History / 'Poland: A Knight Among Nations' - Book about Poland by an American Author, dated 1907 [51]

Good point, though I would suggest that whether or not resistance occurs, it is still an occupation.

Correct. I suspect though that Otter's response will be that the partition and subsequent occupation was in fact (but not in law mind you) ratified by the Polish Sejm under Russian guns (Silent Sejm??) but that's ok because it was ratified and extraneous circumstances matter not. Thankfully though some of us have moved on from arguing Star Chamber-esque justice arguments.

History / 'Poland: A Knight Among Nations' - Book about Poland by an American Author, dated 1907 [51]


I can also recommend a literary work by either Rousseau or Voltaire (cant remember which one). From memory, it was commissioned by King Poniatowski as a critique and instruction on how Poland could get out of the mess it found itself in in the late C18. It should be available online and I'll have a look.

History / 'Poland: A Knight Among Nations' - Book about Poland by an American Author, dated 1907 [51]

Here it is:

constitution.org/jjr/poland.htm

Rousseau, 1772, Considerations on the Govt of Poland etc...

History / 'Poland: A Knight Among Nations' - Book about Poland by an American Author, dated 1907 [51]


Ah, my mistake then. Wasn't there some sort of pro-foreign law passed by a sejm under the guns of the Russians or am I mistaken?


I'm glad to hear that mate. Are you up on your feet yet? It'll probably take some time. I was paralysed for a while when I got hit by a car and couldn't walk for a few months. You'll get there buddy.


That's an interesting take. How would the middle class have prevented the partitions then?

Genealogy / About Raczkowski [16]

Jan (born 1 May 1925), Jozef (born 25 July 1897) and Edward Raczkowski (born 27.6.20). Shot by the Germans along with 106 others btwn 11-14/12/1943 on charges of possession of weapons and being part of a forbidden organisation (probably the AK). Held on reprieve but executed in reprisal after the AK blew a train killing many Germans. RIP Edward, Jan and Jozef.

Mieczyslaw Rackowski (born 25 June 1910) was charged with the same offences, held as hostage but publicly executed on 18 November 1943 after a German soldier was wounded. RIP Mieczyslaw.

Genealogy / Paprocki: I am trying to figure out my Polish roots. [19]

Stanislaw Paprocki (born 11 October 1899). Shot with 197 other Poles on 17 September 1940 in the Palmiry forest after detention in the Pawiak. I have no info as to charge, date of arrest etc. RIP Stanislaw.

Genealogy / BOGDAN Family Lost In WW II [8]

Janina Bogdan (born 12 June 1902) Shot with 197 other Poles on 17 September 1940 in the Palmiry forest after detention in the Pawiak. I have no info as to charge, date of arrest etc. RIP Janina.

History / Poles in the Napoleonic era [224]

napolun.com/mirror/web2.airmail.net/napoleon/Fuengirola.htm

The above is an interesting link (notwithstanding the broken English) to the battle of Fuengirola, which if accurate, is an example of another Napoleonic battle where the Poles fought the Poms and won despite being significantly outnumbered.

What I find most interesting however is the suggestion that someone ripped out the British casualty list of that battle from the record, and the further suggestion that other records from Wellington viz Waterloo were 'missing'. It begs the question of how many other records of a compromising nature have gone missing and how prevailent is/was this practice in England (perhaps 'invisible hands' also ripped out art. 5 of the mutual defence treaty btwn Poland and the UK? ;-)).

No doubt our English friends on this forum will not fail to defend Pomgolia's honour ;) - pip pip.

History / Poland in the eyes of London - before WWII. [60]


That's an interesting anecdote on a self serving statement(s) from Der Fuhrer but largely irrelevant to the context of the discussion. It's irrelevant because upon the Nazi invasion of CZ in early 1939, HMG's resolve stiffened to the point where it was realised that the Nazis had to be stopped per se, quite apart from any notions of contractual obligations or altruistic purposes viz Poland. If memory serves it was Beaverbrook or like politician of anti-war ilk who uttered words to the effect that it was going to be a war of attrition with either GB or Germany prevailing. Don't fall into the trap of allowing assumption and hypothesis back up a statement which you purport to be incontrovertible.


