History / Recommended Poland's history books [191]

In 1899 the city of Vilius had a population of 40% Jewish, 31% Polish and 20% Russian. One hundred years later in 1999 the city had a 58% Lithuanian population, 19% Polish and 14% Russian. If you know how that happened then this book will be an interesting, easy read.

THE RECONSTRUCTION OF NATIONS, POLAND, UKRAINE, LITHUANIA, BELARUS, 1569-1999, Timothy Snyder, 2003. I'm one-third through the book and even though it's not the easiest read I am not struggling. You need to have a basic understanding of the old Commonwealth history to grasp the flow of the history. Critics, both professional and those on Amazon, say it is academic and a reader might need reference help, e.g. Google or Wikipedia.

So far, I didn't need any help reading the history. It's the study of how modern Eastern European nations descended from the old Commonwealth. The new nations were based on ethnic, linguistic and religious persuasions. But along the way came lots of wars, ethnic cleansing, various types of reconciliation and a growth of neighborly relations. Note that this was written years before the Ukrainian War.

The caption below the man sitting on the steps. This caption highlights how much things have changed.

"An inhabitant of Rowno. The town is today Rivne, Ukraine. Towns in interwar Volhnyia were largely Jewish and increasingly Polish. The countryside almost entirely Ukrainian. Today Volhynia is in the Ukraine, and the towns resemble the countryside."

• 
  img20231214_09124968.jpg
  
• 
  (see comment above)
  

History / Recommended Poland's history books [191]

THE WAR OF THE POLISH SUCCESSION, King Rama VI of Thailand, 1901.

The author, Rama, was not meant to be king. In 1895 he was made Crown Prince after his half-brother died. By 1898 he finished at the British Military Academy (Sandhurst) and was commissioned an artillery officer. In 1899 he studied history at Christ Church, Oxford. Right after he wrote this little history he suffered appendicitis and missed graduating. He was made king and ruled 1910 to 1925, dying at the young age of 44.

He was a famous writer who translated English and French literature into Thai. He wrote modern novels, short stories, poems and plays in Thai. He introduced his people to mystery and detective novels. Besides this history he contributed newspaper articles and journal pieces.

Europe entered the 18th century with wars of succession. Countries interfering in other countries by trying to determine the next in line to the throne. These maneuvers were attempts at alliances for power.

Right off was the War of the Spanish Succession (1701-1714) which could be considered a world war. It was fought in North and South America, the Caribbean and all over Europe. The death toll, including diseases, surpassed a million. The dead and wounded in three famous battles (Ramilles, Malplaquet, Blenheim) topped 76,000.

On the other side of Europe, at the same time, the Polish Civil War was going on during the Great Northern War. This was also a war of succession. Round two in the 18th century wars of succession was the War of the Polish Succession (1733-1735).

Rama covers different phases of the war. See the contents page image. Nations used this war as an excuse to gain their own diplomatic edge. Overall it was a Bourbon-Hapsburg duel with the Bourbons gaining Naples & Sicily.

On the Polish theater of operations there are some facts that were clarified for me. Firstly, August II of Poland, when he was getting sick, attempted to bribe Frederick William (Frederick the Great's father) of Prussia by offering to partition parts of Poland plus Polish Prussia and Courland in order to ensure his son got the Polish throne. August II feared the Austrian and Russian reaction so in a desperate move he tried to partition parts of Poland between them. Luckily the scumbag died finally.

Then Rama covers the details of Stanislaw Leszczynski's election and the debacle that followed. It seems that Theodore Potocki, the Primate Interrex, was an unsung hero.

But all was for naught. The Russians showed up along with Polish "malcontents" and King Stanislaw fled to Danzig. The siege of Danzig was described in detail and it ranks as another fiasco. This was the first time French and Russians faced off against each other.

"The appearance of a Russian army, for the first time in European history, on the banks of the Rhine, undoubtedly did much to hasten the conclusion of peace."

The Russians helped Austria. For Poland it was an unfortunate war. It reaffirmed the fact that Polish internal politics were in the hands of Europe's great powers. It reaffirmed the fact that Poland had no foreign diplomacy whatsoever. Poland lost Latvia to Russia and the Pacification Sejm ratified whatever Russia wanted. Augustus III of Saxony became king.

I needed to Google certain things as I read the book. The siege of Danzig and the southern Italian campaign are well written, understandable and covered in depth. Some Polish leaders, the confederation that supported King Stanislaw, the "malcontents" are skimmed over. I needed to further investigate them.

==================================================================================
I will say one character who showed up really aggravated me. MICHAEL WISNIOWIECKI. The very first time he decided to switch sides he should have been assassinated.

That's one thing I noticed in reading Polish history. Traitors, who caused death and destruction, were often embraced and forgiven. In Italy they would be assassinated Machiavellian-style, in Russia they were butchered at banquets, in the German states they faced firing squads, they were drawn and quartered in England, flayed in Turkey. In Sweden the traitor who provoked the Great Norther War was smashed on the wheel, limb by limb.

