What do Poles owe to Russians?

or weak minded clashes with reason and logic.


Well put Dan.
I can learn form you the art of clear reasoning .

Absolutely fine with me mate.


No need for the snide parting shot Pawian. If you need a time out to gather your thoughts, that's cool, but just don't try to pretend that you're walking away as the person with the superior or more convincing argument.


Thanks for the vote of confidence mate.

What concerns me is that there is an ever rising manner of demonizing our history... By even our citizens, even on this forum.
Let me give u some examples:
"Warsaw uprising was a bad move a lot of ppl got killed unecceralli
the ww2 was caused in a small % by us
communism is not that bad
russians and geries are our friends! Who cares about 17th of sept 1939, its ages ago.
Yeah, poles asked for partitions... And many more"

It is very sad and childish and in some circles could be seen as betrayal of values..
poland used to be the bravest of he countries... Now it is just a shadow of its lost might and power a eeal shame.
Why am i saying it is funny? Well mainly because everywhere else we see a rise of national-patriotism, uk, france, germany or russia... All of those countries are proud!

Even germany, with their series unser muter unser vater show clearly that germans were "not that bad" compared to AK ;-), but that is mainly our own fault polish elites are very afraid to do anythibg about scandals like... And our image is not shaped by us but our old agressors... Funny that, m children will be taught yhat poles were collabolators and started the war hahah...

Sad but true... Hopefully we will soon be able to
turn that tide ;-)

Cheers

Of course, that`s what I did. I said it was senseless trying to convince you with reasonable arguments because your point of view is too idealistic while we should talk about hard core realistic politics where there is no mercy for the weak, but they are devoured, in parts or whole. But wise elites, having good resources, are able to prevent it happening. With such resources as Poland used to have in the past, allowing it to be partitioned was unheard-of an event in the history of Europe.

Two more words: I hope you never become a leader of any country. That would be a disaster for it. (But I wouldnt` mind if you became the leader of North Korea :):):) )

Another one, Mr Idealist: How about Poland on her own successfully and permanently conqeuring Russia in 17 century ( there was a close one when Poles occupied Moscow for a year) or together with Napoleon in 19 century? Today, would you participate in a Russian forum, bashing Poles for unfair partitions and occupation of Russia??? :):):)


Joke. :):)


In a way, yes, we can say so. Poles, by allowing their country to go down to the dogs, asked their neighbours to first control, then invade and occupy Poland. You`d better do some reading, it might prove useful, e.g., start with the political preachings of Father Piotr Skarga from late 16 century, which preceded partitions by almost 200 years:

culture.pl/en/artist/jan-matejko

A 17th century political treatise, Piotr Skarga's Parliamentary Sermons inspired Matejko to paint a picture with Skarga, a Jesuit and court preacher of King Sigismund III, as its main protagonist. The scene shows Skarga condemning the lawlessness and egoism of nobility and magnates the way he did in the Parliamentary Sermons and calling for action to save the country from total anarchy. The warning proved futile, and Skarga's prophetic vision got fulfilled in the late 18th century, partition treaties deleting Poland from the map of Europe and its territory divided between Russia, Prussia and Austria.



Skarga is remembered by Poles as a vigorous early advocate of reforms to the Polish-Lithuanian polity and as a critic of the Commonwealth's governing classes. He advocated the strengthening of the monarch's power at the expense of Sejm, magnates and szlachta.


Poland was unlucky to have had plenty of such patriots. They cried out loud about golden freedom and rights, but refused to pay taxes for the efficient army and when disaster struck, they claimed it wasn`t their fault but neighbours`. Such is your pathetic patriotism.

The tax for the regular army was ridiculously low, but that was not just the fault of the Szlachta. They normally payed a huge amount in taxes when The PLC was invaded, and most of the times it was actually the senators that paid most of it and gave the country their armies at its disposal.

It was also the fault of the elected Kings that signed the Pacta conventa that originated a lot from the Henrician Articles. Something that should not have been made in the first place because it was firstly signed by a stupid king that agreed upon everything and then left the country after a year or so.

Never mind, David. Reasons for the Polish fall is a topic for another thread, actually.

Scared to battle a child like me? :(

No, as an old man, nearing my last days, I am saving my precious resources, mostly time. :):):)

Only moron would say so.
The internal problem Poland had started when Poland coupled with Lithuania and endowed rights on their barbarian warriors. Who didn't know what to do with it for the most part. secondly foreigner kings who do feel Poland and didn't understand her.

Not dynasty lasted long enough on the Polish throne after Jagiellon to make a difference. Nobody foul.
Dan's arguments went over your head.
You cannot blame Poles for partitions as actions of other are to be blamed.
Nations and people can be weak or strong but if there is nobody to take advantage of a weak moment then there are is no problem.

