The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 135

Ukrainian-occupied Eastern Poland


kcharlie 2 | 165
29 Dec 2012 #91
Ironside, have you thought about the practicalities of restoring the old political boundaries? What would you do with the resident Lithuanian, Belarusian and Ukrainian populations? Would you deport them à la Stalin? Would you allow them to stay and potentially rebel?

What benefits would that bring to Poland? How harmful would it be to Ukrainians, Belarusians and Lithuanians? What would international relations be like? Do you realise that many of those nations would ally with and seek protection against Poland's aggression from Mother Russia? Do you care? The Ukrainians, Belarusians and Lithuanians are the nations that for much of history voluntarily co-operated in making up the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Imagine if all those years ago, they allied with Russia instead. Does Poland need any more enemies?
Ironside 50 | 11,266
29 Dec 2012 #92
ronside, have you thought about the practicalities of restoring the old political boundaries? What would you do with the resident Lithuanian, Belarusian and Ukrainian populations? Would you deport them à la Stalin? Would you allow them to stay and potentially rebel?

So far I'm debating Poland's rights,which she may or may not assert.

What benefits would that bring to Poland?

I think that is a very good thread topic!
Grzegorz_ 51 | 6,161
29 Dec 2012 #93
Poland has huge internal problems, territorial disputes are the last thing we need now, besides population "transfers" were done so long ago that it is basically impossible to take it all back, however Lwów had been undoubtedly a Polish city for at least +400 years before 1945, It was simply stolen by dirty soviets, myths they created that It was an Ukrainian city and therefore should have belonged to the Soviet Union were disgusting dragon tales, just like stories about Poland making such a great business on post WW2 border shifts.
kcharlie 2 | 165
30 Dec 2012 #94
So far I'm debating Poland's rights,which she may or may not assert.

Well, what would the basis of those rights be? If it is the historical ethnic composition or cultural contributions in the form of historical landmarks and such like, then sure, Poland has territorial claims, but making, let alone asserting such claims is messy business.

Historically, the boundaries between people of various ethnicities were quite blurry before the 20th Century, so it's not at all clear-cut. And based on the above criteria, sure, Poland would have a claim over at least some territories currently belonging to Lithuania, Belarus and the Ukraine, but Hungary would also have potential claims over Romania and Slovakia, Russia over Ukrainian Crimea, Germany over Russia's Kaliningrad oblast and Poland's western territories, and before we know it, we've got World War III on our hands.

I'm not saying the borders drawn up at the end of World War II were the best they could have been. But that's what we've got, and Poland ended up with a reasonable chunk of territory for its population. Sure, perhaps Poles would have preferred Poland's borders to have been further east and would have preferred Vilnius and Lvov over Szczecin and Wrocław, but Poland had little say on the matter because it lost the war and was lucky to have ended up with what it got.
Ironside 50 | 11,266
31 Dec 2012 #95
Well

Well you scored some points here but still it is debate about Poland's rights, nothing less and nothing more.
Mykhaylo UA - | 56
2 Jan 2013 #96
Lwow was was build by Poland

Poles came to Ukraine (the principality of Halychyna-Vilhynia in the mid 14th century), stayed there for centuries, built buildings and were expelled in the end??? How unjust!!! Awful!!!!

But why? Maybe had no stay permits? Obtained no building permits?

Come again!!! This time we, with much Russian blood in veins of many of us, will treat you properly!!!!
sofijufka 2 | 191
2 Jan 2013 #97
like Bandera, perhaps?

kyivpost/content/ukraine/ukraine-nationalists-celebrate -banderas-birth-anniversary-318350.html
Vlad123 7 | 204
2 Jan 2013 #98
Poles came to Ukraine (the principality of Halychyna-Vilhynia in the mid 14th century), stayed there for centuries, built buildings

What remained from their buildings now?

like Bandera, perhaps?

