Poland: history and oppression - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties in Europe's nation states, the E.U. & Russia.

Moderator: PoFo Europe Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum, so please post in English only.
By Shade2
#994483
The "Europe" I am talking about in the 19th century excludes Russia and its empire (Poland among them). In the rest of Europe, England, France, Germany, Italy, Spain and Austria-Hungary among others, one of the key issues of the day was the notions of secularism and tolerance (represented by Liberals) vs Conservative and State religion.


:?: Surely you know better history then that. Poland was divided between Austro-Hungary, Prussia, Russia. Russian occupied part was just part of Poland. Poles and their religion were discriminated in Germany regardless of the government type that ruled it and the issue of preserving religion was the key point of Polish struggle in German occupied Poland.
User avatar
By Ombrageux
#994526
Surely you know better history then that. Poland was divided between Austro-Hungary, Prussia, Russia. Russian occupied part was just part of Poland. Poles and their religion were discriminated in Germany regardless of the government type that ruled it and the issue of preserving religion was the key point of Polish struggle in German occupied Poland.

The bulk of Poland was under Russian domination, but yes, Austria-Hungary and Germany had parts too.

The religion issue was one of many in Germany. Discrimination against catholics, especially the clergy, existed everywhere in the Reich: Alsace-Lorraine, Rhineland, Bavaria as well as West Prussia (Poland). The Polish language and its preservation was also a big part of the defense of the Polish nation in those days. As far as I know Austria-Hungary was relatively lenient in Galicia.
By Vasili Schmidt
#995048
In 19 and 20th century Poles fought for independence not against religion.


Poles are not victims. Poles are not any more victims than were the Ottoman Turks. Irish, Serbs Finnish have been victims of imperialist domination, but Poles have only been oppressors of Ukrainians, Belorussians, and Jews. Polish-dominated Poland-Lithuania was a formiddable imperialist power for centuries before its eventual defeat by neighboring Germany with the reluctant support of Russia. To portray Poles as victims is something of an insult towards East Slavic peoples who've suffered under Polish chauvinism.
By Shade2
#995273
Poles are not victims

I cry every night over the fate of Polish occupied Imperial Russia and poor Tsars who were oppressed by vile Polish Orthodox baby eaters in XIX and XX century.
To portray Poles as victims is something of an insult towards East Slavic peoples who've suffered under Polish chauvinism.

East Slavs were gone after 300 years when Poland emerged and Poles have nothing to do with their dissapearence.
By Alfsigr
#995314
Poland, like virtually every other region in europe (with the possible exception of Finland and the Baltic states), has had its share of imperial aggression. You cant say which regions were 'worst' in that regard, only which regions ultimately 'won'. To claim victim status for a failed empire is pathetic, and dishonest.
By Vasili Schmidt
#995394
I cry every night over the fate of Polish occupied Imperial Russia and poor Tsars who were oppressed by vile Polish Orthodox baby eaters in XIX and XX century.


Poland invaded Russia in 1609 and proceeded to occupy it until 1612. Smolensk was besieged from 1609-11, striking citizens with starvation and epidemic. Poland's purpose was to exploit Muscovy's weakness and establish Russia as a Polish-Lithuanian satellite state. They supported puppet False Dmitriy for that purpose. Sigismund later decided to seize the Russian throne himself. In Treaty of Deulino, Poland took Smolensk. It was not until 1632 when Poland finally gave up its claim to the Russian throne.

At other points, Russia had actually helped Poland maintain its existence. When the Sweden invaded Poland, Russia defeated them at Poltava in 1709, helping Augustus II to return to the throne. Authority if Swedish puppet Stanislaw Leszczyński vanished.

Thus, contrary to your propaganda about Poles as victims, Polish magnates have in fact been aggressors several times throughout their history. Russians and other East Slavs have been more victimized than Poles due to the Polish-Lithuanian occupation of East Slavic lands from XIII century until XVIII century and Mongol occupation of what is today Russia from 1240 until XVI century.

East Slavs were gone after 300 years when Poland emerged and Poles have nothing to do with their dissapearence.


? This is irrelevant as Poland's founding has had nothing to do with what I've been talking about.
By Shade2
#995501
To claim victim status for a failed empire is pathetic, and dishonest.

