Language / Why is the Polish language so difficult? [309]


Given that Poland is a heavyweight in the European Union in terms of voting strength and influence, learning Polish certainly isn't a bad idea for anyone considering a career in Brussels. Then there's the fact that speaking a language spoken by nearly 10% of the European Union, that also offers a gateway into other Slavic languages is no bad idea.

As much as you try, you're not never going to escape the fact that Poland is not some small backwater.


Unfortunately for you, it's already getting taught in high schools.

Language / Why is the Polish language so difficult? [309]


Given that Poland has 38 million people and is a rather good market to export/expand into as it's not fully developed, I'd say that Polish is a good choice to learn for the young learner.


And what about that huge non-English speaking market south of the border? Do you think they speak English at a native level? Naaah.

History / Battle of Vienna - history movie about Poland / Commemoration [36]


Not necessarily, as many of the best schools offer full academic scholarships. I know someone who got one to Eton, for instance.

Love / Are Polish girls open to foreigners? [78]

Your rants about EU passports are amusing, but sadly way off target. Family members of EU citizens have the right to live/work anywhere in the EU.

Law / The right to own guns: would you support such legislation in Poland? [2237]


I don't recall any Americans liberating Poland in World War 2. In fact, I distinctly recall the American President selling out Poland at Yalta.

Language / POLISH 18 - 30 years old know MUCH BETTER ENGLISH language than their own native language! [102]


Does he not live in America?

History / What do Poles owe to Germans? [451]


All of it, as it was adopted illegally and more or less abolished democracy in Poland. If you're interested in this, there are some news articles online written at the time that more or less say it straight that Poland had become a dictatorship with the 1935 constitution.

I'm not convinced that the Government-in-Exile was neccessarily the legitimate representative, as it completely failed to hold any elections and itself split at one point. It's a shame, as had they been more effective at creating a parallel Polish state abroad, they might have been more of an opposition rather than an irrelevance.


I thought there were no Polish representatives at Yalta?

History / What do Poles owe to Germans? [451]

In a hurry, replying quickly


Yes, that was interesting. However, I've never found anything to suggest that this was anything other than a symbolic act, as it didn't carry any legal significance at all.

I would be very interested to know if any of the decrees by the Government-in-Exile were transposed into Polish law after 1989.

The modern day Polish state has done absolutely nothing to counteract the Communist era legislation, and has routinely endorsed it by prosecuting people under those laws. They've gone after Jaruzelski and friends by prosecuting them under the 1952 Constitution, not under 1935 or 1921. The name of the State might have changed and the Constitution might have changed, but to all practical extents, the PRL is recognised as the legitimate Polish government at that time.


But are you sure that it didn't have the authority? The presence of Mikołajczyk as Deputy Prime Minister after resigning as the Prime Minister of the Government-in-Exile certainly gave a great deal of legitimacy to the parliament at the time, along with Prime Minister Morawski.

And the final question : if it wasn't a legitimate regime, why does the modern day Polish state recognise it?


Would you agree then that the 1935 Constitution and Government-in-Exile were therefore illegitimate too?

History / What do Poles owe to Germans? [451]

The modern day Poland recognises the laws created from 1944-1989 as legal and binding. If they didn't, why did they go after people for Communist-era crimes using Communist era laws? Many of those laws are still in force, too.

The situation is clear legally, as the PRL was constituted according to the rules in force at the time. The fact that the parliament that pushed through these rules was a puppet parliament is neither here nor there, as we're speaking about the strict legality of the situation.

As I keep saying, morally it was illegitmate, but it was legal.


You're claiming that the situation wasn't legitimate, so surely you should prove this. Polish legal theory is clear on this, the Governments from 1944 to 1989 are recognised as being part of the legitimate Polish state. There was no reboot, no reset after 1989, the law remained in place until amended. Remember, the PRL constitution remained in force until 1992.

I think you also seem to confuse the role of the Soviet Union. It was Poles doing this to Poles, the Soviets merely assisted by their mere presence. But even their presence was legitimate under the law at the time.

Life / The Best Things About Poland [24]

The funniest thing about the above two posts is that Poland actually has a more liberal immigration policy than most of Western Europe.

