The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 82

Poland gets a little bigger:)


hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,368
16 May 2010 #1
Officials must give Poland 369 hectares of disputed Czech territory under a treaty signed in 1958, Aktualne.cz reported Friday.

For now, Interior Ministry officials do not wish to reveal the locations where the border between Poland and the Czech Republic will change. But they have confirmed that there are dozens of spots.

praguepost.com/archivescontent/6115-disputed-369-hectares-expected-to-go-to-poland.html

More accurately simply taking what was theirs, proving the justice in their acquisition of Zalozie at an earlier period.
skysoulmate 13 | 1,276
16 May 2010 #2
You say potato and I say tater. What's justice to some might be a great injustice to others. Hopefully the areas will flourish and the residents of those towns/areas will not notice any significant difference now that both Poland and the Czech Republic are EU members.
OP hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,368
16 May 2010 #3
What's justice to some might be a great injustice to others.

Yes you are quite right of course. What was great injustice to the Poles living in that part of the Czech Republic, is know justice to the Poles that know find themselves in Poland again:)

Being in the EU has nothing to do with it though.
skysoulmate 13 | 1,276
16 May 2010 #4
You know what I meant. :)

I was born in Wrocław but would I have had there been a similar "great injustice" correction for all Breslauers? Like I said, what's just to one person is very unjust to another. Hopefully a happy medium can be found.
OP hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,368
16 May 2010 #5
Just as well that they did not have a government like New Labour, otherwise they would have wanted to give away even more instead of trying to get a little extra, like Labour over Gibraltar.
Sokrates 8 | 3,345
16 May 2010 #6
Personally i dont see a point for fuss, its just a few square miles that we (Poles) don't really need and nothing will change for people affected anyway.
Harry
16 May 2010 #7
More accurately simply taking what was theirs, proving the justice in their acquisition of Zalozie at an earlier period.

Always amusing to see a Pole boasting about Poland taking part in the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia. That little war really worked out well for you, eh? I wonder if Poland will ever start to learn from its mistakes, probably not.
ShortHairThug - | 1,101
16 May 2010 #8
I was wondering how long will it take you Harry to give us your spin on this subject. Not long enough :)
OP hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,368
17 May 2010 #9
But my dear Harry, the evidence is right before you, but before we continue you should be a little bit more honest and say that it was a TINY PART OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA, as i was saying, with the Czechs themselves agreeing I am afraid that your interpretation of these events as with most others, is neither here nor there.

By agreeing to this deal The Czechs have effectively confirmed that the Poles where right all along, and had they been a little bit more mature, this foolishness could have been avoided, and they wouldn't have had to face Hitler alone.

Besides Harry your logic as per usual fails you again, If you were to ask the people of the area, would you want to be under the administration of Poland, or a Nazi occupied Czechoslovakia, I am quite sure they would have chosen Poland seeing as it was that the vast majority of them were Polish in any case.
Harry
17 May 2010 #10
before we continue you should be a little bit more honest and say that it was a TINY PART OF CZECHOSLOVAKIA,

That's rather like saying that hardly any Jews were murdered at Kielce in comparison to the holocaust and so Poles should be completely forgiven for it.

By agreeing to this deal The Czechs have effectively confirmed that the Poles where right all along, and had they been a little bit more mature

You seized more than just the 369 hectares, didn't you. In fact, Polish troops were into Czechoslovakia before the Nazi stormtroopers!

I am quite sure they would have chosen Poland seeing as it was that the vast majority of them were Polish in any case.

If they were Polish, Poland shouldn't have abandoned them by agreeing that the territory was not part of Poland.
OP hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,368
17 May 2010 #11
I don't where to begin, such hysterical nonsensical tosh, you should really give up on the whole equating the Nazis with Poland, nobody believes it, at least nobody who is sensible and doesn't have an axe to grind.

If they were Polish, Poland shouldn't have abandoned them by agreeing that the territory was not part of Poland.

The above sentence proves your weak powers of logic, you can't even follow your own logic let alone someone else's. You say that they should have not, when you clearly believe that they should since you point out the occupation of the land mentioned. And then you proceed to say that they should have held on to that land after all!

So what is it Harry, yes, No or a maybe?
Harry
17 May 2010 #12
You could perhaps start by addressing the points which I make and not just try to attack points which I do not make. At no point have I attempted to equate the Nazis with Poland. Clearly you can not handle the fact that Poland took part in the Nazis' invasion of Czechoslovakia and so instead try to attack me for supposedly saying what I have not actually said.

The above sentence proves your weak powers of logic, you can't even follow your own logic let alone someone else's.

When a nation signs an international agreement, that nation should keep that treaty. I know that this can be difficult concept for Poles to grasp, what with the way you broke your agreements with Czechoslovakia (three times), Lithuania, Ukraine, etc.
jonni 16 | 2,481
17 May 2010 #13
What was great injustice to the Poles living in that part of the Czech Republic

You think it's a great injustice to be on the Czech side of the border?

