The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered [19]  |  Archives [1] 
 
User: Guest

News   121 posts«« 1 - page 3 of 5

How Polish diaspora see future of Poland? as ethnic Polish state or just Polish in origin?


Wroclaw 45 | 5,403    
22 Dec 2011  #61
Hahahaha, if you don't like your statements being critiqued then perhaps you should avoid public discussion forums. I asked you two questions. Either answer them or refrain, but I suggest you avoid crying for the mods unless you enjoy looking like a ninny.

i count the above as flaming. please keep to the topic.
delphiandomine 86 | 16,341    
22 Dec 2011  #62
I will tell Poles, and everyone else on Earth, not to believe in slippery slope fallacies.

You can tell them what you like, but given the Polish trait of stubbornness and refusal to do what other people think is best for them (see also : Warsaw Uprising, Poznan 1956, etc) - they're not likely to listen to you.

Please see the link posted above (#40) for a summary of the Pole, Piłsudski's, plan for Slavic unity and be disabused of your notion that such plans are "nothing more" than Russian.

You do realise that Pilsudki's plan miserably failed and caused the destruction of the II RP?

You might tell them to remember the lessons of history and look at the economic and geopolitical reality of a 'slavic union' while you're at it.

They already know, surely? I mean, some of them lived through the disaster that was the II RP and also the PRL - so they remember all too well what "Slavic Unity" meant - it meant millions of dead Poles.
Harry    
22 Dec 2011  #63
Please see the link posted above (#40) for a summary of the Pole, Piłsudski's, plan for Slavic unity

You mean the plan which featured Lithuania (not Slavic), Latvia (not Slavic), Estonia (not Slavic), Finland (not Slavic), Belarus, Ukraine, Hungary (not Slavic), Romania (not Slavic), Yugoslavia (only partly Slavic) and Czechoslovakia? More non-Slavic nations than Slavic ones? And did not feature by far the largest Slavic nation?
Ironside 46 | 8,867    
22 Dec 2011  #64
it would impede your gushing flood of drivel?

:D marvellous !I'm going to learn that phrase by heart!!!

You might tell them to remember the lessons of history and look at the economic and geopolitical reality of a 'slavic union' while you're at it.

Yeah there is a need to colonize Africa for a while and maybe middle east to give economy kick start!
:)
JonnyM 12 | 2,629    
22 Dec 2011  #65
It worked for us. Mind you - we had the wherewithal to do it in the first place.
Ironside 46 | 8,867    
22 Dec 2011  #66
You mean the plan which featured Lithuania (not Slavic), Latvia (not Slavic), Estonia (not Slavic), Finland (not Slavic), Belarus, Ukraine, Hungary (not Slavic), Romania (not Slavic), Yugoslavia (only partly Slavic) and Czechoslovakia? More non-Slavic nations than Slavic ones? And did not feature by far the largest Slavic nation?

no the plan that featured Belarus, Ukraine and Georgia.
Harry    
22 Dec 2011  #67
Post 40 links to en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Międzymorze

From that article: "Invited to join the proposed federation were the Baltic states (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia), Finland, Belarus, Ukraine, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia." Do feel free to edit the article to suit what you claim it says.
Des Essientes 7 | 1,296    
22 Dec 2011  #68
You do realise that Pilsudki's plan miserably failed and caused the destruction of the II RP?

The Second Republic did fall, but Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were its destroyers. If you think Piłsudski's plan for Slavic unity was the main cause of the Second Republic's fall then you are very deluded.

You mean the plan which featured Lithuania (not Slavic), Latvia (not Slavic), Estonia (not Slavic), Finland (not Slavic), Belarus, Ukraine, Hungary (not Slavic), Romania (not Slavic), Yugoslavia (only partly Slavic) and Czechoslovakia? More non-Slavic nations than Slavic ones?

Yes I mean that plan which proposed unifying several Slavic states along with several other Non-Slavic states. It was thus a plan for Slavic unity. I never said it was a plan for exclusively Slavic unity.

And did not feature by far the largest Slavic nation?

Yes, and Piłsudski had good reasons for this omission. It was not a plan for absolute Slavic unity but a plan for Slavic unity nonetheless.
delphiandomine 86 | 16,341    
22 Dec 2011  #69
The Second Republic did fall, but Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia were its destroyers. If you think Piłsudski's plan for Slavic unity was the main cause of the Second Republic's fall then you are very deluded.