No need to profess indignation here. As far as I'm aware, you're the only person on this forum who purports to be a 'historian' but whose statements tend to suggest otherwise. Perhaps you'd indulge us armchair historians by referring us to some of your works on history - I however must profess to being unfamiliar with any genuine historian who signs himself off with a childish and vaguely feline monogram or who refers to themselves in the third person.

As to the real issue, there's no doubt in my mind that HMG were solid on the course of action that nothing more could have been done in '39 except for leaflet drops, a raid on Wilhelmshaven and other irrelevances that some may deem deserve mention. Historians such as yourself tend to wring their hands and say 'what more could we have done' and 'we did all we could because (insert your favourite contra-indicator to assistance)'. What I've never been able to reconcile however is how, in due course, several tens of thousands of Poles, if not more, managed to travel their way across wartime Europe and arrive in England after the fall of Poland and place themselves in the service of HMG. Given the difficulties you've elaborated on in excusing HMG from further assistance, it's nothing short of a miracle.

In any event, here's an easier one though - what could HMG not have done to help Poland? Here's a few:

1. Enter into the treaty of Mutual Assistance with Poland knowing that no meaningful assistance could be rendered, or, not caveating the term of obligations of assistance by setting out when, how and in what manner that assistance would be delivered or if there would be any matters absolving them of doing all in their power to deliver assistance. Once mutual obligations are formalised, each party expects the other to adhere to same. 'Doing all in your power' means just that, and cannot be read down, because it frustrates the intent of the treaty and makes it redundant. No amount of sighing, deflection, revisionist dogma, hand wringing or blame shifting will change the fact that at best HMG read down their obligations and at worst, failed to do all in their power to assist. In any event, Poland rightly assumed the treaty meant what it said and relied on HMG to fulfil same. A contracting party can be estopped from denying the existence or meaning of a clause if the other party relied on that clause to their detriment.

2. Breaching clause 5 of the treaty by not telling Poland about the relevant outcomes of Teheran. Poland could have then decided if it wished to continue fighting alongside the allies with the knowledge that HMG and the USA had acquiesced to Stalin's fait accompli regarding Poland's make up post WW2. Again, no amount of sighing, deflection, revisionist dogma, hand wringing or blame shifting will change the fact that a few simple words would have discharged that obligation.

3. Not consenting to releasing Anders and his troops in early-mid 1945 so they could fight their way back to Poland. Why not? Because HMG feared that the post war geo-political makeup, purchased partly at Poland's expense, could be displaced if, heaven forbid, Poland fought back against an invader and occupier.

No doubt some will say Poland breached treaties with other countries and so on, and that by virtue of those purported breaches Poland does not have standing to complain about the treaty with Britain. That is however irrelevant. If I breach a contract with party A am I precluded from complaining that my different contract with party B has been breached by party B? No.

If I cause a car accident and injure party A, then am injured by party B who caused another accident, am I precluded from bringing an action against party B simply because I caused another different accident and injured A? No.

History / Poland in the eyes of London - before WWII. [60]


Then why not say that, because on my reading of your post you say HMG went to war because of Poland then suggest that Poland should be thankful because of that?

What other thread? Can't you give me a nutshell?


I'm entitled to make suggestive remarks. The suggestion was that if you are indeed a historian then point us to your published works. Again, no need to profess indignation.


There is no antipathy. I made a statement that no historian I am aware of carries on in your name and style.

Have you got any responses to any of the real issues contained in my post?

History / Poland in the eyes of London - before WWII. [60]

An edited response to your edit:


Agreed. That is trite.


Irrelevant or unable to be responded to? I say it's relevant because:

1. the discussion is about Poland in the eyes of London before WW2

2. the eyes of London cast their gaze upon Poland and signed a treaty with Poland before WW2

3. I suggest that article 5 was subsequently breached.

4. London's eyes therefore closed to what happened at Teheran, winked at the SU, looked to Poland innocently and most likely squinted when the SU occupied Poland, executed its finest and brightest, and remarked 'this was agreed on at Teheran'.

History / Poland in the eyes of London - before WWII. [60]


No need. I accept your explanation and will take you at your word. I can't however speak for other forum members who may wish to test your credentials.