Ah so Polish nations is an empire, and speaking in Polish (which was forbidden by Russian occupiers) is trying to re-establish empire ?
Poland invaded Russia in 1609 and proceeded to occupy it until 1612.

Poland did no such thing. Polish nobles were sought by Mucovite nobles who feared Mongol dominance in Muscovy and wanted to embrace the ideals of freedom and democracy. As civil war waged in Muscovy some Polish nobles assisted one side of the conflict. Sadly the Mongolian faction won.

Smolensk was besieged from 1609-11, striking citizens with starvation and epidemic.

Smolensk was just one of several targets of Muscovo-Mongolian agression and slaughter.
Poland's purpose was to exploit Muscovy's weakness and establish Russia as a Polish-Lithuanian satellite state.

Poland has no purpose in Muscovy. Its nobles only sought to help their friends in need.

Russia had actually helped Poland maintain its existence. When the Sweden invaded Poland, Russia defeated them at Poltava in 1709, helping Augustus II to return to the throne. Authority if Swedish puppet Stanislaw Leszczyński vanished.

Russia was interested in keeping a weak puppet on its border. It put Augustus II on throne as he was weak ruler unable to conduct necesary reforsm to free Poland from Russian exploitation.

Polish magnates have in fact been aggressors several times throughout their history.

Nope, it was always the Muscovy-Mongolian Empire that sought to enslave more people and establish new realms of utter terror. Unable to develop or create anything valuable it relied on territorial conquest in order pillage and plunder more developed neigbours, in order to fuel its hunger for slavery and fear and next conquests.
Truly Russian Empire was not only Prison of Nations but also the version of Earthly Hell.

Russians and other East Slavs

East Slavs no longer existed when Russians apeared.
You must be refering to some alternative history book or fable.

Russians and other East Slavs have been more victimized than Poles

Your propagand seizures must be confusing even you. Were or weren't Poles victims ? Just a whale ago you claim they weren't now you are claiming they were.
By Vasili Schmidt
#995556
Ah so Polish nations is an empire, and speaking in Polish (which was forbidden by Russian occupiers) is trying to re-establish empire ?


This is propagandistic half-truth. While Polish language was forbidden following the cold blooded assassination of Tsar Alexander II in the 1881, this was an extraordinary period not representative of Poland in Russian Empire as a whole.

Smolensk was just one of several targets of Muscovo-Mongolian agression and slaughter.


Smolensk was and is Russian territory. It is one of the oldest Russian cities. The Muscovites were not Mongols but were Russians who had broken free of Mongol rule.

Poland has no purpose in Muscovy. Its nobles only sought to help their friends in need.


That is a distortion of the situation. Poland tried to establish Russia as a puppet satellite led by the False Dmitriy pretenders. Poles wanted to incorporate Russia into their commonwealth and in False Dmitriy saw as an opportunity to spread Catholocism eastward. Dmitriy had promised half of Smolensk territory to the Poles. Sigismund later tried to take the Russian throne for himself. Sigmismund in 1609 had officially declared war on Muscovy in order to sabotage Russia-Sweden alliance and gain territorial concessions.

Russia was interested in keeping a weak puppet on its border. It put Augustus II on throne as he was weak ruler unable to conduct necesary reforsm to free Poland from Russian exploitation.


Russia genuinely tried to preserve the existence of Poland and prevent expansion. Poland had actually been ruled by Swedish puppet Stanislaw Leszczyński. Russia's victory at Poltava ended Sweden as a major European power.

Warsaw was occupied in May 1702. The Swedes convened a Polish died which declared King August the Strong deposed and elected Stanislas Leszczynski instead. For years, Charles XII. was undefeated, humiliating enemy after enemy - the Poles, Saxons, Brandenburgians, Danes. Then, in 1709, hoping that the Hetman of the Cossacks would join his force, he lead is army into Ukraine, where he was defeated in the Battle of Poltava. Poland had survived another Swedish 'deluge'. Thanks to the Russians, the country had regained it's independence; deposed King August the Strong was reelected.

http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/eceurope/eralib.html

Russia was interested in keeping a weak puppet on its border. It put Augustus II on throne as he was weak ruler unable to conduct necesary reforsm to free Poland from Russian exploitation.


When Russia intervenes to drive out a foreign invader in Poland, Russia wants to colonize Poland. But when Poland invades Russia for the sole purpose of seizing the Russian throne, it is called "Liberation from Mongols" :|

Nope, it was always the Muscovy-Mongolian Empire that sought to enslave more people and establish new realms of utter terror.