Do Poles prize ukrainian nationalists for their anti Soviet/Russian views?
Mykhaylo UA - | 56
2 Jan 2013 #99
Bandera

Tragic person, suffered much (was not at first admitted at a higher school due to the natinal discrimination, then in prison, then in the concentration camp, then killed - personification of Ukraine's tragedy) + sometimes softie, sometimes too naive + some mistakes, but in general our prominent fighter for sweet freedom. Lessons learnt, no more mistakes in the future.

their buildings now

Mostly churches and cathedrals. Places of interest for tourists. Most residential and administrative buildings had been built during the Austrian time (roughly 1770 - 1918) including the City Hall, the Franko University Main Building, the Opera House, the House of Scientists. (all in the historical Down Town).
Ironside 50 | 11,266
2 Jan 2013 #100
Come again!!! This time we, with much Russian blood in veins of many of us, will treat you properly!!!!

Get real twit!

Poles came to Ukraine (the principality of Halychyna-Vilhynia in the mid 14th century)

What Ukraine? Are you seriously claiming that Ukrainian was there in 14th century?:D
Mykhaylo UA - | 56
3 Jan 2013 #101
anti Soviet

Vlad, Bandera was Soviet (his idea of the future Ukrainian state was based on council principles, in Russian: государственное устройство на основе советов) whereas Stalin was anti-Soviet, as soviets (councils) had no power in the "Soviet Union" - all power was usurped by the Communist Party and the country was run by it.

And Bandera was not anti-Russian: in UPA units, partially controlled by Bandera's OUN, there were, alongside Ukrainians, also Jews (some of them wrote books, in Israel, about their time in UPA, you can read them),Germans, Russians. Never heard about Russians in UPA ? - No wonder, imagine you are Russian, former UPA, and in the Soviet time you say: I was UPA soldier - what would they do with you? Of course, non-Ukrainians were in the UPA not to fight for the Ukrainian statehood, but to servive (soldiers of the defeated Red Army units, Jews who run away etc.).

The name of the country "Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic" is misleading: the country was neither a union (many "republics" were incorporated by force), nor was it soviet (soviet = the power belongs to councils of different levels), nor socialist, and there were no republics (republic = supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives; in the SU there were no elections meaning one can choose among many candidates; instead there was "voting" to confirm the already elected Communist Party members).
David_18 68 | 982
3 Jan 2013 #102
There is no solution to this problem then the curent one...

Peace and love is what the nations in this area needs.
Mykhaylo UA - | 56
3 Jan 2013 #103
Peace and love

Golden words! I agree 100%.
Vlad123 7 | 204
3 Jan 2013 #104
Vlad, Bandera was Soviet

Honesly I do not care if Bandera was ``pro-Soviet`` in any meaning of this word or not.My question did not contain any word about him.In reality it was:

Do Poles prize ukrainian nationalists for their anti Soviet/Russian views?

I meant that Poles seem to like modern Ukrainian nationalists for their anti-Soviet/Russian rethorics and welcome Ukrainian nationalism as a phenomenon but in the same time themself claim terribly suffered from Ukrainian nationalists.There is some irony in it,is not it?Personally I have nothing against of those Ukrainians who like existnce of their own state or if they are cotious towards Russian government,it is up to them, but at present stage any rhethorics which is able to spark ethnical hate between ethnical Slavs such as Ukrainians and Russians is rather unnecessary in my view.Currently size of Slavic ethnicities is quickly shrinking and ethnical Russians no way threat to Ukraine by demographical expansion.I think there is time to unite for all Slavic nations to compete against old and newly arised powers.In 13-th century Slavic princes already quarrelledwith each other and many died painfully from Mongols.

The name of the country "Union of the Soviet Socialist Republic" is misleading: the country was neither a union (many "republics" were incorporated by force), nor was it soviet (soviet = the power belongs to councils of different levels), nor socialist

Interesting.Could go give your own view on socialism?
Mykhaylo UA - | 56
3 Jan 2013 #105
Ukrainian was there in 14th century

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Name_of_Ukraine

The name "Ukraine" (Ukrainian: Україна Ukrayina [ukraˈjina]) has been used in a variety of ways since the twelfth century. Today, it is the official name of Ukraine, a country in Eastern Europe.