History / Poles in the Napoleonic era [224]


Yes, with Albuera it constitutes 'another', unless of course you wish to argue the use of 'another' in the English language with me...


No I can't sorry because I'm unaware of any other Polish victories over the Brits except for Fingerola and Albuera. You seem to suggest there were? Please indulge us with a recital.


I'm unfamiliar with the term "standardous".

Where have I resorted to racism?


I'm unfamiliar with any Pole banging on about art. 5 except myself. I've explained my rationale there in another thread that you are aware of. My proposition still stands in the absence of any genuine response (ie something other than the Sikorski border revelation you cravenly adopted after Sjam, to which he received my response which you can look up).


They may well have, though in all likelihood if we accept your version of events those clauses were probably just ignored by Poland without the need to resort to ham-fisted attempts at subterfuge and deception. In any event, your comments are irrelevant to the issue of the treaty between Poland and England for reasons I have mentioned in the thread "Poland in London's eyes etc etc". I am of course open to your counter arguments but you'll probably just ignore my contentions, which you always do when I argue something you cannot refute...

History / Poland in the eyes of London - before WWII. [60]


Why do you ask a rhetorical question?


Why then did HMG not form an alliance with Nazi Germany if that was the case, rather than with Poland?


I apologise unreservedly to any British who were offended by my words - I certainly didn't intend my words to convey that sentiment or to cause offence and I retract that. I have nothing but respect and admiration for the Brits and Cth soldiers who fought in WW2 and you're aware of that.


Peking! Peking! Peking! A joint operation, mutually consented to, whereby some ships of the Polish navy went to Britain and served under HMG with gallantry. How Polish is that!


The burden of proof is not on me to give examples - how can I speculate on the state of mind of a government concerning what that government subjectively believed could be achieved assistance-wise but having regard to what was in their power to do? I can't prove a negative, can I?

It's on you to convince that HMG did all in its power to assist. Did they? What more could they have done that they didn't do?


Could you please quote the part of the treaty which provides particulars as to when/how etc. article 5 is to be suspended? You can't can you. That's because there is no such provision, whether express, implied or collateral to the treaty, and no matter how hard you try to deflect it doesn't change the fact that HMG committed a prima facie breach of article 5 by not telling Poland about what happened at Teheran in respect of the relevant matters raised there concerning the future of Poland.


I assume then that you do not disagree with the fact that Anders' proposal was not consented to. Good.

I'll also assume that any further rhetorical questions and/or questions posed as responses simply mean you agree to my contention in default of a genuine response, and that no further response from me is required.


Really? Are you saying that a claimant can be wholly precluded from seeking remedies under a cause of action in say a motor vehicle accident (negligence) matter solely on the basis that at the time the cause of action arose the claimant was disqualified from holding or obtaining a driver licence? Or are you saying that a claimant can seek remedies at first instance but will then have such application dismissed on the basis of being disqulaified? Can you provide links to the applicable legislation and case law supporting your proposition? Do you get a feeling of deja vu here?


And therein lies the answer. 'Poland' was not disqualified, no matter how much you wish it was. My proposition stands.

History / Poland in the eyes of London - before WWII. [60]


I'm sorry for going off topic with your interesting thread. Your idea of a thread for both me and Harry gave me a laugh though. If we did it, people would think us bigger dickheads than we already are: 2 Aussies on a Polish forum, one of whom has never been there, the other who doesn't speak Polish, swapping arguments on Poland on a dedicated thread.

Per your thread though, if you go to the online Time magazine archive (google it) there are some excellent contemporary articles directly concenring Poland and England just before WW2. If I recall the articles correctly, there was a lot of camaraderie and mutual backslapping. Once you're in the archives, search for Smigly-Rydz and Colonel Beck and that will point you in the right direction.

History / Wealth of the Polish nobility [29]


I heard that some Polish nobles were so wealthy that they deliberately slipshod their horses gold horseshoes so they would fall off. The fact that they deliberately let them lie in the street thereafter was testament to the fact that they were so wealthy that the loss of a gold horseshoe meant nothing.

History / Should HMG compensate Poland and/or Polish veterans? [90]


I was thinking more along the lines of strict breach of contract (Art 5) rather than the more nebulous issues with Art 1. In any event, it's up to HMG to show evidence as to their preparedness and if on balance their preparedness was objectively such that they discharged their obligation of doing all in their power to assist, then they're fine. If however they didn't show that they did all in their power (an objective test, not subjective) then they breached Art 1. It's that simple.