Lastly there are no good books or sources available covering the Commonwealth and the Great Northern War. This era was the beginning of the end of Polish independence. I'm in search of a book on the entire war that covers Poland's role in depth.

Any recommendations???

• 
  Title page.
  
• 
  Contents.
  

History / Recommended Poland's history books [191]

THE HISTORY OF POLAND SINCE 1863, R.F. Leslie, Antony Polonsky, Jan M. Ciechanowski, Z.A. Pelczynski, 1980. Part of the Soviet and East European Studies series of Cambridge University Press.

I am in the process of reading this history. Finished the first three chapters (1863-1914) with ease. Now I'm starting to read the emergence of independent Poland.

Has anyone read this book? Or heard of it? Some interesting chapters ahead: "The breakdown of parliamentary government" and "The rise and ebb of Stalinism". 15 of the 17 chapters cover Polish history up till the end of Gomulka (1970).

I wanted to know more about the 1863 insurrection. This book covers a tiny bit in a broad overview.

There are really no books in English that cover this uprising. I'm interested in it because it had a direct affect on my ancestors. It caused my ancestors children to rethink their futures and decide that Poland was not the place to be.

• 
  First paperback edition with epilogue, 1983.
  

History / Recommended Poland's history books [191]

@pawian

• 
  img20231117_13315915.jpg
  

History / Recommended Poland's history books [191]

@Bobko
If you go back through the various books I've tackled, I do give my opinion of them. As a novice in Polish history I do report on how easy they were to read. How enjoyable the narrative was in dealing with the chronicle of events. Importantly how well they teach us Polish history.

What else do you want me to say?

History / Recommended Poland's history books [191]

A HISTORY OF POLAND, Oskar Halecki, 1992, New Edition.

The new edition adds chapters, written by Antony Polansky, covering the years of Gomulka, Gierik, Solidarity and martial law. Thaddeus Gromada (who studied under Halecki at Fordham University in NYC) produced the afterward which brings Poland's history up to the end of communism and Lech Walesa's presidency.

Why is there such a lengthy historiography for this book? HALECKI'S HISTORY HAS CONTINUALLY BEEN IN PRINT SINCE FIRST PUBLISHED IN 1942, DURING THE DARK DAYS OF WW II.

Oskar Halecki (died 1973) gave a series of lectures in the USA in 1938. He was in France on a lecture tour when WW II started. With the help of the American Kosciuszko Foundation he arrived in the USA. He was a professor at Fordham and Columbia until 1961 then a visiting professor at various schools in the USA, Canada and Ireland.

Halecki's view of history concerning Poland is to constantly emphasize that Poland is a country that perfectly fits into the "Western Civilization" of Europe alongside Italy, France, etc. via its culture and religion. That Poland's history should not be lumped into Asiatic types of peoples which Poland oftentimes found itself the bulk work against potential invasions from them. Such peoples include the Russians and Turks.

His was one of the first Polish history books I read. I found Polish history difficult but his was very readable to such a novice. As time went by and I attempted to study Polish history with more effort I found out that any searches (from physical searches in a big city library to on line) oftentimes produced something Russian. Polish history was lumped in with Russian topics. I remember when I wanted to learn more about Poland's Turkish wars, I had to buy a history of the Ottoman Empire. It's only now, in this decade, that I can find interesting Polish history in English.

Today historians seem to downplay his particular philosophy of Polish history. It's too romantic; too idealized. Unfortunately, I don't remember where I read this. Personally, I won't dismiss him. I would recommend reading his work.

• 
  First paperback printing (1981) of the ninth edition (1976).
  
• 
  1992 edition.
  

History / Recommended Poland's history books [191]

THE HUSARIA.
Some military history books covering the famous Polish heavy cavalry called the WINGED HUSSARS.

Just before King Bathory time the Poles absorbed and modified some foreign cavalry units that became the famous hussars.

The books listed below:
HUSARIA, THE WINGE HORSEMEN, Anna Wasilkowska, 1998. Published in Warsaw in Polish and English.
POLISH WINGED HUSSARS, 1576-1775, Richard Brzezinski, 2008. Part of Osprey's Warrior Series.

Both books are phenomenal. Well illustrated. Lots of details with pictures, something I personally love when reading history.
In reading Polish military history prior to 1795, I'm becoming fascinated by the "war hammer" called "nadziaki". Awesome weapon! The husaria knew how to use them well!

I'm also becoming impressed with certain military commanders called "hetmani".
Stanislaw Zolkiewski
Jan Karol Chodkiewicz
Stanislaw Koniecpolski
Stefan Czarniecki

I want to find out more about these commanders. Aside from Wikipedia and mention of them in survey histories I've read, not much is known about these fantastic commanders. Too bad no biographies of them exist in English. Impressive military careers. Two of them dying like heroes in the movies. I would love to know more.

