The BEST Guide to POLAND
Unanswered  |  Archives 
 
 
User: Guest

Home / News  % width posts: 150

EU tribunal overrules Polish name contest in Lithuania


Harry
13 May 2011 #91
One tiny difference: Lithuania had never agreed that the areas were part of Poland; Poland however agreed that those areas were Lithuanian territory, and then the very next day invaded those same areas. And then when Lithuania refused to accept the illegal occupation of what Poland had said was part of Lithuania, Poland threatened to invade the rest of Lithuania.

But then Poland made a speciality of breaking her word: in just 20 years she broken treaties with Lithuania (twice), Czechoslovakia (three times) and Ukraine (which she sold to the Soviets)!
boletus 30 | 1,366
13 May 2011 #92
Just to get few facts straight about Lithuanian minority in Poland, a village of Puńsk may serve as a good example.

Since 1999, due to the reform of the education system, the following schools operate in Puńsk: a six-grade primary school and a three-grade junior high school with the instructions given in Polish and Lithuanian languages, and the senior high school with instructions given exclusively in Lithuanian.

There are three classes per each grade in the junior high school: two with Lithuanian instruction language and one with Polish. The school is attended by 206 students: 146 Lithuanian and 60 Polish.

Last year the senior high school celebrated its 50th anniversary. The staff of 15 teachers provides instructions to 104 students. All classes, apart from history, geography and languages are taught in Lithuanian. Students learn from the Polish textbooks, according to curricula approved by Ministry of Education. In addition the students are taught Lithuanian history and Lithuanian geography. About 60% graduates continue their education at colleges and universities, in Poland or Lithuania. Recently, more and more graduates choose Lithuanian universities.

There is also a municipality-run kindergarden, established in 1949. Currently, there are the several age and language groups:
3-4 year olds (Lithuanian)
5-6 year olds (Lithuanian)
3-6 year olds (Polish)
Various classes are provided, including religion, English, or dance.

From "Urząd Gminy Puńsk",

lt.ugpunsk.pl
ugpunsk.pl

As you can see, the web page of Puńsk municipality office, is provided in two languages: Polish and Lithuanian. The third, English version, is just a skeleton not even worthy to visit.

Somehow these past weeks one interesting website punsk.com mysteriously vanished from internet. But if you care to get its latest cached version from Google you will find there a lot of interesting information.

Lithuanian only web page about Puńsk, with Polish domain, is available here: punskas.pl
Koala 1 | 332
13 May 2011 #93
I don't think Lithuania had agreed on Warszawa or Kraków belonging to Poland, yet there they were. If Lithuania considered Wileńszczyzna their territory, then surely they would have defended it against Soviet invaders?

Fact of the matter is, Lithuania was effectively defended by Poland against Soviets and grabbed Polish territory in the process. Lithuanians weren't willing to give it back, so Poland used a trick to recapture their territory and minimize losses. Deal with it, calling it an "inconvenient bit of history" shows your strong antipathies, not your "objectivity".
sobieski 107 | 2,128
13 May 2011 #94
Poland before the WWII claimed those land being continuance of Commonwealth

To exactly which century you want to go back? If you want to go back before WWII, then Silesia was German (as it is and was).

By which right you claim in this case White Ruthenia, which was in fact a Polish colony?
By which right you claim Breslau, which was Czech and German for a big part of its existence?
delphiandomine 83 | 17,730
13 May 2011 #95
Students learn from the Polish textbooks, according to curricula approved by Ministry of Education.

Bingo.

Meanwhile, Lithuania subsidises Polish language textbooks.

All this "EVIL POLES" or "EVIL LITHUANIANS" is just one sided nonsense - both sides are as bad as each other.
sobieski 107 | 2,128
13 May 2011 #96
nazi government of Lithuania

Lithuania is a democratic country, member of the EU. The government was elected in democratic elections by democratic means.
Where does the "nazi" thing comes in?
And why in your warped mentality the Silesian regionalists are nazis and the Lithuanian government as well?
z_darius 14 | 3,969
13 May 2011 #97
Lithuania is a democratic country, member of the EU. The government was elected in democratic elections by democratic means.
Where does the "nazi" thing comes in?