Difficulties in setting out quantum of damages shouldn't bar compensation being paid should it? Perhaps a principal lump sum plus interest at say 9% per annum (as and from say Dec 1943) to the current Polish Govt to then be divvied up to genuine Polish claimants at the Polish government's discretion. There could be components of special damages, general damages, economic loss, pain and suffering and so on. That would be, in our hypothetical, up to the Polish claimant to set out.


It never does my friend. It's just a question of jumping on then jumping off at the right times. In any event, ‘opening the floodgates’ arguments are usually left for the legislature when formulating laws rather than used during litigation to try to stop same.

History / Should HMG compensate Poland and/or Polish veterans? [90]

The fact that you continue to denigrate me despite the fact that we had a mutual understanding to remain civil whilst in disagreement merely cements my suspicion that you deeply fear me and what I have to say on this forum. The further fact that you failed to accept my offer that I would not use the term "Pom" in exchange for you not using derogatory words is of itself testament to the fact you really don't care about addressing and diminishing 'racism' but rather you thinking that the endless and embarrassing propagation of a lie will somehow make you more convincing and me less so. Not being able to respond in any meaningful fashion, you resort to calling me racist at every opportunity.


The fact that HMG acquiesced to the border shift, the change of Poland's post War geo-political make up and descent into Stalinist hegemony without Poland's knowledge or consent and without telling Poland that this would happen speaks for itself as to that information being crucial and a relevant matter re what information ought to have been shared per Art. 5. If you cannot or will not accept that self-determination as to borders is of itself a prima facie exercise of political and national independence and that foreign and unilateral changes as to same threatens and indeed extinguishes that independence then you fail to understand what national sovereignty and independence mean.


This seems to be another example of what you think being at odds with the reality of the situation. Given that I posted the thread and clearly set out that it was my view that Art 5 was breached having regard to what occurred at Teheran, I fail to see your logic unless of course you know my thoughts better than I do myself?


A revisionist? Me? That would make for an exciting argument. Pray tell what leads you to that conclusion, setting out what I have said and then comparing that to what a revisionist statement is. Would you have to show that objectively or subjectively?


I see the comments I made to you the other week re questioning your 'historian' credentials are still upsetting you. I'm sorry you still feel that way.

In any event, I've never said I'm a historian, though I suppose, like you, I could pretend to be one, couldn't I. Carrying on about how good you are and what academic credentials you have (I don't reckon you have any mate) merely makes you look like a dill, especially in light of the fact that you more often than not make no sense, refer to yourself in the third person and embarrass yourself even further by signing off with your child-like and vaguely feline sigil.

I really like the way you were miffed enough to come back and edit your post with that comment about me trying to make real historians look ridiculous. That tells me that you did feel as though you had been ridiculed and needed to add that comment as a final stab against me to preserve your ego, because its all about an ego trip for you isn't it mate. Given though that you are not a real historian you don't have to worry about me trying to ridicule you, do you.

History / Should HMG compensate Poland and/or Polish veterans? [90]


Where have I said Britain did? I didn't, which kind of makes a mockery of the balance of your post, doesn't it. You know perfectly well what my argument is and because you refuse to acknowledge that it was a prima facie breach of Art. 5 you again resort to smoke and mirror rubbish. I can tell you mate - you've certainly got 10 points in my books for effort, but I'm not stupid and I see your deflections and obfuscations for what they are.


I've rubbished this tripe elsewhere so no need to repeat my position. You seem devoid of any ability to argue something other than tangential theories, so I'll give you some ammunition to use against my arguments (don't tell anyone I told you) and you can expand on them:

1. Which Polish Goverment signed the original treaty and which Polish government was around when I allege Art. 5 was broken? Is there anything in the treaty regarding subrogation type arrangements of party's obligations and rights to remedies?

2. Was there anything in the treaty which could, in executing it, frustrate another treaty/agreement of greater significance.

3. Were there any express, implied or collateral terms to the treaty regarding what is to be done in the event of an alleged breach?

