have the ethnic problems of the old Yugoslavia. For now at least. As long as it strictly controls who comes into the country.

But what you say about large populaton countries is generally true. If you're a large population country, its definitely better and it helps to hedge you against neighboring countries. As long as you don't have uncontrollable enemy within ethnic populations trying to undermine you inside your own borders.

Having said that, in my opinion, Poland's future (like all European countries) is in its population growth rate. If its population dies out, it will suffer. If it increases its population, that will only open up opportunities for it.

Mexicans have opened up many opportunities to increase the size of Mexico at America's expense without firing a shot against America, by simply increasing its population and having it flood over the American border to one day seize parts of Southern United States for Mexico. The Russians have been kind of doing that with Eastern Ukraine. Russia spilled over millions of Russians into Eastern Ukraine and today there are many ethnic Russians in Ukraine and outside Ukraine who feel Eastern Ukraine is actually defacto Russian property because of that.

Speaking about territory, maybe Poles should start increasing their population to give Poland more opportunities to increase its territory the way Mexicans and Russians are trying to do so? LOL

One of the key reasons why sadly Serbia lost territory, is because the territory it lost was outnumbered 7 to 1 by non-ethnic Serbs. That was a big argument used by those who wanted to take that land from Serbia.

There will always be a direct connection between the existence of an ethnic group and the ownership of the land beneath it.
Nathan 18 | 1,363
22 Apr 2011 #30
Many great points, MW.


Home / History / The smallest Poland ever?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.