.....The term is also mentioned for the years 1189, 1213, 1280, and 1282 for various East Slavic lands (for example, Galician Ukrayina, etc.),[2] possibly referring to different principalities of Kievan Rus' (cf. Skljarenko 1991, Pivtorak 1998) or to different borderlands (Vasmer 1953-1958, Rudnyc'kyj and Sychynskyj 1949).
Ironside 50 | 11,266
4 Jan 2013 #106
The name "Ukraine" (Ukrainian: Україна Ukrayina [ukraˈjina]) has been used in a variety of ways

or to different borderlands

Maybe but it has never been used to describe a country until the middle of the XIX century.
Anyway what is your point delph, pretending to be Ukrainian now?
Mykhaylo UA - | 56
4 Jan 2013 #107
your own view

Thank you, Vlad for thinking that I am so intelligent as to be able to formulate my own definitions. I must disappoint you here: The definitions are from the dictionary. Here is the definition of Socialism: "Socialism is a set of left-wing political principles whose general aim is to create a system in which everyone has an equal opportunity to benefit from a country's wealth"

from Collins Dictionary (electronic version).

I think this definition is right. According to this definition the SU was not a socialist country as, e.g., millions were staved (Holodomor) to death - and could not "benefit from the country's wealth".
Vlad123 7 | 204
5 Jan 2013 #108
I think this definition is right. According to this definition the SU was not a socialist country as, e.g., millions were staved (Holodomor) to death - and could not "benefit from the country's wealth".

So you believe that Holodomor is direct outcome from fact that Soviet Union was not socialist?But in the last 40 years there was no mass death from starvation.Probably you have to provide more arguments to prove it.

And how social structure of truly socialist country would differ from that of USSR?

Well if some Poles have claim to Lviv and nostalgia,why no to go there and not live there?Sombody prohibits?
Or Ukrainian lang. if way too difficult for Poles?
FlaglessPole 4 | 669
5 Jan 2013 #109
Well if some Poles have claim to Lviv and nostalgia,why no to go there and not live there?

Jaysus fooking christ nobody gives a ****! You're pretty much the only one bringing this up. Try having a life instead....
kcharlie 2 | 165
5 Jan 2013 #110
Well if some Poles have claim to Lviv and nostalgia,why no to go there and not live there?Sombody prohibits?
Or Ukrainian lang. if way too difficult for Poles?

Lol, I think they would have quite happily continued on living in Ukrainian Lviv and would have learnt Ukrainian and Russian if they weren't forcibly deported to Poland, Kazakhstan or Siberia.
Vlad123 7 | 204
5 Jan 2013 #111
Lol, I think they would have quite happily continued on living in Ukrainian Lviv and would have learnt Ukrainian and Russian

Why Russian?As I know you cannot speak Russian in Lviv without threat of being immidiately proclaimed as ``moskal```.
Mykhaylo UA - | 56
5 Jan 2013 #112
social structure

Much time consuming. You are asking, Vlad, global questions! Parties, whole institutes work on such questions. But I think, that there should be not only the social, but economic structure, too. Oh, I know now: the answer may be the programs of the European Socialist Parties - let us acquaint ourselves with them! (Swedish Socialism, French Socialism and Comarade Hollade is the Prez now!). Some 30 years ago in the Morning Star I read about the "British way to socialism" by the CP of the UK.

Holodomor is direct outcome from fact that Soviet Union was not socialist

I would not say that a country that kills millions is a socialist. Would you?

But in the last 40 years there was no mass death from starvation

I would agree here with you. And that was a great achievement, wasn't it? People were only half-hungry. Compromise: half-hungry - half-socialist?

Probably you have to provide more arguments to prove it.

Sorry, it would take much time. I have time but not too much. Maybe in the future. Oh. Definitely in the future! An interesting topic!
kcharlie 2 | 165
5 Jan 2013 #113
Why Russian?As I know you cannot speak Russian in Lviv without threat of being immidiately proclaimed as ``moskal```.

Well, when Ukraine was part of the USSR, everyone had to know Russian, so I'm assuming that had Poles remained there, they would have learnt both Ukrainian and Russian.
Mykhaylo UA - | 56
5 Jan 2013 #114
proclaimed as ``moskal```.