It is irrelevant how one comes into a position of power.
Hitler was elected in democratic elections.
Then he got rid of democracy.
Ironside 48 | 9,844
14 May 2011 #98
anyway like i said i find the subject interesting but have not much knowledge on it,

Let make it simple.
The Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Kingdom of Poland about 400 years in union and in 1791 joined together as the one country. (lasted for another till 1795 - killed by Russia and Prussia).

To make you understand - is not as if you can see analogously Poles =English, Lithuanians = Scots.
For once Lithuanians weren't homogeneous people, they were mix of what is today called Belorussians, Poles and Lituanians and others.
Two, the name Pole in the Commonwealth had double meaning - Poles as population of the Crown (Kingdom of Poland) =English, and Pole as in citizen of Commonwealth = British.

After partitions which confused and destroyed much on said territories remained three groups, confused =Belorussians, addled in the head =Lituanians, and fused= Poles.
Ask away, it is simplified explanation.
Harry
14 May 2011 #99
I don't think Lithuania had agreed on Warszawa or Kraków belonging to Poland, yet there they were.

According to the treaty of Suwalki they did agree to that.

If Lithuania considered Wileńszczyzna their territory, then surely they would have defended it against Soviet invaders?

It had already been invaded and occupied for two decades by Polish troops, they were in no position to defend it when the Polish troops ran to Romania, sorry, I mean, retreaded to the Romanian bridgehead.

Fact of the matter is, Lithuania was effectively defended by Poland against Soviets

Exactly how many days in September 1939 did you defend it? More or fewer than seven?

Deal with it, calling it an "inconvenient bit of history" shows your strong antipathies, not your "objectivity".

Inconvenient = true? Sounds like it.
Ironside 48 | 9,844
14 May 2011 #100
Let us go back to the Upper Silesia in Poland. The Silesians always were there, only the borders were moving. What the same people as above say? "Silesian can be Silesian as long as they are Polish citizens and speak fluent Polish".

Not correct Silesians were there when Polish Kingdom were created/born. Their language (according to linguists) are as close to Polish as it can be. They are branch of the same tree.

As for today, for Silesians there were always three options : become ethnic minority like Sorbs(in Germany), go back to their roots and become Poles (and Silesians with their traditions, customs and lingo), or become Germans.

Grandfathers of those Slilesians already choose, with theirs life's and blood, they choose Poland.
Why now some of them are going back on their sacrifice, because Poland had been disappointing? Hell it was disappointing for everybody in Poland, but it wasn't Poland only Soviets.

Nowadays we have PRL-bis, but it is not fault of Poles but of the all people who voted (or not) also Silesians.
Time to build together a real Poland, not muddle about like pussies.

Exactly how many days in September 1939 did you defend it? More or fewer than seven?

How long lasted independent Lithuania without independent Poland ?

It had already been invaded and occupied for two decades by Polish troops, they were in no position to defend it when the Polish troops ran to Romania, sorry, I mean, retreaded to the Romanian bridgehead.

Ah dry up ! You should go to Lithuania you are addled in the head like them,
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,815
14 May 2011 #101
Not correct Silesians were there when Polish Kingdom were created/born. Their language (according to linguists) are as close to Polish as it can be. They are branch of the same tree.

No, they are not!
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silesians

Silesians have developed as a precious mix of Poles, Germans and Bohemians/Czechs...it is not a mono-culture, never has been.
Koala 1 | 332
14 May 2011 #102
It had already been invaded and occupied for two decades by Polish troops, they were in no position to defend it when the Polish troops ran to Romania, sorry, I mean, retreaded to the Romanian bridgehead.
Exactly how many days in September 1939 did you defend it? More or fewer than seven?

Dude, why are you changing subject to 1939. I was clearly talking about the 1920 war.
Let me remind you about the events of the 1918-1920 events.
November 1918 - Germany signs capitulation to the Entente. Nations of Germany- and Austria- occupied territories are given green light to create their own state entities. Wilno is occupied by a newly formed Belarus (not Lithuania!). Let's assume at this point it should be Lithuanian - why didn't Lithuanians fight for it?