The German and Russian invasions were effectively the result of 20 years of pretty poor decision making by the II RP. In fact, we can actually see that had Poland pursued a more sensible course of action, such as not invading her neighbours and concentrated on building alliances, an effective deterrent may have existed.

The II RP was a failed state in every sense of the word.

Yes I mean that plan which proposed unifying several Slavic states along with several other Non-Slavic states. It was thus a plan for Slavic unity. I never said it was a plan for exclusively Slavic unity.

And it was just that, a plan. Other Slavs wanted nothing to do with Poland, especially Czechs/Slovaks. Heck, Poland didn't even have unity with other Slavs within the II RP - what hope would they have with outsiders?
Harry    
22 Dec 2011  #70
I mean that plan which proposed unifying several Slavic states along with several other Non-Slavic states. It was thus a plan for Slavic unity. I never said it was a plan for exclusively Slavic unity.

So to you a plan which features twice as many non-Slavic states than Slavic ones and which excludes the majority of Slavs is a plan for "Slavic Unity". A pathetic stance, truly.
delphiandomine 86 | 16,341    
22 Dec 2011  #71
And the plan was also opposed by the Soviet Union who dearly wanted to give Poland a beating.

Let's also not forget that a significant part of the population supported Dmowski's Polonisation idea.
Ironside 46 | 8,867    
22 Dec 2011  #72
The German and Russian invasions were effectively the result of 20 years of pretty poor decision making by the II RP. In fact, we can actually see that had Poland pursued a more sensible course of action, such as not invading her neighbours and concentrated on building alliances, an effective deterrent may have existed.

BS and there some more BS
But don't let it impede the flood of your drivel lol !
Des Essientes 7 | 1,296    
22 Dec 2011  #73
In fact, we can actually see that had Poland pursued a more sensible course of action, such as not invading her neighbours and concentrated on building alliances, an effective deterrent may have existed.

Hahaha, if you can "actually see" something that "may have existed" then you really are "special".
Harry    
22 Dec 2011  #74
Either that or he has a knowledge of history which far outstrips your own: the Czech army and the Polish army combined, especially given the Czech defensive positions in 1938, would have been a pretty good match for the Nazis. And that is before one factors in the support which was offered to the Czechs by the USSR and which was due to the Czech from the French. But instead of building an alliance which could have beaten the Nazis, Poland preferred to invade part of Czechoslovakia and take land where two-thirds of the population were not ethnically Polish. Didn't turn out to well, did it.
Ironside 46 | 8,867    
22 Dec 2011  #75
Bull, Czechoslovakia surrendered to Germany in what way Poland could help them- don't make the fool out of yourself more then you already did!
Des Essientes 7 | 1,296    
22 Dec 2011  #76
Either that or he has a knowledge of history which far outstrips your own

No, Harry, that is a false dichotomy because claiming to "actually see" the truth of counterfactual statements is not proof of any knowledge of history (even if the person making the claim calls himself "the Knowledge" when his membership is suspended and he posts on the forum anyway because he cannot stop the flood).
delphiandomine 86 | 16,341    
22 Dec 2011  #77
Hahaha, if you can "actually see" something that "may have existed" then you really are "special".

Mods?

the Czech army and the Polish army combined, especially given the Czech defensive positions in 1938, would have been a pretty good match for the Nazis.

Yep, especially if you consider that they could have sealed off East Prussia (in cooperation with the Lithuanians) and made sure that Danzig was neutral.

Can't imagine the Soviets getting involved as well, especially given their opportunistic nature.
southern 76 | 7,108    
22 Dec 2011  #78
the Czech army and the Polish army combined, especially given the Czech defensive positions in 1938, would have been a pretty good match for the Nazis.

Czechoslovakia's fate was decided in 1938 in Munich treaty signed by British and French prime ministers.
Harry    
22 Dec 2011  #79
Bull, Czechoslovakia surrendered to Germany in what way Poland could help them

Told them "You are not alone. We are with you. We will fight alongside you for your freedom and for ours." Isn't that what Poles are supposed to say?

the truth of counterfactual statements is not proof of any knowledge of history

An interesting way of saying that you know very little about the relative strengths (and weaknesses) of the Polish and Czech armed forces compared to those of the Nazis and you know the same amount about the Franco-Czech-Soviet treaty of 1935. The simple fact is that Poland would have stood a chance in an alliance with the Czech but alone against the Nazis and the Soviets she stood no chance at all.

in cooperation with the Lithuanians

Another nation which would have made a good ally if only Poland hadn't preferred to threaten war against her instead.