The husaria on the battlefield were impressive. An entire Commonwealth army was only one third of a Swedish army. The cavalry was about evenly matched. The Swedes were destroyed. In a battle against the Russians the entire Polish army was not even 20% the size yet it destroyed the enemy.

But you can't keep this up. The husaria victories are impressive more so because the entire Commonwealth army was always much smaller than the enemy army. Not always but most of the time.

The failure came in NOT the greatness of the husaria but in FAILING to maintain a standing army. By the turn of the 18th century no matter what the Commonwealth cobbled together, it wasn't good enough.

As von Moltke said in his history of Poland. The greatest sin was the failure to provide a sound defense to protect the country.

• 
  img20231111_15242991.jpg
  
• 
  img20231111_15215037.jpg
  

History / Recommended Poland's history books [191]

1.) In the POLISH ARMIES OF THE PARTITIONS 1770-94 book listed above in this thread, the cover picture of the figure is identified inside the book as Kosciuszko.

2.) Probably the most famous picture of Kosciuszko.
3.) Kosciuszko in exile in Switzerland.

• 
  see 1.) note
  
• 
  see 2.) note
  
• 
  see 3.) note
  

History / Recommended Poland's history books [191]

POLISH MILITARY HISTORY in pictures.
(from Osprey's Men-at-Arms Series)
Profusely illustrated. Many contemporary drawings. Many photos of arms and armor from various museum collections.
I think they're well worth it. To those who have read them, are they 100% accurate? Does everything seem to flow, so to speak?

• 
  Published 2008
  
• 
  Published 1987
  
• 
  Published 1987
  
• 
  Published 2013
  

History / Recommended Poland's history books [191]

It was interesting what George Eversley had to say about Kosciuszko. That he was a genuine patriot but was not a Danton "to inspire the populace with resolution". Georges Danton was a lawyer and French revolutionary who became a moderate and was beheaded.

There were three groups, Eversley says, in Warsaw towards the end. A small group of pro-Russians who were fearing for their lives. They were still getting paid and waiting to see what would happen/ Another group of rich folks (like King Stanislaw) who thought the whole uprising was a "hair-brained" scheme with no hope of success. Then there were the revolutionaries who happily hung some of the Targowitz confederates.

Eversley also says that Kosciuszko was not a Lazare Carnot. Carnot was a soldier, a military engineer and French revolutionary "fix-it" man who tackled problems and made organization out of chaos.

I find this analysis a little unfair towards Kosciuszko. He had much less time to act because of how the uprising ignited. Also his organizational skills were exemplary considering he had to deal with characters ranging from "hot heads" to the apathetic.

What are your views?

History / Recommended Poland's history books [191]

THE PARTITIONS OF POLAND, Lord Eversley, 1973 edition. This history book was published in 1915 by George John Shaw-Lefevre Eversley (1832-1928). Poland did not exist and World War I was raging.

This book was an easy read. The narrative flowed and made sense in reference to personalities and events.

Eversley makes a good distinction between ETHNOGRAPHICAL Poland and HISTORICAL Poland. Ethnographically who was Polish, who was Ruthenian, etc., etc. Historically WHERE was Poland geographically. This history opens up in the 1760s where 66% of the people of the Commonwealth were not Polish.

The first chapter is called "The Polish Anarchy". Lots of mention about what we all know about the Commonwealth's disfunction but three points were stressed, especially for 1915. Firstly was the idea that no protection or encouragement given to the "working class", i.e. the peasants which formed the backbone of the country. In the same breath was the disregard for townspeople who were creating a middle class in history at this time.

Secondly was mentioned the incredible corruption rampant on all levels. Lastly was the legal concept that allowed civil war. The question always arose "Who determined it was right to start a civil war? " It seems that they were never based on righteousness - on high moral choices.

The historian Thomas Carlyle wrote about Frederick (the Great) who was one of the major players in Poland's demise. Carlyle worshipped Frederick. I thought Frederick was the originator of the partition idea. Carlyle said no.

In Sorel's QUESTIONS d'ORIENT (Albert Sorel, historian, 1842-1906) the original idea of partitions came from Augustus II of Poland after constantly failing to make the Polish throne hereditary. If he got help from the outside he would partition sections of Poland to keep his neighbors happy. Prussia was leery of the idea but the young Prince Frederick (the Great) was for it and never wavered from that goal. Augustus died and the idea died with him for the time being.

The FIRST PARTITION woke Poland up. Reforms were attempted. By 1791 Europe had changed a lot. The French Revolution was in full swing. The author shows how this had a profound effect on Poland's future. This time Catherine (the Great) had "saved" Poland from becoming another Revolutionary France. The ideals of the Targowitz confederates were reinstated and the status quo returned.

Eversley says of King Stanislaw, "He ceased, thenceforth, to be of any account. He was despised equally by all parties." Harsh! Aid was requested from France by the reformers but France saw that it was not a national uprising against Catherine and her confederates. The peasants were indifferent and the burghers would just wait it out. The French saw this "revolution" as one of aristocrats and didn't offer help.

