The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / History  % width posts: 120

Are Poles happy with the current Polish borders?


wildeckireneget
5 Nov 2010 #1
Poland lost beautiful cities like Lwów, Wilno or Stanisławów but gained on the other hand highly industrialized lands with also beautiful cities (Wrocław, Gdańsk, maybe Szczecin). I think the western lands are strategically much more important and I'd not like to have our former eastern lands instead of current ones. Plus Poland is now ethnically homogoneus as opposed to the Parrabellum time

What is your opinion?
aphrodisiac 11 | 2,444
5 Nov 2010 #2
maybe Szczecin)

it is a fine city

Plus Poland is now ethnically homogoneus as opposed to the Parrabellum time

because you kicked all the Germans out. Homogenous is not good since it causes inbred characteristics such as stupidity among other things, it is better to have a variety of genes. Look at the USA.

But of course, you can eat only bigos until the end of your life and watch a mediocre Polish football;)
zetigrek
5 Nov 2010 #3
What is your opinion?

I agree with you.

Homogenous is not good since it causes inbred characteristics such as stupidity among other things, it is better to have a variety of genes.

Aphrodisaic Poland would be another Jugoslavia if it was like before war.
delphiandomine 85 | 18,359
5 Nov 2010 #4
watch a mediocre Polish football;)

Hey, you weren't in Poznan last night ;)
z_darius 14 | 3,968
5 Nov 2010 #5
Homogenous is not good since it causes inbred characteristics such as stupidity among other things, it is better to have a variety of genes. Look at the USA.

You might be right about the effects of inbreading, but looking at the USA, well... the example is a little unfortunate ;)

Your general thesis flies in the face of the Jewish intellectual accomplishments. Few nations are as inbread as Jews.
alexw68
5 Nov 2010 #6
Aphrodisaic Poland

Someone copyright this phrase, and fast!
mafketis 23 | 8,612
5 Nov 2010 #7
The question is moot. Lithuanians and Ukrainians are not about to stand by and do nothing as Vilnius or Lviv turn back into Wilno or Lwów.

And if they did then I think certain neighbor to the west might have a thing to say about Szczecin and Wrocław....

Now if I were drawing the boundaries after WWII they would have looked a lot different (with roughly the western and eastern borders as before the war (and some of the northeast space and Konigsberg given to Lithuania and definitely no Russian enclave between Poland and Lithua. But I was in no position to dictate terms (since I wasn't born yet).

All things considered, it's a topic best left forgotten.

Finally, is this thread crow bait? I expect a lot of rambling about Sarmatia, Slavija and the crucial role of Serbia in uniting all Slavs any second now.
OP wildeckireneget
5 Nov 2010 #8
Homogenous is not good since it causes inbred characteristics such as stupidity among other things, it is better to have a variety of genes. Look at the USA.

Is this what they learn you in North America? Or maybe you are ironic

^^^ I meant "teach you"
delphiandomine 85 | 18,359
5 Nov 2010 #9
Konigsberg given to Lithuania

As I recall - Lithuania strongly protested about being "given" Kaliningrad - possibly because it was devastated and poor. That's the reason for the existence of the Kaliningrad exclave.

with roughly the western and eastern borders as before the war

Would that really be possible, given that for defensive reasons, the Allies wanted the Polish-German border to be along natural features? You'd also have had the same old problem in Galicia - a Ukrainian minority that hates the Polish majority's guts.
OP wildeckireneget
5 Nov 2010 #10
the crucial role of Serbia in uniting all Slavs any second now.

Serbia should rather unite with Turkey or Bulgaria because they are genetically closer to them than to Poles
mafketis 23 | 8,612
5 Nov 2010 #11
ithuania strongly protested about being "given" Kaliningrad - possibly because it was devastated and poor.

IIRC that was around the time the USSR broke up, it souldn't have been the case maybe right after WWII (when there was no independent Lithuania anyway). But a hopefully independent Lithuania then might like having another showcase city (to make up for not having Wilno).

Would that really be possible, given that for defensive reasons, the Allies wanted the Polish-German border to be along natural features? You'd also have had the same old problem in Galicia - a Ukrainian minority that hates the Polish majority's guts.

Oh I could have handled that somehow (waves hand dismissively) and the Oder isn't much of a defensible natural feature anyway. And the Ukes could have been shipped to eastern Ukraine, Odessa and the Crimea to help Ukrainize those places.
Polonius3 1,000 | 12,448
7 Nov 2010 #12
The Krauts were duly penalised for launching World War Two and killing 3 million Polish citizens by losing Niederschlesien and other areas north to Westpommern, but the &!%#?$ß?Rooskies got off scot free. Although they were co-aggressors and Hitler allies, they not only annexed the eastern half fo Poland but never saw fit to return it. By rights, those 'ziemie utracone' should also have been returned to Poland. Soviet Russia surely had no dearth of territory! The resultant Poland would still have been smaller in the east than before the partitons, but what the heck!?
dtaylor5632 18 | 2,007
7 Nov 2010 #13
killing 3 million Polish citizens

Only Poles died? geeezz didnt know that.
SeanBM 35 | 5,808
7 Nov 2010 #15
Neither am I.

I hear the Caribbean is nice this time of year ;)
convex 20 | 3,978
7 Nov 2010 #16
they not only annexed the eastern half fo Poland but never saw fit to return it.