Can't imagine the Soviets getting involved as well, especially given their opportunistic nature.

They had a treaty with the Czechs and offered to uphold it even if the French did not.
delphiandomine 86 | 16,341    
22 Dec 2011  #80
Another nation which would have made a good ally if only Poland hadn't preferred to threaten war against her instead.

Indeed, with Czechs and Lithuanians onboard (in a solely military capacity) - along with the Romanians, it's almost certain that other countries would have eagerly joined up. Latvia, Estonia and Finland would have looked to the alliance to ensure their future, I can't imagine Hungary staying out in this case, too.

One thing is frighteningly obvious when you compare modern day Poland to then - the II RP's diplomacy was shockingly bad.
Ironside 46 | 8,867    
22 Dec 2011  #81
Told them "You are not alone. We are with you. We will fight alongside you for your freedom and for ours." Isn't that what Poles are supposed to say?

I see you are an expert as to the ways diplomacy works, anyhow they didn't wanted to get involved with Poland - the case is close.

Another nation which would have made a good ally if only Poland hadn't preferred to threaten war against her instead.

The country which had to be threatened with war to exchange diplomatic representatives.

the II RP's diplomacy was shockingly bad.

Not as bad as your knowledge of the Polish history.
delphiandomine 86 | 16,341    
22 Dec 2011  #82
I see you are an expert as to the ways diplomacy works, anyhow they didn't wanted to get involved with Poland - the case is close.

Can you blame them when they knew that the Poles were discriminating left/right/centre in their own country?

Still, a military alliance would have made plenty of sense, if it were not for Poland trying to show everyone what a big boy he is.

The country which had to be threatened with war to exchange diplomatic representatives.

Threatening war against a much smaller neighbour is..well..

Not as bad as your knowledge of the Polish history.

All hail our Great Leader Jarek's 1000 year reign!
Ironside 46 | 8,867    
22 Dec 2011  #83
Can you blame them when they knew that the Poles were discriminating left/right/centre in their own countr

quite that PC BS !

Still, a military alliance would have made plenty of sense, if it were not for Poland trying to show everyone what a big boy he is.

Listen I read a book on the subject - well documented book - the conclusion of 400 page dissociation was that Czechoslovakia didn't wanted any alliance with Poland for number of reasons, none of which had anything to do with alleged discrimination. CS had a plenty of discrimination going !

Also they supported terrorist organizations in Poland.
Yet Poland were looking military alliance with them, they declined - F them!

Threatening war against a much smaller neighbour is..well..

Such country as Lithuania full of dick-heads by all means - provided that during war with Soviets in 1920 they sided with Soviets against Poland.
Harry    
22 Dec 2011  #84
The country which had to be threatened with war to exchange diplomatic representatives.

If another country had invaded and occupied what it had agreed to be part of Poland and then spent a couple of decades discriminating against the Poles who were unfortunate to live on the wrong side of the illegal border, would you expect Poland to have diplomatic relations with that country? Would you want Poland to say "OK, you can have the land which you stole from us after agreeing it was ours, just as long as you promise not to invade us again."?

But hey, your occupation of Vilnius worked out well in the end, didn't it?

during war with Soviets in 1920 they sided with Soviets against Poland.

And Poland sided with the Soviets against the Ukrainians, despite having a treaty with the Ukrainians. Poland of course did that for money, not because it was a matter of vital national security.
Ironside 46 | 8,867    
22 Dec 2011  #85
If another country had invaded and occupied what it had agreed to be part of Poland and then spent a couple of decades discriminating against the Poles who were unfortunate to

I can only laugh at you and your folly !There is no point in discussing your drivel because both of us knows that its is BS!
Des Essientes 7 | 1,296    
22 Dec 2011  #86
Because the knowledge of history is the knowledge of factual events I wrote:

claiming to "actually see" the truth of counterfactual statements is not proof of any knowledge of history

Harry quoted the above statement and then claimed it is:

An interesting way of saying that you know very little about the relative strengths (and weaknesses) of the Polish and Czech armed forces compared to those of the Nazis and you know the same amount about the Franco-Czech-Soviet treaty of 1935.