December 1918 - Soviets launch offensive on Belarus and capture Wilno. Lithuanian population of Wilno and surroundings is evacuated to Lithuania, Lithuania did not bother trying to fend off Soviets from that territory

January 1919 - Poles in Wilno revolt against Soviets, after 4 days the rebellion is defeated
April 1919 - Poland launches an offensive against Soviets, captures Wilno. What did Lithuania do to regain "their" Wilno from Polish hands? Nothing.
June 1920 - Soviets launch an offensive against Poland, Polish troops retreat en masse.
August 1920 - Soviet troops are annihilated in Battle of Warsaw. Retreating from Wilno, they hand it over to Lithuania, which now happily captures the territory as it's basically a free item for them at that point.

September 1920 - Polish government tries to convince Lithuanian government hand Wilno over to our hands or let Wilno's population decide which country they want to belong to. Lithuania disagrees to both propositions

October 1920 - Polish troops enter Wilno

I don't know how one can possible paint the Polish government as villains at that time. If Wilno was rightfully Lithuanian (let's ignore the fact that there we were little to none Lithuanians there), why didn't Lithuania try to capture and defend it, not even once? If Poland lost with Soviets, how long would it take for Lithuania to fall prey to Soviets, too? 1 week? Poland effectively defended Lithuania and in return Lithuania occupied Polish Wilno.
Nathan 18 | 1,363
14 May 2011 #103
why didn't Lithuania try to capture and defend it, not even once?

Well:

When Poland achieved a major victory in the Battle of Warsaw and forced the Soviets to retreat in August 1920, Lithuanians defended their new borders.

Fighting broke out in the Suwałki Region. During the Battleof the Niemen River, Poland attacked Lithuania on a wide front.

When a Polish coup against the Lithuanian government failed in August 1919, the front stabilized until summer 1920.

Żeligowski's forces captured Vilnius, but further advances were stopped by the Lithuanian troops.

In mid-May the Lithuanian army, commanded by General Silvestras Žukauskas, began an offensive against the Soviets in northeastern Lithuania. By the end of August 1919, the Soviets were pushed out of the Lithuanian territory. When the Soviets were defeated, Lithuanian army was deployed against the paramilitary West Russian Volunteer Army, who invaded northern Lithuania.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Lithuania

Seems like they did try to defend their lands and their capital. It is the same to say why the Polish didn't defend Warsaw in September 1939.

If Poland lost with Soviets, how long would it take for Lithuania to fall prey to Soviets, too? 1 week?

If Soviets didn't enter Poland in 1944, how long would it take it to fall in the arms of the Allies?

Poland effectively defended Lithuania and in return Lithuania occupied Polish Wilno.

The Soviets protected Poland and the Polish brought, instead of gratitude, Solidarnosc and occupied Soviet Warsaw.
Koala 1 | 332
14 May 2011 #104
Well, for starters, Poland wasn't an independent state after 1945. The fact that you see Solidarność as an act against Soviet empire shows that best.

Second, since Lithuanians captured Polish territory and became allies with Soviets, they effectively put themselves at war with Poland. Poland only reclaimed their territory in October 1920, the local population rejoiced, the matter was over.
Harry
14 May 2011 #105
Poland only reclaimed their territory in October 1920

No, because on October 7 1920 Poland had agreed that that land belonged to Lithuania, so when they invaded the very next day, they were invading territory which even Poland said belonged to Lithuania. I'm amazed how often you forget that.
Koala 1 | 332
14 May 2011 #106
The agreement was that Wilno would temporarily be under Lithuanian administration. Well, temporarily. :)
In all seriousness, the truce was signed to catch Lithuanians off guard. A machiavellian scheme, that's all there is to it. However, it's the Lithuanians that allied themselves with Bolsheviks, there'd be no incident over Wilno had they not done that.
Ironside 48 | 9,844
14 May 2011 #107
Silesians have developed as a precious mix of Poles, Germans and Bohemians/Czechs...it is not a mono-culture, never has been.

I'm talking about prevailing ethnicity, that there was some exchange of people with neighbours is clear. To be honest all German are mix with other people, with Avarians, Slaves and others...

As for uppers Silesians they had always close ties with Poland, well maybe not in the years 1795-1918, but other than that, it is wishful thinking on you part.

territory which even Poland said belonged to Lithuania.

sure, belonged to Grand Duchy of Lithuania, in a historical sense, become in 1791 by the popular will of the representative's of both countries the Duchy and Crown merged formally stating that their are thereafter constituting one body - Rzeczpospolita.

s

And then in 1918 some upstarts jump out of the bushes and declare that their Lithuanians and they from the former territory o the GDoL this and that - hilarious.