On the other hand, Germany and Poland lost the war, the Soviets won it.
Polonius3 1,000 | 12,448
7 Nov 2010 #17
The Soviets won only thanks to that senile paralytic FDR who sold Poland down the river. At least Churchill had the guts to see the error of his ways and made his famous iron curtain speech... Wasn't it our Gen. Patton who wanted to move across the River £aba and finish the job by rolling back the Soviets...preferably to beyond the Urals? Then Poland could have recovered her pre-partition territory and add some extra land as compensation collaboration with the third Reich, Katyń, Siberia, Kazakhstan and other Russian atrocities.
convex 20 | 3,978
7 Nov 2010 #18
Wasn't it our Gen. Patton who wanted to move across the River £aba and finish the job by rolling back the Soviets

Patton wanted to incorporate the Wehrmacht and roll on East. Ike and FDR/Truman wanted to prevent a bloodbath.
Polonius3 1,000 | 12,448
8 Nov 2010 #19
I hadn't thought of that. Sounds like a great idea. What was left of the Wehrmacht plus every manner of Landsturm formation (all Germans 16-60 would be conscripted and armed) would be forced at US gunpoint to repel the Rooskies who, knowing the might of Uncle Sam was behind the offensive, would surely high-tail the hell back home. Many would get finished off by the NKVD troops shooting dead anyone retreating but they too would eventually get trampled underfoot by the fleeing Red Army hordes. All in all, the red and brown bastards would finish each other off and Poland...could live happily ever after!

Poland would get her pre-partition boundaries back in the east plus most of the territoriy up to the £aba (some going to Czechoslovakia of course) in the West. The land west of the £aba would largely get divided up amongst Denmark, Holland and France, leaving a German General Government reserve for German aborigines under joint Polish-Western Ally military occupation...
jwojcie 2 | 763
8 Nov 2010 #20
Wasn't it our Gen. Patton who wanted to move across the River £aba and finish the job by rolling back the Soviets...preferably to beyond the Urals? Then Poland could have recovered her pre-partition territory and add some extra land as compensation collaboration with the third Reich, Katyń, Siberia, Kazakhstan and other Russian atrocities.

As much as idea of not having fifty years of communism here sounds fantastic, I think you don't fully comprehend the fact, that you parallel history would mean that Poland would have become a battleground of WWII for the third time, at least. After that there wouldn't have been much left here to even name the country. Poland would have been an empty shell after that... Now, at least we have Cracov untouched. If we add to that atomic bomb which was invented around that time...

Anyway considering circumstances current borders are quite ok, and I wouldn't mind to stay it that way to the end of time ;)
Ironside 49 | 10,471
8 Nov 2010 #21
s much as idea of not having fifty years of communism here sounds fantastic, I think you don't fully comprehend the fact, that you parallel history would mean that Poland

as expected you have soiled your underwear again ...
delphiandomine 85 | 18,359
8 Nov 2010 #22
On the other hand, Germany and Poland lost the war, the Soviets won it.

Indeed - Poland suffered from the fact that the country more or less ceased to exist as a viable entity during WW2.

Ike and FDR/Truman wanted to prevent a bloodbath.

I guess at that time, they could have easily dropped a couple of nukes in Russia to force her into submission quickly and effectively. But at what cost?
Matyjasz 2 | 1,544
8 Nov 2010 #23
Taking under consideration Polish situation in 45' we really cant complain about our borders.

I am definately happy about their current shape.
wildrover 98 | 4,451
8 Nov 2010 #24
Are you happy with the current polish borders?

Right now it would be handy for me if they included Moscow...it would save a lot of hastle with visa,s
A J 4 | 1,088
8 Nov 2010 #25
Are you happy with the current polish borders?

No, of course I'm not happy with the Polish borders! I want to see the whole world turn into Poland. (Except for the food!)

;)
jwojcie 2 | 763
9 Nov 2010 #26
as expected you have soiled your underwear again ...

Have you lost your plastic soldiers somewhere? I dedicate you this song:



;-)
Semsem 16 | 26
10 Nov 2010 #27
Look at the USA.

Look at the States for what? Ethnic diversity, yes. But, that doesn't mean people are intermarrying. Sure, enough are, but they're loosing their ethnic identity and cultural ties. Then we end up with these black people in power (be it as employer, mayor, president) and the sad part is that most of them insist on playing the race card and basically complaining for the hundreds of years of slavery (in their own ways, of course).

Ethnic diversity is still a rarity in many small rural areas in America too. And they usually have better (sometimes nepotistic) communities (things actually get done instead of complaining)
dtaylor5632 18 | 2,007
10 Nov 2010 #28
but they're loosing their ethnic identity and cultural ties.

It's America, what identity are you talking about?
Ironside 49 | 10,471
10 Nov 2010 #29
Have you lost your plastic soldiers somewhere? I dedicate you this song:

That song is rubbish and hardly funny!
I dedicate you this song, is much better :):


Havok 10 | 912
10 Nov 2010 #30
Are you happy with the current polish borders?

absolutely not, Polish borders are unattractive and boring, I suggest building giant Jesus statues all around, and floating ones in the Baltic.


Home / History / Are Poles happy with the current Polish borders?
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.