Austria wasn't too happy with this SECOND PARTITION. Prussia got Gdansk; Russia got Minsk and Kiev. The Targowitz Confederation got surprised by another partition. But the tinkle of gold coins smoothed over the situation.

Chapter VIII "How Poland Saved France" is a good view of overall 18th century diplomatic dealings. I never knew the details of these events.

In 1792, Prussia and Austria failed in their attempt to overthrow revolutionary France. War continued and an alliance was formed among Prussia, Austria, Great Britain, Netherlands and Hanover. Great Britain PAID Prussia to maintain an army to attack France. Instead, Frederick William and his ministers built up an army at the Commonwealth border. Emperor Francis (of Austria) and his minister Johann Thugut wanted Poland (since they lost out in the Second Partition) but had to show that they were involved in stopping France. At Turcoing I France (May 17-18, 1794) the French beat the allies badly and those who suffered the most were the British because of ****-poor, wretched command decisions by Austria. Prussia wasn't around. Thugut and the emperor pretty much said "Oh well, that's war. Win some; lose some." They packed up and left the allies.

In the meantime, Frederick William of Prussia secretly scuttled away and made a separate peace with the French "regicides". And Great Britain never got a farthing back. Britain's money was used to equip the Prussian army to put down Kosciuszko's uprising.

France was "gowno" lucky. She had internal problems and her army was disorganized. Austria and Prussia did not have the will to invade France and put down the Revolution. They were more interested in Poland and were constantly bickering between themselves diplomatically.

Eversley wrote, "No one who surveys carefully the whole field of European politics, and the military movements of this time, can doubt THAT POLAND WAS THE SALVATION OF FRANCE. It was the apple of discord between Austria and Prussia. It distracted the attention of both these nations from the main objective of their campaign against France...If Poland was the salvation of France from its enemies, who were gathered together ostensibly to overwhelm the Revolution, the Revolution in France may be said to have been the cause of the undoing and dismemberment of Poland." (my caps)

So what sparked the THIRD PARTITION? The Polish army. Catherine wanted to reduce the army from 30,000 to 6000 for Poland. Another 7000 were to be sent to Lithuania and since Lithuania was now a Russian province these men had to join the Russian army or leave service. In the Krakow area a cavalry unit refused to disband. Just like that it blew up! BAM!!! The Russian troops in Warsaw at the time were decimated.

Catherine needed help from Prussia and Austria. Her troops were near Turkey somewhere. The Prussians tried to take Warsaw but failed miserably. Finally Suvorov and a Russian army showed up, fought battles, butchered people and it was all over. This time Catherine held all the cards and gave little to Prussia.

It was a good exciting history book to read. It's exciting because most of it concerns "diplomatic" history which can be unbelievably boring. The constant intrigues among Catherine, Frederick, Frederick William, Maria Theresa, Francis, etc. and a multitude of ministers and diplomats are truly reflective of Machiavellian politics during the rise of great nation-states.

The book was written when Poland didn't exist. Eversley believed that Poland would become at least an autonomous region when the war ended. He mentions that talks had been going on to re-unite Poland.

• 
  img20231031_14352321.jpg
  
• 
  img20231031_14365037.jpg
  

History / Recommended Poland's history books [191]

@jon357
The book opens up with comments from Thomas Carlyle. He has nothing positive to say about Poland and the Poles.

History / Recommended Poland's history books [191]

THE FIRST PARTITION OF POLAND, Herbert H. Kaplan, 1962.

This book claims to be the first book published about the First Partition since a German-language book was published in 1873. The German book DID NOT bother to use Polish or Russian references. That's interesting!!!

Concerning this book you need to realize that it was written in 1962. References to Polish primary sources are still minimal but are referenced.
The book is very readable and the narrative of events are straight forward. See the picture of the page of the table of contents.

For this history 1762 was the pivotal starting date: Catherine (the Great) came to the throne; August III of Poland died; France and Austria lost the Seven Years War, a major war that many historians consider a true world war. It's this war that created the world order up till 1815.

There is a nice summary of Polish Events from 1717-33 (the "Dark Ages") and from 1734-63 which covered the pro-Russian vs other factions in internal politics of Poland.

Since this history takes a deep dive into a small period of time (1762-1772) lots of details are covered that would not be found in general histories of Poland, even scholarly in-depth works (in English).

Since I'm relatively new in studying Polish history, a few things were quite revealing to me. FIRSTLY, how Russia kept meddling into internal affairs to preserve the DISSIDENTS (Orthodox and Protestants) role in internal politics. I have heard of this but never had the opportunity to study it closely like this book covers.

SECONDLY, the confederations that sprang up to combat this Russian meddling. The most famous was the Bar Confederation. I thought this was the only one. It was one of only many, many regional confederations. These confederations were conservative, one might say right-wing, very Catholic to the point of medieval crusaders. The problem was that they were not well organized and came across as a bunch of brigands. They did not impress those who might aid them: France and Turkey.