Mind you, we're all in the Union now anyway...
OP hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,368
17 May 2010 #14
Clearly you can not handle the fact that Poland took part in the Nazis' invasion of Czechoslovakia

I can handle the Polish occupation of Polish land, i think we already established that, or are your powers of logic still at low low ebb?

And no, Poland did not take part in the Nazi occupation, they took part in their own occupation of land with a majority Polish population. So in other words they were occupying what was theirs by right, I think every country has the right to occupy its own land.

quote=jonni]You think it's a great injustice to be on the Czech side of the border?[/quote]
Not now, but back than yes, because of the discriminatory behavior of the Czech government.

As you can see Harry the people seemed to be pleased with the event, and be fair to the Czechs they seem to be remarkably cooperative as well.

youtube.com/watch?v=q11Bo7X-F_4&feature=related
Ziemowit 14 | 4,258
17 May 2010 #15
The problem of Zaolzie is a song of the past. In the (circa) 1910 census about 80 per cent of its population declared Polish as their native language. After the WWI, a joint Polish-Czech Commission was set up and agreed on the line dividing the Polish and Czech parts of the territory of the former Principality of Cieszyn which was much more favorable to Poland than was the later state border. But then the government in Prague did not recognize this agreement, and having found Poland military engaged in the war with the Bolshevik Russia, ordered its forces to move in beyond the agreed line, up to the river Olza. This new line became a state border, but then the Polish government forced Czechoslovakia to cede Zaolzie to Poland in 1938 in the face of her difficult position against Hitler and the Third Reich. That was undoubtedly a 'knife in the back' of our neighbour, and no one should have any doubt about it. In 1945 the communist government of Poland offered to exchage Zaolzie for the Kotlina Kłodzka region in the newly acquired from Germany Silesia province to settle the dispute once and for ever. Unfortunately though, the then communist Czechoslovakian government demanded some one third of the territory of Silesia in exchange, the demand that was turned down by the Warsaw government.

At present, about 10 per cent of the Zaolzie population only claim to be Polish. Now Zaolzie sometimes sends us over pop artists like Halina Mlynkova who are able to sing in perfect Polish, but who decide to retain their original Czech surnames.
OP hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,368
17 May 2010 #16
This new line became a state border, but then the Polish government forced Czechoslovakia to cede Zaolzie to Poland in 1938

Hardly, it was merely the returning of a favor. The Czechs new that the land they occupied was predominately occupied by Poles, and as you say when Poland was busy keeping the red peril at bay, the Czechs seized their opportunity of stabbing Poland in the back, whilst using some pathetic excuse about Poland granting its citizens the vote. They knew perfectly well that if they waited for the plebiscite the result would go Poland's way, so they used force (pathetically dressing their troops in allied uniform) to get what they wanted on that pretext.
Harry
17 May 2010 #17
Please read a little more about history. Both Poland and Czechoslovakia agreed on an interim settlement: part of that settlement was that no sovereign rule was to be exercised in the disputed areas. Poland promptly organised national parliamentary elections in the area that had been designated Polish in the interim agreement. Czechoslovakia asked them not to. Poland refused. Czechoslovakia invaded. The war ended on 3 February 1919. The Polish Soviet war started on 14 February.

when Poland was busy keeping the red peril at bay, the Czechs seized their opportunity of stabbing Poland in the back, whilst using some pathetic excuse about Poland granting its citizens the vote.

Poland had agreed not to exercise sovereign rule. Poland broke that commitment. And as has been outlined above, the Poland-Soviet war started after the Poland-Czechoslovakia war. But why let facts get in the way of your rubbish?
OP hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,368
17 May 2010 #18
the Poland-Soviet war started after the Poland-Czechoslovakia war

There was already a mobilization of Bolshevik troops on the eastern front before the Czech invasion, so Poland was not in a position to offer resistance because its troops were concentrated in the east. If they had been they would have given them one hell of a hiding:)

It is only common sense for your own citizens to participate in your own election whilst things are decided, it did not alter the existing situation in any way. The process would have been the same, there would still have been a plebiscite regardless. But the Czechs knew they were going to lose a plebiscite so they used that as a pretext for invasion, its the coal mines that they were after!
Harry
17 May 2010 #19
Please go and read a history book that wasn't written for Polish children. Polish troops were actually fighting another enemy, although I can well understand why you won't admit who that actually was.

It is only common sense for your own citizens to participate in your own election whilst things are decided, it did not alter the existing situation in any way.

Just another example of Poland promising one thing and doing another, eh?

