Talk:Międzymorze

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 It is requested that a map or maps be included in this article to improve its quality.

Contents

[edit] Removal

In the final phrase

Such a polity, comprising some 150 million central Europeans, with a common foreign policy, would have been a force to be reckoned with by Nazi Germany in the west and the Soviet Union in the east, but hardly viable due to its heterogeneity.

I removed the "but" part. In many cases heterogeneity is strength. The very Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is an example, not to say about USA and EU. Therefore "due to" is bad logic. Besides, there is no particular reasons to fight this guess about "such a polity". A guess is a guess, and hence a guess only. Like in this child's verse: "If all trees were one big tree...". Of course, it would be force, if... and plenty of other "ifs". I planned to remove the phrase altogether, but decided that it is a valid example of what majestic plans were in minds of the planners. But to fight someone's long gone dreams with "buts" is usually meaningless. Mikkalai 02:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Tnx for the info, I agree with your edit. Somehow I must have missed the 'but' removal when I was checking the changes at 4am :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frivolous change of title

Someone has frivolously changed this article's title from Międzymorze to "Polish imperialism." What country has not been an empire at some point in its history? The title needs to be corrected back to Międzymorze. logologist 16:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Imperialism has nothing to do with being an empire or not. Even a tiny country may cherish imperial ambitions. The current article describes imperial dreams of Poland throughout its history, rather than Pilsudski's particular imperial doctrine. --Ghirlandajo 16:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
Moved back. This has little to do with imperialism - please go read up on this. You are free to create/edit a page on Polish imperialism (if you can prove this ever existed), but this is not the right article for such a topic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
The article is clearly not about Pilsudski's irredentist project only, as the intro seems to profess, but about the Polish idea of domination of their Eastern neighbours from the 17th century at least. The current title is absolutely inappropriate. Also, I see no reason to keep an obscure Polish word in the title of English-language article. We should stick to English if possible. --Ghirlandajo 08:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The word is rather obscure but not totally so. google results give about 400 hits among English L pages only of which many, but not all are WP mirrors.

That the article, as it stands now, is about a broader topic is a valid point, as we discussed below. --Irpen 19:37, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Title dispute

IMO, both Miedzymorze and Polish Imperialism can be articles in themselves. They can coexist. The issue here, is whether the current article fits better the first or the second name as it is written now. Personally, I think the the topic of this article is broader than just Miedzymorze and as such, the name change was certainly not frivolous, even if it is not universally agreeable among the editors. On the side note, I wonder how was the article moved back since it required the deletion of the original entry. Or did it not? --Irpen 22:09, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

I think you'll agree that the move done by Ghirlandajo not only did not reflect any consensus but he did not even try to start any discussion on renaming. I see his action as being purposefully inflammatory, against the wiki spirit, and do not appreciate it. I hope no-one will move some Russia-related article to Russian imperialism now, as this was clearly the purpose of his failed provocation. --Lysy (talk) 06:31, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