You're entitled to your delusions. Muscovy sought to unify the Rus lands in order to build a strong Russian state which would prevent further invasion by savages like the Tatars. Russia simply got into caught up in war with neighbouring imperialist powers like Turkey, Poland, Persia Sweden. Having won almost every single time, Russia justifiably got territorial concession. Nothing imperialist about taking territory from an empire following the end of a war.

Unable to develop or create anything valuable it relied on territorial conquest in order pillage and plunder more developed neigbours, in order to fuel its hunger for slavery and fear and next conquests.


Absurd. Neither Ottoman Turkey nor Poland from which Russia got the bulk of its territorial concessions were not more developed neighbour. As late as interwar Poland, 80% of the population lived in the countryside where Russia progressed to the point where only 66% of the population was rural in late 1930s.

Truly Russian Empire was not only Prison of Nations but also the version of Earthly Hell.


How in the world you even know? Have you lived in the Russian Empire? Are there any opinion polls from Russia which suggest satisfaction or misery with life? You call Russia "Prison of Nations" but probably view landlord-dominated Poland as some sort of free paradise when this was no the case at all. Though not shown in your idealist literature about Poland, class unrest and ethnic rebellions amongst oppressed East Slavs were common in your Poland-Lithuania paradise.

How so? Ethnic minorities in Asia were isolated from Russian town dwellers and Tsarist burreaucrats. Same with the Ukrainians and Belorussian peasantry in the west. Poles in fact had composed the landlord class in the west of Ukraine and Belorussia. Russia was by far the most tolerant of its ethnic minorities. In Poland-Lithuania, a small gentry owned the vast majority of the land. This was not any different from Russia.

East Slavs no longer existed when Russians apeared.
You must be refering to some alternative history book or fable.


Here you go again with these puzzling attempts to dismiss an argument because a certain classification of people supposedly did not exist: "Poland did not take land from Kievan Rus because Kievan Rus did not exist". All Russians are East Slavs and the vast majority of East Slavs are Russians. The other major East Slavic groups are the Ukrainians and White Russians.

Your propagand seizures must be confusing even you. Were or weren't Poles victims ? Just a whale ago you claim they weren't now you are claiming they were.


I distinctly said that Poles were not victims because they controlled a major empire which oppressed East Slavic people. Then I said that the only victims there have been between East Slavs and Poland have been East Slavic peoples under Polish domination.
User avatar
By Subversive Rob
#995574
I have split this from the thread on Muslims can we please confine any discussion on Poland's history etc. to this thread. Shade2, Vassili Schmidt - this means you.
By Shade2
#995611
While Polish language was forbidden following the cold blooded assassination of Tsar Alexander II in the 1881, this was an extraordinary period not representative of Poland in Russian Empire as a whole.

Nope, Polish language was forbidden from 1772.

Smolensk was and is Russian territory.

As are many other places Muscovy conquered.

It is one of the oldest Russian cities

It was neither founded by Russia or Russians.

The Muscovites were not Mongols but were Russians who had broken free of Mongol rule.

The Muscovites were creation of Mongols who gave them their culture.
http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/r ... artar.html
Many Mongols also entered the /Russian administrative and military services. At the end of the 17th century about 17% of the Russian upper class were of Eastern, chiefly Mongol, origin.


To claim Russians broke free of Mongol Rule is silly, the Muscovites were just one part of Mongol Empire that fought internal struggle to become dominant heir to that state.

That is a distortion of the situation

This is correct analysis of situation.
Poland tried to establish Russia as a puppet satellite led by the False Dmitriy pretenders.

This is false. Poles assisted Muscovite nobility that wanted freedom and democracy and fought against Mongolian totalitarianists who wanted to establish a new Khanate under a new name with Tsar having the role of Khan.
Poles wanted to incorporate Russia into their commonwealth

This is totally false. Muscovite region was underdeveloped, poor, and had no development that would be worthy for taking in the first place. Out of mercy for such desolate and forsaken place Polish nobles risked their lives out of friendship and desire to see such backward people embrace the light of civilisation that was extinguished when Musvovite region became part of Mongol Empire.

Sigismund later tried to take the Russian throne for himself.

There was no Russian throne then.
Russia genuinely tried to preserve the existence of Poland and prevent expansion.