THIRDLY, and this is the MOST DECISIVE POINT, because the confederates were irregulars they would cross borders to escape the Russians. Crossing over into Austrian territory was nice and easy. So the Austrians decided to take a little chunk of Polish territory to safeguard their border. The civil war in Poland (the confederations vs the king & Russians) created an excuse for the powers to protect their borders. What Austria did (almost casually) by this small action was upset the balance of power and SET INTO MOTION THOUGHTS OF PARTITION.

FOURTHLY the book is basically the ongoing diplomatic wrangling between Russia and Prussia then later Austria over partitions and how it would affect the balance of power in the world. Poland was in such a chaotic state that the neighbors felt they had to do something.

FIFTHLY is the decision to partition. Very casually, almost jokingly, the idea came up to partition. It was in Russian court notes then made its way into diplomatic correspondence between Russia and Prussia. It was Frederick (the Great) who bit down on this idea and would not let go. To dismember Poland would create a smaller, more manageable area. Frederick was the prime mover in Poland's dismemberment. Again, the decisive move was Austria's take on a piece of Poland. This is what spurred Frederick on and what made him involve Catherine (the Great) to take action. The book then covers the actions of who was to get what and how would the world react to the First Partition.

The author makes some points that really jumped out at me. I have to admit they are quite harsh!
1.)LIBERTY. Poles really had no concept of liberty. There was a courageous spirit expressed in speeches and pamphlets but rarely in defense of a nation (patriotism?) but rather a defense, a preservation, of self-interests. The Bar Confederation seems to be a prime example.

2.)CORRUPTION. By the 18th century the Poles were morally and ethically bankrupt. For such a religious people, they rivaled (if not surpassed) today's corrupt Third World countries. "Jingle a bag of coins and they could be bought."

3.)RUSSIA. Believe it or not the author says the Russians were the losers in this partition. After 1717 Russia pretty much had control over the Commonwealth. But Catherine and her ministers were not savvy enough in dealing with Frederick, his ministers and the Austrian diplomats. That's why Prussia for example was able to obtain a valuable share while Russia got lots of empty land. I found that point interesting and enlightening.

• 
  img20231029_17003072.jpg
  
• 
  img20231029_17030333.jpg
  

History / Historical look at various civilisational differences between Russia and the West [159]

@Lyzko
f you read my post I do mention that some of the positives of Russia are its cultural contributions. Literature and music come to mind. Very general info. Russian literature and music are an acquired taste. Most people I know don't relish it. Too moronically, repetitively depressing.

I have noticed that many posts on this thread do not show great admiration and love for all things Russian. I am happy to read such posts. Someone mentioned that it was only because of Putin and the invasion that people don't care for Russians.

Unfortunately this is not so. I'm old enough to remember listening to the generation from the 1880s to 1910s. I remember them talking about the Russians. One of them, when he said anything about the Russians, would spit first. As a kid I smiled but I learned that those who came from the Russian empire, who were the furthest away from Petersburg, lived under a more repressive regime. Secret police, Russian governors, Russian troops, repressive bureaucratic administrators, etc.

History / Historical look at various civilisational differences between Russia and the West [159]

I've noticed that there are a few "Russophiles" on this forum.
When I read the OP I wondered how many posters would agree. I must admit I was happy to read that a majority do not hold any admiration for Russia.

So I said to myself "Is it all emotion?" "Is Russia a cancer on Western Civilization and pretty much the world?"
I decided to ask AI (artificial intelligence) via the ChatGPT site.
I formulated a couple of generalized question seeking, in one example, a list of positives and negatives.
Except for some positive general responses in the areas of culture and science, most of the examples were negative.
You can keep asking AI the same question over and over and it will attempt to be more specific, more detailed; to approach it from different angles.

Pretty much any way you "cut it", Russia does not come out as one of the high points of humankind.

History / Recommended Poland's history books [191]

OH MY GOD! HOW EMBARASSING!!!
All this while I've been led to believe that the Deluge was the Commonwealth succumbing to overwhelming odds! The Commonwealth seemed to go out of her way to achieve this wretched status.

For Polish historians the term "Deluge" specifically refers to the Second Northern War, 1655-60, i.e. the Swedish invasion. Most Westerners use the Deluge term to refer to the entire devastation of the 1648-1667 period.

Frost's AFTER THE DELUGE is a history of the diplomacy and especially the internal politics that shaped the Commonwealth's actions and decisions during 1655-60.

It is a boring, repetitious book. That's what happens when chapter after chapter, year after year, covers the perpetual internal political bickering that reared its ugly head during this critical period. The Commonwealth was uable to control its internal politics, the revolts, multiple invasions, disorganized diets and dietines, perpetual shortages of money and constant failed attempts in diplomacy trying to seek allies. The non-stop game-playing amongst the court, the council, the magnates, the diet and the szlachta is repeated over and over, ad nauseum! All the while the Commonwealth was disintegrating.