"both Miedzymorze and Polish Imperialism can be articles in themselves" What is imperialistic about creating a federation to protect each other from aggresive neighbours ? --Molobo 00:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The USSR was a federation to protect each other from aggressive neighbours, and yet you Poles somehow dislike it. Why should the East Slavs regard a project of the fiercely nationalist Pilsudski as anything more than Polish imperialism? They had enough of the Roman Catholic proseletyzing and oppression during the centuries of what you call the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and what has been known to all the world as simply Poland. The Warsaw Pact was not even a federation, and yet many here tend to allude to it as an imperialistic venture, although it was also intended to protect each other from agressive neighbours in the West. --Ghirlandajo 09:09, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Ghirlandajo, pardon me, but are you completely brainwashed by Soviet propaganda ? "protect from aggressive neighbours in the West" ? What aggresive neighbours ? DDR ? Have you heard of how the Soviets "protected" Hungary in 1956 ? Or how Warsaw Pact "protected" Czechoslovakia in 1968 ? Or how it planned to "protect" Poland in 1981 ? What are you talking about ? --Lysy (talk) 10:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Lysy, you again have severe problems with logic. DDR and Hungary were not neighbours but an integral part of the Warsaw Pact. The aggressive neighbours were the NATO countries, which planned to drop a couple of atom bombs in the USSR in 1946 and actually did bomb Belgrade after the pact was dissolved. The Warsaw Pact helped to keep these monsters at bay. --Ghirlandajo
I can only hope you're joking here. Otherwise we'd need a translator to communicate. --Lysy (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I don't think that the NATO was jocking when it bombed Belgrade in 1998. Perhaps you think so, but it was no joke for Serbians. --Ghirlandajo 13:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
We don't discuss the Warsaw Pact but Pilsudski's agressive plans here. Don't you remember that it was Pilsudski who partitioned Czechoslovakia with Hitler in 1938? As he was Hitler's ally, I don't think any of his projects would do anything good to Lithuania, let alone Ukraine or Belarus. Lithuanians still remember, I believe, how it was living without their historic capital in the 1920s and 1930s. --Ghirlandajo 10:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I don't know what sources are you using for your research, but Piłsudski was long dead by 1938 so how could he be Hitler's ally ? --Lysy (talk) 10:55, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Ok, mea culpa, he died 3 years later. But it was him who annexed the capital of Lithuania, assaulted the free imperial city of Danzig, and instigated a campaign of anti-Czech hysteria in Polish media. During his term in office, Poland waged wars against her every neighbour. No wonder that his name came to be synonymous with Polish imperialism. It is a weird way to start building a federation with Lithuania by annexing its capital, no? --Ghirlandajo 13:56, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
"During his term in office Poland waged wars against her every neighbour" ? You're inventing things again. Try to be more credible in your argumentation. That would help your case. Otherwise people will think that you have no idea what are you talking about. --Lysy (talk) 14:22, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, Międzymorze didn't sound like an imperialist venture, but I can see how the PLC might be viewed as such. Magnate wars in Moldavia, pacificition and serfdoming (if I can make a verb out if this) of East - there are some interesting arguments among those lines. Of course, I would like to see some academic sources using the term 'Polish imperialism' first. PS. I have about 190 Google hits and 4 Scholar hits for this term. Not much, but better then nothing - and approximately the same as the number of hits for 'Miedzymorze' (without 'ę'). Still, I wonder if the very term 'imperialism' is the right one, especially considering the lack of articles on Russian imperialism or German imperialism, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I find Molobo's view rather naive (please don't take is as an offense). The Miedzymorze certainly looks to me, at least partly, an imperialist venture. The events of the PL-UA war, the brutal suppression of Ukrainian movement in Volhynia and Galicia afterwards, the whole affair of the intervention into Ukraine (PSW) reaching Kiev and installing a puppet Petliura government there, and the Polish interwar rule of Ukrainians doesn't appear to resemble a "cooperation to protect each other" if you know what I mean.

I read somewhere a quote from Pilsudski which is somewhat less popular to cite than his famous "Without independent Ukraine there won't be an independent Poland". On another occasion, however, he said 'Independent Poland first of all, and then we'll see to what is meant by "Poland" '. This is a reverse translation which may be inexact but the meaning is preserved. The Dmowsky's attitude is no secret either. Yes, he brought down an idea of the federation but it shows the thinking of an influential part of Poland's mainstream elite.

The article however is much broader than just Miedzymorze as it shows past precedents on which the idea of the Polish dominated megastate was based. --Irpen

Actually, the idea of Międzymorze assumed a federation, not "Polish domination". I'm afraid you're mixing the concepts here in order to prove your point. --Lysy (talk)
No, I am not mixing anything to prove any point. I just put the facts together. Besides, knowing Pilsudski's nationalism (which I hope no one serously denies) I doubt he had in mind any kind of an equal federation which, actually, never happened in any real or hypothetical "federated" states created by Poland. This is not an anti-Polish attack of any kind on my part. I just call on the participants to get a little bit real here. I did not vote for the article move. I said, that such a perception is a valid POV, that's all --Irpen 08:18, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm not sure about Piłsudski's nationalism, frankly. Where did you get it from ? Actually, I think he opposed the nationalistic ideas, and even his Międzymorze concept that we are discussing here, seems to be the proof of it. --Lysy (talk) 08:51, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

In any case, the topic is valid for an article. Why should we first wait for someone to write Russian imperialism (a worthy topic too) escapes me.