As if Gaelic speaking Scots said, we are the only real Scots and we want this and the Edinburgh, and the rest of you either fall in line you Anglicised Scots or go to England. As I said addled in the head, but partition does it to people.
Nathan 18 | 1,363
14 May 2011 #108
The Constituent Assembly of Lithuania was elected in April and first met in May 1920. In June it adopted the third provisional constitution and in July signed the Soviet-Lithuanian Peace Treaty. In the treaty the Soviet Union recognized fully independent Lithuania and its claims to the disputed Vilnius Region.

I guess this Poland didn't like and used its usual low-blow tactics.
Harry
14 May 2011 #109
In all seriousness, the truce was signed to catch Lithuanians off guard. A machiavellian scheme, that's all there is to it.

So you mean that Poland deliberately lied when signing a treaty. Cool, kindly never again complain about Britain and Poland in relation to WWII, even if Britain betrayed Poland (which she did not), it was just a machiavellian scheme, that's all there is to it. And what is OK for Poland is OK for the UK.

And then in 1918 some upstarts jump out of the bushes and declare that their Lithuanians and they from the former territory o the GDoL this and that - hilarious.

And then in 1920 Poland agrees that that land is Lithuania. And the next day Poland invades Lithuania.....
Ironside 48 | 9,844
14 May 2011 #110
By which right you claim in this case White Ruthenia, which was in fact a Polish colony?

Polish colony - you are ignoramus Belgian ?

By which right you claim Breslau,

by the right of given Prussia what she deserves for the partitions and WWII>

And then in 1920 Poland agrees that that land is Lithuania. And the next day Poland invades Lithuania.....

I don't know what you are talking about, an given your accuracy in dicribing facts from Polish history I will not take your word for it. Link please.
Koala 1 | 332
14 May 2011 #111
I guess this Poland didn't like and used its usual low-blow tactics.

It was a Soviet-Lithuanian treaty. Soviets captured Polish territory, gave it to Lithuanians. Soviets lose the war, Poland naturally wants to regain all its territories prior to the war. Lithuania, as an ally to the side that lost the war, should give back the territory. It's that simple. You can't appear on a war theater, capture a territory and claim to be neutral in that war.

So you mean that Poland deliberately lied when signing a treaty. Cool, kindly never again complain about Britain and Poland in relation to WWII, even if Britain betrayed Poland (which she did not), it was just a machiavellian scheme, that's all there is to it. And what is OK for Poland is OK for the UK.

Better to lie and minimize bloodshed than to have a full blown war.
And yes, UK betrayed Poland. Article one of the Polish-UK agreement:
"Should one of the Contracting Parties become engaged in hostilities with a European Power in consequence of aggression by the latter against that Contracting Party, the other Contracting Party will at once give the Contracting Party engaged in hostilities all the support and assistance in its power."

Is dropping leaflets over German cities all UK could muster at the time? I don't think so.
France neglected their obligations even further at they were supposed to launch offensive on German territory within two weeks of German aggression on Poland.
z_darius 14 | 3,969
14 May 2011 #112
France neglected their obligations even further at they were supposed to launch offensive on German territory within two weeks of German aggression on Poland.

They fulfilled only the "offensive" part, and only within their own territory - they said "merde!"
Ironside 48 | 9,844
14 May 2011 #113
Well as I have thought Harry.

d

Selected lines of demarcation between Lithuania and Poland, 1919–1939. Light orange line denotes the line drawn by the Suwałki Agreement
And :
Under pressure from the League of Nations, Poland agreed to negotiate
Although neither Vilnius or the surrounding region was explicitly addressed in the agreement, numerous historians have described the agreement as allotting Vilnius to Lithuania.

Well, i think that not sane person would think that Poland will agree on such injustice.....

Polish General Lucjan Żeligowski, a native of the historic lands of Lithuania, was given command of the 1st Lithuanian-Belorussian Infantry Division (comprising mostly Poles from those lands

Żeligowski in proclaiming a Central Lithuania, he honestly believed that he was creating a Lithuania—albeit one that was dominated by Polish rather than Lithuanian culture.

s

What is interesting - The Lithuanian forces in the region had to garrison Vilnius, whose Polish population (forming the majority) were restless. Polish population supported Żeligowski forces, many of their family members were in his Division, militia forces began orchestration of uprising.