Can you say "FAILED STATE"? no better political description fits the Commonwealth. It was created and managed to stay abreast as the 17th century came along. Through "dumb luck" it seemed to be able to hold its own versus other states. But once a crisis came along, never mind five or six of them at the same time, the Commonwealth could not handle them. Its foundation was set up as a "failed state" which it fulfilled in textbook fashion. Even at this time there were talks of partitions.

Frost's history shows the divergent diplomatic aims, the divergent interests of all parties in internal politics and especially the mediocrity of all players in the game of "failed state" Commonwealth.

Reading this book is embarrassing to be Polish. How much more stupid can you get! These are my views from reading the history. Frost, like a good historian, lays out the diplomatic-political history in as best a narrative as is possible. Frost does say that other states were experiencing problems like the Commonwealth. But we all know the other states rectified their situations as best as possible. Not the Commonwealth. Twenty-five years later it spiraled even further downwards.

• 
  img20230725_10472434.jpg
  

History / Recommended Poland's history books [191]

Adam Zamoyski, THE LAST KING OF POLAND, 1997.
Once I picked the book up, I was totally engrossed by it. 464 pages. Done! A great book!!
The Partitions of Poland were naturally covered in great detail. For me this was great because I learned what happened. The intricacies and machinations were covered in much greater clarity than you'd find in other Polish histories written in English.

The surprise was at the end at Zamoyski's Epilogue.' The epilogue was actually an historiography of Stanislaw II Augustus. How Polish historians wrote about --- and treated him --- since the mid-19th century. To this very day the judgement of Stanislaw Augustus in Polish history is still a contentious topic!

Yet those historical figures who contributed to Poland's long road to ruin are hardly remembered; some are almost revered!!!

History / Life in communist Poland - personal relations [413]

@Novichok
Nope they didn't assimilate. They were Poles. I don't know when they got there. I'm basing the statement that they were a minority on the 1897 Czarist census. The Minsk area had only about 8% Poles at the time (If i remember correctly). Even though they lived near Minsk, their village was at the very eastern end of the Vilna Governorate. A couple kilometers west of their village would have brought them into the Minsk Governorate. Everything they did plus their traditions and customs were Polish.

History / Life in communist Poland - personal relations [413]

@Novicho
No they never identified as Belarussians. The village they came from was a "Polish" village. I think there was a church and it was Catholic not Orthodox. I wish they were alive now because I have so many questions to ask. Isn't that always the case though?

I do know that when this part of the family met my other parent's side of the family, they had a little bit of difficulty talking to each other. The other side said they used a lot of "Russian" words.

History / Recommended Poland's history books [191]

After five months on intense reading of Robert Frost's OXFORD HISTORY OF POLAND-LITHUANIA, I finally finished it. It was a challenge for me because I'm relatively new to studying Polish history. For the English speaker, Frost's book IS NOT a beginner book of earlier Polish history.

The book is a political history firstly. All the politics that went into the 200+ years leading up to the creation of the Commonwealth. Naturally history books are best when they follow a chronological order. This book does so but it is broken up into themes. As you go through time leading up to the Union of Lublin, themes are covered. Ezamples: the types of peoples, the leaders, ideas of union (including all the previous variants), the dynasties, szlachta, peasants, Nihil Novi, sejms, Prussia, Ruthenia, religion, etc., etc.

Jurate Kiaupiene, a Lithuanian historian from Vilnius, states that this scholarly work is the first time the Union of Lublin is presented to an international audience in English.

The best way to understand what this book is about is to read the reviews if you aren't going to read the book. The best review is by Piotr Gorecki, a professor in the University of California system (and also a lawyer). Not only does he review the book but also gives a synopsis of the book, section by section. Great!

Two other great reviews are by Paul Knoll (retired professor from the Univ. of Suthern California) and Jurate Kiaupiene (mentioned above).

I don't provide links because they often disappear. Instead Google the author, the title, the words "book review" and the name of the reviewer and the review will pop up. The reviews are lengthy.

This history is going to become the standard scholarly work for this period in Polish & Lithuanian history for many years to come.

History / Life in communist Poland - personal relations [413]

@mafketis
If I had known then what I know now, I would have yelled at my relatives to continue sending money. But I was a little kid them. Even the adults didn't know what was going on in Poland during the 1950s. I don't know where they lived in Poland but I do know they were probably part of that mass migration from "Old Poland" (Belarus) to modern Poland that happened after 1945. This part of the family originally came from the area now called Belarus. But they were Polish. So they were a minority in their own birth lands.

History / Life in communist Poland - personal relations [413]

@amiga500
Yeah surprisingly the money did make it through the system. They would thank my relatives for the "gifts" and ask for more. I know some of the gifts bought bicycles or a motorbike? I don't remember. Faster to get to work.

The relatives who were dying were born around the late 1880s-early 1890s. They are the group that came to the USA prior to WW I. In the late 1950s, 60s and early 1970s they were all dying off.