Nope, Russia was interested in plunder, destruction and slaves which it could gain by invading one of the most progressive states in Europe the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
As Russia was backward, poverty stricken desolate wasteland it could not invade right away, instead led by greed and hatred for something it could not achieve on its own, it subverted the open-minded Polish society with bribes and manipulation in order to weaken Commonwealth before the invasion. This was Russian policy throughout the whole XVIII century.

Poland had actually been ruled by Swedish puppet Stanislaw Leszczyński.

Stanisław Leszczynski was backed by another civlised state against despotic tyranny of Russia that wanted a weak Poland in order to invaded it.


http://www.zum.de/whkmla/region/eceurope/eralib.html

A German source is hardly objective as scholary knowledge. Germans were quite fond of Russian expansionism as they shar e the similiar goals towards Poland. Had Poland merged with European powers like Sweden or France, German and Russia could broke their hungry teeth on Polish bones they wanted to chew.


When Russia intervenes to drive out a foreign invader in Poland, Russia wants to colonize Poland.

Russia isn't not in the cultural sphere of Poland. Swedes and Poles are both European, their conflicts are their own, between brothers. Russia is the invader representing an alien culture of despotic Mongol Empire and totalitarian Byzantine. Both of which are opposite of Polish culture of freedom and invidualism. Russia thus is far bigger foreigner then Sweden.

Muscovy sought to unify the Rus lands in order to build a strong Russian state which would prevent further invasion by savages like the Tatars.

This is ridiculous. Muscovy wasn't connected to Rus lands in any way, because it was creation of Mongols. And they showed it quite well by slaughtering citizens of Novgorod in the same way Mongols treated their victism. If any legitimacy existed to Rus land it was by Novogorod with its alliance with Poland that sought to protect Rus lands from Muscovy-Mongolian invasion.

Neither Ottoman Turkey nor Poland from which Russia got the bulk of its territorial concessions were not more developed neighbour.

Sure they were. Even Russian nationalists admit it.
http://www.ucis.pitt.edu//nceeer/1989-802-05-Becker.pdf
In discussions of the situation in the European borderland s
(Finland, the Baltic provinces, Ukraine- Belorussia, and Poland )
the principal theme was the danger posed to Russia's nationa l
identity and pride, and even potentially to the integrity of th e
Russian state, by the Germans and Poles, who were "significantly
more cultured [i .e ., more European] than the Russians" themselves .
In contrast to the Habsburg monarchy, where the subject people s
"are less cultured and poorer" than the dominant Germans, whos e
rule is thus not threatened, in Russia the "Poles, Germans, an d
Finlanders are richer and more cultured than the Russians" an d
consequently posed a threat to the ruling nation . 8 1
2 7


How in the world you even know?

I studied history.
Have you lived in the Russian Empire?

My nation did. And left memories. Even German partition is viewed more positively then Russian one with its cruealites.Germans were seen as tough and ruthless. But Russians were seen as cruel, viscious, and sadistic.
Tens of thousands of Poles in fact escaped from Russian to German partition.

You call Russia "Prison of Nations" but probably view landlord-dominated Poland

70-90% of Poles in Polish Crown were serfs or city dwellers themselfs, not landlords.
Of course it is your naive soviet propaganda that sees all Poles as nobles.

Russia was by far the most tolerant of its ethnic minorities.

Yes, it showed this quite well by murdering 20,000 Polish civilians in Praga, Russification, deportations to Siberia, mass murder of Poles, sending 10year old children to Siberia for learning Polish.
How tolerant.
This was not any different from Russia.

Completely false as this Belarussian hero confirms:
http://www.belarusguide.com/culture1/people/Kastus.html
Besides oppressive taxes and corvee, a basic source of grievance underlying the uprising was the recruitment of peasants for a twenty-five-year term of military service. This injustice contrasted sharply with past practices in the Commonwealth, where, as Kalinouski reminded, "whenever peasants wanted to go to war, they were immediately declassified from their peasant status and excused from performing corvee.


With his newspaper, as well as with his letters "from beneath the gallows," written in prison, Kalinouski aimed at three categories of audience: first and foremost, the peasants; second, the faithful adherents of the Uniate Church, which had been officially abolished since 1839; and third, those who cherished the Belarusian language (and were being discriminated against by tsarist authorities). The common denominator in all of these appeals was the assertion that life in the historic Commonwealth of Poland was immeasurably better than life under the tsars.