4. Which of the above are red herrings (if any) and which are plausible foundations (if any) for an argument contrary to mine?

Give me a real run for my money Harry.

I'm honoured that you hold me in league with reputable and professional historians! I am however just a humble lawyer and a mere student of history.

In any event, would you do this Honorary Historian a service and point me to exactly where my inventions re the treaty lie?


Seanus my man, I see you've made some useful comments on mobilisation but you're a bachelor of international law so this should be right up your ally. What do you think? I see you've refrained from giving us your input in that regard when clearly it's needed. I really know two fifths of bugger all about International and K. law so your input could tip the balance here. ;)

History / Poles in the Napoleonic era [224]

Below are some cool PHOTOS of Napoleonic veterans in full uniform. There are 2 of uhlans but they don' seem to be Polish unfortunately:

dl.lib.brown.edu/libweb/collections/askb/veterans.php

Has anyone got photos of Polish veterans?

History / Role of Serbian medieval cavalry in formation of Polish hussars [20]

Who would have thought our Turk smashing Husaria could also help you smash your business opposition? Interested?


qualitydigest.com/inside/six-sigma-article/thinking-lean-17 th-century-poland

History / Poles in the Napoleonic era [224]

I meant not Polish because of the surnames, or do you mean their uniforms are Polish?

History / Quotes of Polish or German kings, generals [42]

"It was a brawl, a scrap, a bagarre" - Pilsudski's description of the 1920 Battle of Warsaw - a masterful understatement.

"Permit me Sir to be the master of the sheep as well as the goats" King Zygmunt in response to criticism from the Papal Legate regarding Poland's acceptance and tolerance of heretics in the C16.

Edit:

Should have been goats first then sheep last.

Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]


I'd have to respectfully disagree. I've dealt with several dozen domestic violence matters and based on my experience, it is unfortunately men who are disproportionately represented as the alleged abuser. Here are some general comments I can make based solely on my experience in practice:

1. About 5% of aggrieved spouses are male. Initial arguments of "I'm a bloke and who's going to believe I was bashed by my wife" are fairly common though misconceived.

2. However, men are more likely than women to prosecute an alleged incident of domestic violence by making an application for a protection order. They too are more likely to go all the way with a case and are untroubled at the prospect of facing their ex in court and giving oral evidence against them.

3. Both men and women are fairly equal in awareness as to what is domestic violence and what can be done to apprehend it. Our legislation on domestic violence DOES NOT draw any distinction between men and women.

4. Feminist discourse, women's lib and so on plays no part whatsoever when at the coal face of domestic violence litigation. Arguing such academic concepts before a Magistrate would be dismissed as irrelevant.

5. Robust cross examination usually uncovers irrelevant, untrue or incredulous stories of domestic violence allegations. The witness box is a great leveller. Applications for a protection order based on such rejected/untrue premises can lead to costs orders being made against the claiming party.

6. Some women who have suffered DV also tend to suffer from an attachment manifestation to their spouse that is akin to "Stockholm Syndrome" whereby they will defend the actions of the allegedly abusive spouse and/or blame themselves for having domestic violence committed against themselves. This is why some women find it very hard to divulge and/or prosecute domestic violence or leave the relationship. Counselling is crucial for the woman to overcome this, though it can also be broken by direct intervention i.e. Child Protection Agency threatening to take the children because an abused spouse is incapable of protecting her children and so on. I haven't experienced this phenomenon with men, which is a crucial distinguishing point.

7. It could be that Feminist ideology recognises that women are more prone to silence or self blame and therefore adopts a militant form of academic advocacy to bring these issues to light on behalf of women, because of matters mentioned on point 6.


Care to back that up with some cold hard evidence, such as written judgments analogous to your claim? I'd like to think that the US judicial system is more proactive than that.

Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]


The explanation is simple: in general terms, some of the studies reveal that the female survey participants purportedly disclosed to the surveyor that they initiated DV. Some of the studies conclude that a greater number of females than men made such admissions.

Here are some things that should be borne in mind though:

1. Credibility and bona fides of the participants. For example, are their any differences between the potential for exaggeration and/or downplay between males and females when making admissions in these contexts? Can we take away anything from Lejeune's comment regarding a proposition that women could be more likely to accept responsibility for committing DV, thus the disparity?