That has to be the most asinine thing said yet on this thread and it is chock full of stupid claims.
I would also like to point out that this thread's topic is about the Polish diaspora's vision of Poland's ethnic future and at least one moderator is reading it, as is evinced by his admonitions to "stop flaming", but it seems he doesn't realize that a discussion of European military alliances before the Second World War has nothing at all to do with this thread's topic. Yet another thread trashed.....
Harry    
22 Dec 2011  #87
I can only laugh at you and your folly !There is no point in discussing your drivel because both of us knows that its is BS!

And that is why Poland was so ashamed of the invasion it launched the very day after signing the treaty in question that it tried to pretend that Polish troops had mutinied? And then they set up a puppet state while they waited for the reaction of the world? Or perhaps you wish to claim that closing hundreds of Lithuanian schools, banning almost all Lithuanian organisations, closing Lithuanian newspapers and sentencing one of the editors to death is not discriminating against Lithuanians?

I would also like to point out that this thread's topic is about the Polish diaspora's vision of Poland's ethnic future

The knowledge of Polish history displayed by the average member of the Polish diaspora in this thread demonstrates that they lack the most basic of knowledge about Poland to make any reasoned assessment of when Poland is going. Those who know not where Poland has been cannot hope to know where Poland will go.
MediaWatch 10 | 945    
4 Jan 2012  #88
If another country had invaded and occupied what it had agreed to be part of Poland and then spent a couple of decades discriminating against the Poles who were unfortunate to live on the wrong side of the illegal border, would you expect Poland to have diplomatic relations with that country?

Better yet, Germany and Russia stole ALL of Poland between 1795-1917....they did it again in 1939 for two years.... and today Poland has diplomatic relations with both countries.

The knowledge of Polish history displayed by the average member of the Polish diaspora in this thread demonstrates that they lack the most basic of knowledge about Poland to make any reasoned assessment of when Poland is going. Those who know not where Poland has been cannot hope to know where Poland will go.

Says the Polish-Basher Harry.

The one thing the Polish diaspora is very conscious of is how Poland's enemies like yourself have been trying to define Poland according to your own anti-Polish viewpoint, to people outside of Poland.
Harry    
4 Jan 2012  #89
they did it again in 1939 for two years.... and today Poland has diplomatic relations with both countries.

Well done, you manage to compare the situation when no Polish territory is being occupied and no Poles are being discriminated against to a situation where Poland was occupying what it had agreed to be the territory of another nation and discriminating against the unfortunate people who lived on their own territory; that is stunningly good work.

Says the Polish-Basher Harry.

Remind us of all the things which you have done for Poland. Other, of course, than making Poland a much nicer place by never ever coming here.

The one thing the Polish diaspora is very conscious of

Do you talk about it while eating Busia Sofia's golumpkies and pierogies?
delphiandomine 86 | 16,341    
4 Jan 2012  #90
The one thing the Polish diaspora is very conscious of is how Poland's enemies like yourself have been trying to define Poland according to your own anti-Polish viewpoint, to people outside of Poland.

I get the impression that the Polish-Americans see enemies where Poland doesn't. Another great sign of how they're totally out of touch with (as they say) - "Polish reality".

Remind us of all the things which you have done for Poland.

Remember, he defends Poland on the internet. Poland doesn't want/need defending, but he doesn't let that little matter stop him.

The knowledge of Polish history displayed by the average member of the Polish diaspora in this thread demonstrates that they lack the most basic of knowledge about Poland to make any reasoned assessment of when Poland is going. Those who know not where Poland has been cannot hope to know where Poland will go.

It's funny, but it seems to me that much of the III RP's policies are in deliberate contrast to the failings of the II RP - even PiS and Kaczynski have been savvy enough to suck up to a major world power to ensure protection.

And yes, they haven't got a clue about Poland. Sometimes, I wonder by their lack of knowledge of Polish and Poland - that they might actually be anti-Polish types. It would certainly explain the clueless ranting.




Home / News / How Polish diaspora see future of Poland? as ethnic Polish state or just Polish in origin?
Click this icon to move up back to the quoted message. Bold Italic [quote]

 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary and unique username or login and post as a member.