All Russians are East Slavs
In terms of speaking East Slavic language. The original East Slavic tribes are gone.

All Russians are East Slavs and the vast majority of East Slavs are Russians. The other major East Slavic groups are the Ukrainians and White Russians.

All Poles are West Slavic and vast majority of West Slavs ar Poles. The other major West Slavic groups are are Slovaks and Czechs.
But unlike imperialistic Russia, Poland never laid claim to Praga or Bratislava.

I distinctly said that Poles were not victims because they controlled a major empire

In underground caves ? Because as hard as I can I can't see any Polish Empire in XIX century when Poles were murdered, discriminated, and enslaved by Russian Empire.
which oppressed East Slavic people.

Sorry Poles never opressed East Slavic people, they were gone when Poland emerged.

Then I said that the only victims there have been between East Slavs and Poland have been East Slavic peoples under Polish domination.

There never were East Slavic people under Polish domination.
Those tribes were gone when Poland emerged.
However Poles were victims of Russians, when Russian Empire plundered our country, murdered children and women, sent 10 year old boys as slaves to Siberia etc.
Last edited by Shade2 on 09 Oct 2006 02:58, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#995706
Vasili Schmidt wrote: Nothing imperialist about taking territory from an empire following the end of a war.


ROFL





The other major East Slavic groups are the Ukrainians and White Russians.


Rusyns ?
Cossaks ?
Novgorod peoples ?




The majority of East-Slavic people were oppressed by the Mongols and the Pole-Lithuanians, when they broke free of their oppressors they immidiately fell under the influence -both politically and culturally- of Moscow.

Most E.Slavs are called Russian, because Russia had a fantastic assimilation procedure coupled with opertune times for assimilation. That doesnt make Russia a liberator, it makes it an effective conqueror like that of France and Germany.
By kami321
#995873
Rusyns ?
Cossaks ?
Novgorod peoples ?

I never consiedered any of those being separate ethnic groups.
Most E.Slavs are called Russian

I don't see them calling themselves Russian :hmm:
And if they do, this has little to do with assimilation. The Kievan Rus was the ancestor, so some East Slavs and Ukrainians in particular believe themselves to be the true followers of Kievan Russian tradition, while "moscow russians" have been corrupted by mongol-tatar influences. As you see, this doesn't have much to do with assimilation.
User avatar
By Thunderhawk
#995950
Rusyns ?
Cossaks ?
Novgorod peoples ?


I don't see them calling themselves Russian


They dont call themselves Russian (well, some do), but the outside world does call them Russian (or Ukrainian) as thats what the outside world has been told of them.



The Kievan Rus was the ancestor, so some East Slavs and Ukrainians in particular believe themselves to be the true followers of Kievan Russian tradition, while "moscow russians" have been corrupted by mongol-tatar influences.


Ive heard that view, and I think its a valid one, but only in part.





I look at former Czechoslovakia.

To the outside world, it was one nation, more or less homogenous.
However, the Czech rep. and Slovakia came out of it due to ethnic grievances.

Still, Slovakia and the Czech Rep. are not homogenous - they both have 2 constituent ethnic groups + other minorities.

Had those 2 countries (or the 2 combined) had centuries of their own rule (rather then the divide and rule by foriegners) I suspect the internal differences would have defused into "regional cultures" - like the regional differences in Russia and Ukraine.
User avatar
By Zel
#996017
To the outside world, it was one nation, more or less homogenous.
However, the Czech rep. and Slovakia came out of it due to ethnic grievances.


To the outside world meaning outside of the region. That slovakia and the czech rep. are two different entities with a plethora of differences is no big surprise to those somewhat familiar with the history of both. And I doubt it was ethnic grievances that brought both of them to split but an opportunistic leadership coupled with several cultural aspects that separate the two. Actually its quite funny to hear Slovaks and Czech quarrel about it of who is responsible for the breakup. Czech claim: Well you wanted to leave. Slovaks anwer: Well you could have asked us to stay.

And one shouldnt forget the psychologic effect that the situation in the balkans had on a country like the CSFR.

You really have no clue what goes on there. Just […]

I think you can keep the money without being charg[…]

I agree with POD. Mental health treatment is not […]

@Drlee While I don't disagree in principle, the R[…]