Meaning Lithuanians had to had occupations forces ready to subjugate local population.
Furthermore in said territories election was held and in 1922 Central Lithuania's parliament would vote for their state's incorporation into Poland
Well, Harry does self-determination rings any bells?
If not - up your :)

d
sobieski 107 | 2,128
14 May 2011 #114
It is irrelevant how one comes into a position of power.
Hitler was elected in democratic elections.
Then he got rid of democracy.

You mean like the Crossists on KM? Nearest I saw to fascism in Poland until today.
Harry
14 May 2011 #115
And yes, UK betrayed Poland. Is dropping leaflets over German cities all UK could muster at the time? I don't think so.

As is traditional, I will now ask you to go into detail about what more British could have done to fulfil her obligations under the Anglo-Polish treaty. And as is equally traditional, you will either completely ignore the question and simply repeat the accusation (quite possibly with a few personal insults thrown in) or say "Britain should done x" with x of course being impossible. Do feel free to tell us how and to where would you have liked British forces to have been sent. Perhaps an amphibious assault on Hamburg by the entire nine war-ready divisions?

By the way, you may wish to tell the families of the crews of the ten British planes (out of 29 planes) killed while bombing German naval targets on 4 September 1939 that those men were dropping leaflets. Oh, and then go tell the families of the 518 men killed when their aircraft carrier was sunk on 17 September 1939 that they were also dropping leaflets.

Well, Harry does self-determination rings any bells?

Indeed it does, pity that both Poland and Lithuania had determined that those people would not get the chance to determine their future and would instead live in Lithuania; well, at least they would until Poland renaged on yet another treaty and invaded yet another neighbour, i.e. the very next day.
sobieski 107 | 2,128
14 May 2011 #116
I'm talking about prevailing ethnicity, that there was some exchange of people with neighbours is clear. To be honest all German are mix with other people, with Avarians, Slaves and others...

Perhaps we could go back to age when Poles were still living in trees and and Roman civilisation was everywhere in Western Europe?
This is of course is satirical, but how far you want to go back to justify demands?
Bratwurst Boy 5 | 9,815
14 May 2011 #117
I'm talking about prevailing ethnicity, that there was some exchange of people with neighbours is clear. To be honest all German are mix with other people, with Avarians, Slaves and others...

Heh:)

What an argument...in Europe we are ALL quite mixed!

eupedia.com/europe/european_y-dna_haplogroups.shtml
Koala 1 | 332
14 May 2011 #118
Poland is the most yellow on that map = we are the purest race in the world LOL

I never threw personal insults towards you or anybody else here. Stop making **** up. You have clear anti-Polish bias though, seeing how you spin absolutely everything concerning Poland in a negative way.

UK could have done a lot more than they have. First of all, they could have encouranged France to actually fullfil their obligation and launch invasion on Germany. Western Germany was pretty much undefended, Berlin would have been reached in 2 weeks most likely. Then, support France with logistically (food, fuel) and military (send those few divisions they had, concentrate navy on around bigger German ports etc.). You won't tell me these things could not have been done and in retrospective that a lot of people, time and resources wouldn't be saved. The war would be over in 1939, but what happened cannot be undone.
sascha 1 | 826
14 May 2011 #119
You're quite an optimist. ;)

The war would be over in 1939

With Nazi Germany armed to the teeth and an Austrian leader thursty like a vampire? No chance.

Seems like the topic is wandering
Koala 1 | 332
14 May 2011 #120
Almost all German resources were tied up in Poland. It's a huge distance from western Poland to western Germany, by the time they'd regroup they'd lose a lot of strategic points, German war machine wasn't in full throttle yet in 1939, they wouldn't be able to sustain both fronts then - keep in mind that the Ruhr region (the biggest industrial region) would be instantly in allied hands, they weren't receiving oil and gas from Norway etc. Germany wasn't prepared to fight on both fronts, luckil;y for them, they didn't have to.


Home / News / EU tribunal overrules Polish name contest in Lithuania
BoldItalic [quote]
 
To post as Guest, enter a temporary username or login and post as a member.