The problem arise when some vultures step up when a country is in its weaker phase.
Saying that I would blame Kosciuszko for attempting to start a revolution when Poland was at it weakest moment.

Actually Kosciuszko wanted to wait but was forced to start earlier then planned.

Thanks for using my arguments from another historical thread. :):):)
polishforums.com/history-poland-34/polish-critical-mistakes-throughout-centuries-63891/#msg1338728


No, darling. That wasn`t enough to topple such a big country as Poland.

I see that my artistic answer to goofy washed off you like water off the duck`s back.
https://polishforums.com/history/poles-owe-russians-50852/7/#msg1378139

Once again - reasonable people already in 16 century noticed the necessity of reforming the Polish state and warned of the disaster unless they were introduced. Vide:Piotr Skarga. it means that the menace had been known long before the actual partitions took place.

It is high time to do some reading, darling. I hope you didn`t forget your Polish after years of emmigration. :):)

Skarga`s sermons


literat.ug.edu.pl/skarga/index.htm


Yes, that was a stupid act as a year later the political situation changed. If Poles had waited, they would have kept their country.

Argumentum ad passiones.

I read your argument, I repeated it to you, and I countered with my argument, which obviously disagreed with yours. You offered nothing in further support of your argument, or in counter to mine, except to repeat the mantra that I'm apparently idealistic and shouldn't be listened to whereas you're a realist and ought to be. To me, that is senseless.

Now that I've cleared the air, would you like to tell us how the downfall of Poland (particularly the Partitions) could have occurred but for the avarice of Poland's neighbours?


If you wish to talk about 'realistic politics', then fine, but don't do so whilst peering through the lens of hindsight because anyone can be wise after the fact.

As you know, the thrust of Poland's Constitutional/Legal/Monarchical position, commencing in the Medieval period (but really bonding in the C16), was placed, and indeed postulated, against the background of Poland's immediate neighbours, and somewhat having regard to places such as England etc. These 'other' countries had, generally, two key areas of longstanding difficulty that Poland saw, and wished to avoid, namely lack of religious tolerance, and despotic/autocratic rule (I acknowledge there were others though).

Poland, in seeking to avoid the Despotism of Muscovy, the Divine Royalty of England and the Enlightened Imperialism of the HRE, fostered three key concepts that transposed themselves from ideals into reality by virtue of becoming enshrined in legislation - the right to vote for the king, the right to rebel against the king, and the principle of unanimity.

These concepts, let alone being legally enshrined rights and obligations, were a stupendous victory (having regard to what was happening elsewhere in Europe) for democratic rule over arbitrary and unilateral rule. They were not vices - they were virtues.

Turning to religion, you mention Skarga - he was somewhat sagacious in his counsel, but he also advocated for reining in religious tolerance, and for that, he falls down, because religious tolerance, at the time, was key to fostering a stable and peaceful society. He was not listened to because what he advocated smacked too much to the szlachta of turning to the realities of the unilateral and arbitrary rule that I mentioned above, and this was unacceptable having regard to what the szlachta saw happening in the said countries.

If you wish to advocate 'reality' over 'idealism', then rather than going half-way and saying the szlachta should have paid taxes and the 'elites' should have done something, then you would advocate that the Cth. should have afforded the king absolute power over raising taxes, absolute power over dictating foreign policy, absolute power over the Army, Star Chamber justice for those szlachta who resisted, and a foreign policy of invasion and occupation of the HRE, Muscovy, Sweden and so on. After all, if the reality was 'dog eat dog', the Cth. had several ample opportunities to crush any one or all of these nations, and for the purposes of staving off a potential threat, or simply for the purposes of aggrandisement.

Poland, and later the Cth., chose a different path. Whilst it had its obvious failings and aberrations, it was far better in terms of equity and justice than the models adopted by other European countries. That it was later scorned by its critics (Carlyle called it a marvellously luminous rot heap) is not a measure of its success or otherwise, but rather the propaganda of apologists of other nations who were at the time waging war in Europe over the preferred way to decorate a church, burning and torturing women for being different, and locking up and subjecting to summary execution dissidents who did not believe that one person should have the right to rule over others without being held to account.

Perhaps King Zygmunt said it best when he quipped "It is not a question of religion, but a question of liberty" and "permit me sir, to be the king of the goats as well as the sheep".

That some of the said countries took advantage of the Cth. in consuming it like an artichoke is not a matter that warrants blame being placed on the Cth., but is a matter that warrants attention in terms of discussing how dissimulation and propaganda can successfully be applied in fooling some into believing that Colonialism, Imperialism, Occupation and Partitioning is the fault of the nation being subject to same.



As to the above comments, the scorn of silent reproach is the only worthy and deserving response.

Ozi, I hope you won`t mind that I switched our discussion about Polish partition blame to another thread. polishforums.com/history-poland-34/polish-critical-mistakes-throughout-centuries-63891