History / Life in communist Poland - personal relations [413]

I can only reflect on life in communist Poland as an outsider. Very little info but it left it's mark on me. I remember listening to the adults speaking amongst themselves.

Firstly the conversations were sad and seeped in ignorance. The time was the late 1950s. Poland was one of the victors in WW II but nobody here in the USA knew how badly the Soviets brutally raped the country of literally everything. None of us common folk in the USA knew this.

Since Stalin was gone the news in the USA sometimes pointed to better times in the Soviet bloc. Most of the time the Soviets and their "allies" were the epidemy of evil.

The relatives who wrote to my relatives here were always complaining about money. They were dirt poor but never explained how or why in the letters. My relatives would send salt pork, bacon and dried beef to them. Slit in between were $20 USA currency. Evidently the money made it to them safely through the mail. They would ask for more. Nobly here knew how miserable life was there. Here in the USA in the late 1950s, times were so good that they haven't really been duplicated since. Incredible prosperity!

Finally my relatives complained that the other relatives only wanted a "free pass". I got the impression that my relatives here felt the relatives in the "old country" didn't work hard enough, smart enough. So they stopped giving money. They stopped answering the letters. By now (early 1960s) some of the older generation were dying off. nd that was it! That was the sad family dealings with communist Poland, Nobody ever heard from anyone again.

News / Russian criticism of Poland - Soviet war memorial removal [325]

Stopping Napoleon and Hitler are convent excuses given to Russia to legitimize her horrendous actions throughout history. Russia deserved everything she got!
Russia is what's called a "Judas Nation". Throughout history Russia has been a traitorous ally whether allied to the "good guys" or the "bad guys". !!!

In stopping Napoleon and Hitler Russia was a "back stabbing" traitor to her ally. This is how she operates through history.

Even before the Napoleonic Era Russia "back stabbed" . During the Seven Years War a new autocrat plops on the Russian throne and switches sides and becomes an ally of Freddy "the Great". Little did Russia know that this would give Frederick breathing space and give him the opportunity to become the German "super hero". And unknowingly help fertilize the growth of Imperial and Nazi Germany.

But wait! Let's go back a hundred years to the Deluge. Poland's problems with the Cossacks allowed Russia to invade the Commonwealth. Poland was holding her own but having a tough time. Then Sweden invaded and threatened Russia so Russia signs an armistice with Poland and becomes an "ally" to combat Sweden. Poland, exhausted, agrees. When the Swedish threat is removed Russia went back to war with Poland. What a great "ally".

Concerning Napoleon, Russia and France were ALLIES ! Parts of Galicia went to the Warsaw Duchy but Napoleon promised Austria that Warsaw would not become a Commonwealth again. But Russia didn't like this and started to make plans (1811) to attack Warsaw and Danzig.

As an ally of France, Russia was to help blockade Great Britain and stop trading with her. Czr Alexander realized he needed to trade because his economy was in shambles.

We all know how the Soviets got "back stabbed" by their buddy Adolf. Stalin didn't care about the Nazis. He just wanted to carve up Poland. Stalin brought down misery upon his own people. In the post-WW I revolutions, Russia moved towards communism. In Germany the revolution butchered the communists. You have to be an idiot to know they couldn't work together.

So now the Soviets are part of the allies. How come they didn't invade Japanese territory as an ally? Are you going to say it's because Japan got an @ss-whipping in a border war? The Soviets still should have attacked. Didn't the Allies land at Normandy to help the Soviet's Eastern offenses? Instead Russia played save. Now Russia claims all the glory for the problems they begged to be brought upon their heads. That what a "Judas Nation" ally does. Just hog the glory.

And since 1945 Russia has been a cancer on the entire world.

News / Russian criticism of Poland - Soviet war memorial removal [325]

I finally got to read the entire thread. I like it: it's pretty intense.

Many posters mention war memorials honoring the common soldier, in this case the Soviet Red Army. That they should be...
"...respected unconditionally..." "...war memorial removal seems wrong...considering the huge sacrifice involved." "...simple war graves are not a problem..." Constant posts mention the Red Army soldier who gave their lives.

I have to admit I'm comparing this situation with the one going on in the USA concerning memorials to the ENEMY --- the Confederates --- the rebels who wanted to destroy the nation.

Cemeteries to the rebel dead are both private and public. Just as poster in this thread say, let the dead soldiers lie. But things are changing in the USA. Monuments, streets, highways, counties, parks, military bases, etc. are disappearing or having their names changed. Monuments are being taken down if they are in public and if someone wants to pay to put it in a rebel cemetery then so be it! Most enemy (Confederate) monument are in public places. These are mostly paid forby taxpayers and many taxpayers are descendants of slaves. (By the tern "paid for" I mean the preservation and maintenance.)

A poster mentioned the point of having to see the hammer & sickle everyday going to work. That would be the same feeling of a slave's descendant viewing a monument to the Confederate dead everyday on their way to work.