Have you been proclamed that? I mean how should I refer to you now: as Vlad or use your "proclaimed name"?
kcharlie 2 | 165
6 Jan 2013 #115
"Socialism is a set of left-wing political principles whose general aim is to create a system in which everyone has an equal opportunity to benefit from a country's wealth"

That's a rubbish definition of socialism, and it's one that almost anybody can agree with. By that reckoning, I'm practically a socialist, although I'd replace the word, "equal" with "equitable" (i.e. "fair"). But in reality, I am anything but a socialist.

And unfortunately, that's not how communists and many non-communist socialists envisioned it, when they called for the abolishment of private property, the nationalisation of the means of production and the destruction of the middle and upper classes (the so-called "bourgeoisie").
Mykhaylo UA - | 56
6 Jan 2013 #116
a rubbish definition

Charlie, I would not call it a rubbish definition, but rather a definition of a version of socialism. This version of socialism does not require abolishment of private property for means of production, destruction of classes etc., but rather a fair distribution, fair opportunities. Some two decades ago, there were popular assertions here (in mass media, public disputes, private talks etc.) that Swedes had a society that one could define as a socialist one. “Mild socialism”. So, carried away by this idea of mild socialism, and by the fact that I live in a city known for its writer Ivan Franko, who advocated such a mild form of socialism being at the same time a strong opponent of communism as something unrealizable and therefore wrong and dangerous, I have thus chosen this definition and would prefer it if any.

If some 25 years ago somebody had said that I would be interested in things like socialism, I would simply laugh. Because it is only after the collapse of the country called USSR that I have learnt things about Ivan Franko’s views, his criticism of communism, many facts about the country USSR, about Holodomor, about other versions of socialism in contrast to the ”camp” type USSR one, that I sometimes pose a question to myself: What country I had been living?
Vlad123 7 | 204
6 Jan 2013 #117
Have you been proclamed that? I mean how should I refer to you now: as Vlad or use your "proclaimed name"?

My citation was no more than a joke which is based in widely known stereotipes and didn`t contain claims or pretentions to anyone.
Mykhaylo UA - | 56
7 Jan 2013 #118
widely known stereotipes

Vlad, you mean like in this piece “товарищ москаль, На Украину шуток не скаль from “ДОЛГ УКРАИНЕ”, a poem by Vlad Mayakovsky in Russian, which is translated as “Comrade Moscal, do not grin cracking jokes about Ukraine” which, in turn, we can paraphrased into “Comrade Moscal, do not grin cracking jokes about Lviv” - Oh, but there is no rhyme!

Do they, in Lviv, omit the title “Tovarishch”? How unkind of them!!
Tim Bucknall 7 | 98
9 Jan 2013 #119
Germany would be quite happy

i'm amazed how closely the Eastern Border of 1548 matches the pre-1939 German/Polish Border- unless i'm not using that page properly!

i was going to start a thread but this one is a good fit:
What does Lvov mean to you?
is its loss comparable to the UK losing Cambridge or Oxford?
what are the main Polish historical sites in Lviv i should visit? you can pm me if thats too far off topic. birthplaces etc, and the spot where the Poles routed Stalins regiment in 1920 would be of interest to me.

I'm determined to get there this year or next, i made the mistake of asking someone to join me and they just delayed me before they decided not to go.

I'm surprised how much Lvov is mentioned in the Polish newspapers i buy.
more so than say: Lublin or Chelm or Katowice for instance
Is the loss deeply felt?

I wonder if Polands increasing (and fully deserved) economic power would allow Poles to buy property in Lviv and commute to work in Eastern Poland?

particularly if UKR eventually joins the EU, like Danes commuting from Sweden

Lvov is a special case IMO, unlike Grodno you'd probably still have Lvov if the retarded chimp in the British Foreign office who drew the curzon line had taken more care in his work! - sorry about that ;-)

the soviets then used our F*ck up to screw you out of Lvov

hopefully UKR will escape from Putin and join the EU then the border won't matter anymore, the Ukranians i talk to hope for a western future, but of course theres the Russians in the Eastern half pulling the other way
TheOther 5 | 3,682
10 Jan 2013 #120
Tim, except here on PF I've never met a Pole who had a nostalgic or nationalistic view about Lviv. My guess would be that middle aged or older Poles see the city pretty much the same way that older Germans see Danzig, Stettin or Breslau.


Home / History / Ukrainian-occupied Eastern Poland
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.