History / What do Poles owe to Germans? [451]


Except it wasn't unlawful. The Polish state had more or less ceased to exist, and certainly the Colonel's government in London was not legitimate or lawful by any stretch of the imagination. The Lublin government met all the requirements for sovereignty, and was recognised as such internationally. And as I keep saying, their actions were in accordance with the legally implemented 1921 Constitution. Of course, it was amended to suit them, but it was all done legally in terms of constitutional theory.

I've already explained to you how Polish constitutional theory works. The Lublin government derived its authority from the 1921 Constitution and the country functioned according to that document from 1944 to 1952. Every act on paper during that time conformed to the Constitution, and the laws passed were in accordance with it. It was an old Communist trick of gaining legitimacy on paper.

As for laws, let's go back and look at the recognised Polish Government. We had the establishment of the Tymczasowy Rząd Jedności Narodowej , which had the most legitimate claim to being the lawful Polish government at the time. It fulfilled the internationally accepted principles of sovereignty, it was agreed to by both the Lublin Governments and the Government-in-Exile, and it was considered internationally to be the reconstituted Poland. This body organised the 1947 election, and thus gave legitimacy to the Communist government. In terms of pure law and theory, this process was legal. Morally, no, but we're not discussing morals.


And can you provide any proof that the process wasn't in accordance with the 1921 Constitution? I've read the document more times than I care to count, and I can't find anything that suggests that what the Communists did (create a national unity government in times of crisis, hold an election as soon as was possible) was unconstitutional.

The 1947 election law was entirely in line with the Constitution. The 3xTAK referendum amended the Constitution (again, in line with the requirements set out in the Constitution) - ultimately, the process was legitimate in terms of law. If it wasn't legitimate, how could they try people today in court under the laws passed from 1945-1989? Every single act since 1989 has confirmed that the PRL was the legitimate authority in those times. If you're aware of the Polish legal system recognising the Government-in-Exile's decrees instead, I'd love to know more.

If you don't even know the principles of sovereignty, how can you talk about the subject? You should start with Westphalia, as certainly the Polish State in 1945 conformed to this.


Europe, 1989-present.

History / What do Poles owe to Germans? [451]

What the Soviets did is irrelevant to the discussion, as we're merely talking about the legitimacy of the Communist government in legal theory.


You're mixing up constitutional theory and practice. We all know that the Communist government wasn't morally legitimate (then again, neither was the Government-in-Exile), but in terms of strict legality, yes, it was. The Lublin Government was the only one that could present a claim in 1945 based on the universally understood principles of sovereignty, which is why it was recognised by the West.

Yes, they used the 1921 Constitution and amended (and then replaced it) with something that suited them, but it was all done in accordance with the law. Remember, the Communists were very big on appearing to be legitimate - hence the 3XTak referenda and so on. There's a reason why the key players have all been tried under the Communist-era Constitution - in Polish legal theory, they are using the law at the time against them rather than following the completely immoral West German approach which has been prosecuting people for crimes that didn't exist in East Germany.

Remember as well, the 1935 Constitution was written to more or less ensure that Poland remained a military dictatorship.

History / What do Poles owe to Germans? [451]


In constitutional theory, what the Soviets did or didn't do is irrelevant. What matters is where the Polish government at the time derived their authority from. The 1921 constitution was legal beyond any reasonable doubt, the 1935 one was questionable at best, not least because it wasn't in accordance with the 1921 one. That's before we even start talking about the dubious morality of the 1935 constitution that more or less concentrated power in the hands of the military elite and destroyed democracy in the II RP.


It was not legitimate. If it was, then it would have entered in force in accordance with the previous constitution of 1921, but it didn't. There were rules, and these rules were not followed. Therefore, the 1935 constitution cannot be accepted as in any way lawful. It is notable that the III RP symbolically accepted the credentials from the last President-in-Exile, but chose deliberately to recognise the authority of the 1921 Constitution as amended and replaced throughout the years.

History / What do Poles owe to Germans? [451]


Arguably, in terms of constitutional theory, the Communist government had more legitimacy than the Government-in-exile as the Communists derived their legitimacy from the 1921 constitution, while the Government-in-Exile used the 1935 one that wasn't legally adopted. The evidence for this also comes from the fact that the April and December Novelisations and the 1992 Small Constitution were in accordance with the Stalinist 1952 one, which in turn derived its legitimacy from the 1921 one.

News / Do Poles in Poland really feel betrayed because there won't be any US Shield? [288]


You do realise that the shield was to protect America and offered no defensive capability whatsover for Poland, don't you?