So I take it that Red Army monuments are still around in public. My view is that they should be placed in cemeteries, specifically Red Army cemeteries. Not in public at all. A poster also said that memorials in graveyards are OK but everything that glorified the Soviets should be torn down.

But a few posters made some very inciteful comments.

Firstly, and most people forget this, WW II was STARTED by Germany and THE USSR. They were allied thugs!
Getting back to monuments, other posters said the Red Army suffered immensely to liberate Poland. Well all the suffering of Russia were brought upon itself. Don't you think? The Russians as a whole brought misery upon themselves. How come when the Red Army "liberated" Poland they did not leave like the liberators left after freeing Italy, France, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Belgium, etc. Instead the Red Army stripped Poland of everything and carted it back to help rebuild Russia. They then stayed as "liberators" for almost fifty years.

It's an UNFORUNATE thing that we have to leave Confederate graveyards in the USA and Red Army graveyards in Poland alone.

It's unfortunate because I'm going to express my opinion. Many might be disturbed by my opinion but so be it. All these graves, both in the USA and Poland, should be dug up, ground up, and used for road fill. The same for ALL the monuments. But of course, this won't happen. Why? Because it cost too much money$$$ !!!

Sometimes mention of erasing history comes up. Definitely not so. If you want to know about evil Confederates or the Red Army, that's why we have libraries with history books written by professional historians. You don't need a repressive (mostly ugly) Soviet monument or a slave owning rebel general glaring down at us. That teaches us nothing.

A few posters also mentioned that Poland has no reason to like or respect Russia. It's mentioned that Poland should not be grateful to anything the Russians did. Another poster said "The Russians are our mortal enemy and who should expect nothing less from them."

Well surprise! Surprise! These words are NOT harsh enough. Think about it! Do you realize that Russia has been a cancer on European history FOREVER !!! Whatever iteration it existed in, czarist, Soviet, Federation, IT HAS BEEN NOTHING BUT TROUBLE FOR EUROPE AND EVENTUALLY THE WORLD.

In the USA, for my entire life and the generations before me, RUSSIA HAS BEEN THE SINGLE GEATEST EVIL THAT HAS ANTAGONIZED THE WORLD.

Finally, one poster said that Polish people should not get upset. That it was a long time ago. That it was Stalin's time. Why dwell in the past? That it's so stupid.

I don't know if this poster was joking or not but he is very dangerous. It's people like him that want to forget the past. "Let bygones be bygones" as they say. Don't dwell on the past he babbles.

Well folks the past is history. Whether we like it or not that history shapes us today. That poster wants you to forget it. Russia evidently loves to keep repeating the past and along the way causes misery for many other people. It seems to be the nature of being Russian!

Never forget! That's why Russia is a cancer, SHE HAS NEVER DONE ONE IOTA OF GOOD IN ALL OF HISTORY. PERIOD !!!

News / Russian criticism of Poland - Soviet war memorial removal [325]

I started to read this thread and I think it's an interesting and important one. The concept of "monuments" are a sore topic in the USA lately.

The biggest issue concerns Confederate monuments that exist in the Southern part of the USA in the territory that was once the rebel Confederate States of America. It's interesting and enlightening to see how other countries, e.g. Poland, deal with this topic.

I live in the northern part of the USA. The issue here is not Confederate monuments but monuments and markers to colonial English soldiers who butchered Native Americans. The monuments commemorate mostly the deaths of old men, women and children.

Food / How is this herring product typically served? [74]

So how do we mash up these comments into a tasty, new style sledz dish?

Food / How is this herring product typically served? [74]

@Miloslaw
I'm in the USA, The family's been in the USA for 114 years. So we're relatively new immigrants. My father and seven uncles served in he military-navy during WWII. All but one uncle were in the Pacific fighting the Japanese. Most married into Polish American families so the Polish traditions, customs and cultures continued. But the generations after me have diversed into everything from Lithuanian to Maine Yankees, Hispanic to Irish to Asian and beyond. I guess that's the so called "melting pot" effect.

Food / How is this herring product typically served? [74]

@pawian
Yes i remember as a child there was absolutely no meat. Perch fish was usually served. I love it but most of the family prefers meat, specifically pork shoulder. It still is a great custom. Everybody in the family, and I do mean everybody, likes the tradition of opening presents on Christmas Eve rather than Christmas morning.

Food / How is this herring product typically served? [74]

We eat sledz traditionally at Wigilia. It's purchased in chunks bottled in wine sauce. We serve it with sour cream, onions and black pepper.

I like the way it's described served with potatoes. It's like potato salad with sledz. That sounds great. I'm going to suggest that for a summer dish as a test.

The extended family still gets together for Wigilia. Fifteen people this year.

With other ethnicities marrying into the family, Wigilia has changed. For example meat is served.

Almost 50% like sledz. The rest won't touch it. They'll eat cold octopus salad instead! LOL !!