2. The actualquestions asked.

3. How many of the participants who admitted being abused actually took steps to apply for a protection order. If they didn't, then why not?

4. What about other forms of DV such as threats to commit it, financial deprivation, mental abuse and so on?

It was interesting to note one study which found that in men a higher education level achieved a commensurate reduction in physical abuse whereas the opposite was the case for women.

In any event, I found the studies surprising. They certainly don't mesh with my experiences in practice. Can you now explain how that is? Can it be reconciled with my Stockholm Syndrome analogy.


I'm unsurprised at the reaction but disappointed. Isn't this study however more apposite to public reaction to DV (committed in public) than to the debate on gender proclivity to commit same?


That's interesting though astounding. How do you come by that statistic? Is it the case that US law automatically favours mothers over fathers? Or could it be that in 99% of cases the Judge decides that on the evidence the child is best living with the mother? It would have to be the former wouldn't it?

Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]

G'day Zimmy,

I posted late last week quite a detailed response to your last posts but they have been wiped from the forum, and I honestly don't intend to reconsider and redo it. I don't know why my response was wiped but note with a sense of wry amusement that the well considered and insightful post of another member contained at #125 remains in all its glory - obviously mine was far more irrelevant and vacuous. Anyway,thanks for your input and catch you around champ.

Love / 'Battered husbands' - still a taboo subject in Poland [387]


Bad guess and no excuses - excusing the conduct of someone else is impossible. What in my posts caused you to guess that? Are you saying I’m biased against men Zimmy?

My post was more to do with questioning your rationale - you've made quite a few assumptions and suggestions which unless gleaned from or made in conjunction with personal experience have less probative value, in my opinion.


My 'retorts' to the Fiebert studies were already posted. The studies don't align with my experiences in practice, but that doesn't mean the studies are invalid. I rely on first hand experience over data gleaned from surveys. If my experiences change in future such that they align with the studies' findings then I will be persuaded. That is the difference between practice and theory or reading something as opposed to being part of it. Have you dealt with any domestic violence matters personally Zimmy? If so, do the Fibert studies accord with what you’ve experienced?

Let me guess – no the former, ergo N/A to the latter.


And therein lies the rub - belief of an objective truth presupposes that the truth is incontrovertible and unshakeable. The fact that your postulations and attached studies do not align with my experience merely serves to demonstrate that the topic we are discussing does not actually hold an objective truth to which either of us can be tested against in the sense of the rightness or wrongness of our beliefs, or in my case, understandings.


I would go further than that and say that it's impossible for people to be objective and go even further by saying that the only objective truth is that truth is subjective. All one can do is acknowledge this failing and endeavour to take it into account.


Ah, to enjoy just one day when I don't have to think about anything! Doubting however requires thought, so I'll just start believing everything.

"Personally, we are always ready to learn, although we do not always like being taught".

- Winston Churchill

"Minds are like parachutes - they only function when they are open".

- Thomas Dewar

History / Polish Civil War after the German Occupation in WW2? [7]


It was occupied by the Soviet regime and fighting continued in isolated pockets around Poland until about mid 1947. It was largely remnants of the AK against Soviet/Soviet controlled security personnel, though I stand to be corrected as my knowledge here is hazy at best.


No, it didn't appeal to the Polish people. Communism was forced on Poland. Had Poland prevailed as an independant and sovereign nation post WW2, it's political make-up would not have been communist. Polish communists at the time of the Rising numbered I believe in the hundreds - the appeal was therefore limited.


The AK was the Polish Home Army, arguably the largest, most effectual, coherent and homogenous underground resistance movement during WW2. With hindsight, they fought in vain. To some, they were right-wing recalcitrants and trouble makers. To those that matter or have an ancestor who fought in their ranks, the archetypal AK soldier was a paragon of military virtue and commitment to a free Poland. The AK is now but a memory and legacy held dear to some - featured as a photo on a bedroom wall of a smiling ancestor in motley combat garb - and a reminder of betrayal, folly and the injustice of war.

History / Polish Civil War after the German Occupation in WW2? [7]

I'm pretty sure that there were some pretty hard core battles raging up until 1947 set against that backdrop. Someone like Sokrates can probably assist with the data there.