If they had been they would have given them one hell of a hiding:)

As you did in 1938 when you took part in the Nazi invasion of Czechoslovakia and in 1968 when you took part in the Communist invasion of Czechoslovakia.
Ziemowit 14 | 4,258
17 May 2010 #20
Our dear Harry, telling others that they speak like children, is a big child himself. The Polish government taking part in the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 did not act as a sovereign party. Please go and read a history book, Harry.

In my view, the Polish invasion of Zaolzie in 1938 was a knife in the back of the neighbour, regardless of any earlier circumstances surrounding the division of the Principality of Cieszyn.
z_darius 14 | 3,964
17 May 2010 #21
You could perhaps start by addressing the points which I make and not just try to attack points which I do not make.

So let's address the points concerning Czekolsovakia.

How about we start with the Munich Agreement in which Great Britain played a critical part.
And now, a psychic Brit is spilling his crocodile tears over a scrap of land, a fraction of what his own government stole from the CZechoslovals and gave to the Nazis.

When a nation signs an international agreement, that nation should keep that treaty.

Indeed.
Hence it was pretty perfidious of the British to break their commitment to the Treaty of Versailles and to participate in an act of robbery of the defenseless Czekoslovakia. But then, nothing new under the Sun. The Brits have cause more political and military trouble in the history of human kind than any other nation, even than Nazi Germany.
Harry
17 May 2010 #22
The Polish government taking part in the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 did not act as a sovereign party. Please go and read a history book, Harry.

Still took part, didn't Poland? Unlike other states which were supposedly Soviet puppets.
Ziemowit 14 | 4,258
17 May 2010 #23
What do you mean by "other states"? The only one I can think of in terms of "Soviet puppets" is Romania. But then you should have written "unlike the only one ..." which makes a big difference when it comes to people like you who are extremely precise about dates and facts ...
Harry
17 May 2010 #24
Good point, I should have remembered that Albania left the Warsaw pact in the first half of 1968. Mea culpa. But the point still remains: if Romania didn't have to take part, why did Poland?
Crow 160 | 9,104
18 May 2010 #25
Poland gets a little bigger

its just the beginning

didn`t i speak of this many times? didn`t i announce expansion of Poland, no matter that Germany support ideas for segmentation of Poland? Didn`t i sent call to Silesians and to all Western Slavs to support strengthening of Poland and Poland`s expansion, to contribute to it? Yes, i am

How i know all this? i follow mega trends. We entered in era of Poland`s domination in Slavic world, meaning in era of evolution of Poland into European power. Later, in alliance with Serbs, Poland would move to become world power
OP hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,368
18 May 2010 #26
Good point, I should have remembered that Albania left the Warsaw pact in the first half of 1968. Mea culpa. But the point still remains: if Romania didn't have to take part, why did Poland?

It is too hard for you to comprehend my dear Henrietta, Keeping Poland down was always as strategic goal of the Russians.

And yes, I would care to remember who they were fighting. They fighting for the cause of civilization against Ukrainian Bolshevism. Something you clearly would rather forget, Am I right Henrieta?
guzzler 1 | 88
18 May 2010 #27
And no, Poland did not take part in the Nazi occupation.

I wholeheartedly agree with you like the North of Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.
OP hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,368
18 May 2010 #28
North of Ireland and the Republic of Ireland.

North yes, as for south I am sure you were joking:) Mind you given the protracted civil war after independence they could have done with the Brits staying for a little longer.
Harry
18 May 2010 #29
It is too hard for you to comprehend my dear Henrietta, Keeping Poland down was always as strategic goal of the Russians.

Into the personal insults now I see. Really shows how strong your argument is!
The question was why did Poland not refuse to take part in the 1968 invasion of Czechoslovakia. Your answer is "Keeping Poland down was always as strategic goal of the Russians". So in other words you have no answer at all.

The Ukrainians Poland was fighting against in January of 1919 were also fighting against the Bolsheviks. So your statement that Poland was fighting against Ukrainian Bolshevism is much the same as most of your comments: a lie. Of course we know the real reason that you won't admit who it was that Poland was fighting in January of 1919: it was the Ukrainians who became allies of Poland and who were sold to the Soviets for 59 million Roubles. Much better for you to claim that you'd been fighting Bolsheviks than to admit that it was the allies which you stabbed in the back.
OP hague1cmaeron 14 | 1,368
18 May 2010 #30
Into the personal insults now I see.

What, it is you and the whole thing with wildlover, so cut me some slack. Of course Harry as per usual you are putting the carriage before the horse, and conveniently forgetting the Brestlitovsk Treaty and the duplicitous role the Ukrainians played in it.

And quite conveniently you are forgetting Petlura fought along with the Poles against Bolshevism. So the division of the Ukraine was a price he needed to pay for Polish assistance, he still ended up with quite a good deal. Face it Harry your version of history comes straight from your ass.


Home / News / Poland gets a little bigger:)