There's no need to wait. What is obvious however is that the topic was started by Ghirlandajo in his personal crusade against the non-Russian neighbours, and he, being a Russian editor didn't care about Russian imperialism first, though. Nothing wrong with it. Just a fact that he attmepts to antagonise Polish vs Russian editors. Unfortunately his provocations [1], [2] are not helpful and make wiki-cooperation more difficult :-(. I'd suggest to get over it and try to edit in harmony. --Lysy (talk) 08:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Could anyone please explain how was the article moved back into an existing entry? I mean that it should be impossible without deleting the entry first. If it was deleted without a WP:RM listing in order to avoid the vote, as the policy requires, the move should be reversed and the page should be WP:RM listed. --Irpen 06:47, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure which article would you expect to be deleted ? What Ghirlandajo did, is he simply moved the article to his new name, without any prior consensus. He did not need to delete any entry, as the redirect in the original article was created automatically with the move. What bothers me is why did he move it without reaching a consensus first ? --Lysy (talk) 07:30, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

His move may have been controversial but it wasn't frivolous. Personally, I would propose such a move first (like I did here) even if not required by policy since moving the article into an unused entry is up to any user.

Irpen, do you have any doubts that this rename was a provocation ? I'm dissappointed to see you supporting such actions :-(. --Lysy (talk)

I do not agree with the move, but I do not view it as a provocation. Irpen

OTOH, I can see that the reverse move was done with a deletion of an entry in order to make it possible. I think it was bending the rules. Or am I wrong? --Irpen 07:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

What deletion are you talking about ? --Lysy (talk) 08:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Why should we first wait for someone to write Russian imperialism (a worthy topic too) escapes me.

You still haven't convinced me. What is imperialistic about protection from neighbours ?

Also I do believe we would need German and Russian imperialism first, since they were the impulse that led to development of such defensive ideas as Miedzymorze. --Molobo 07:42, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Protecting neigbores isn't imperialist per se.
Which articles are written first and which second is unrelated. By this logic, the 20-th century historian should not have be allowed to write Miedzymorze until PLC, a much more important entity, is "complete". --Irpen 07:49, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Go ahead and write an article about "Polish imperialism" if you think this is a useful thing to do. This one however is the article about Piłsudski's Międzymorze concept here. --Lysy (talk) 08:15, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

What deletion are you talking about ? --Lysy (talk) 08:11, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I am talking about this deletion in order to make the move of the title back possible without a vote. When a notorious recent entrant to Wikipedia user:AndriyK moved a bunch of articles to reflect his nationalist POV, they were not moved back by any admin's deleting the original entries in order to make moves possible. They were listed at WP:RM despite his moves were total nosnense. --Irpen 08:44, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree that Ghirlandajo's move was rather strange and most probably intended to spark some flame war here, as I guess all of us should agree that the very word imperialism is definitely not neutral, in any context. As such, for me it bordered vandalism and could be lawfully reverted on sight. On the contrary, the case of AndriyK was a tad more complicated as it involved a discussion on the evolution of Ruthenian language and the history of east slavic languages. So, there could be a merithorical dispute there, while here we could discuss only our own interpretation of the concept, not the concept itself. But let's get back to the topic, ok?
I understand that the Polish stance towards the Ukrainians, particularily between 1926 and 1935, was far from perfect and that it created a lot of bad blood as we say here. However, it might've been a distant result of the failure of the Międzymorze, not a direct result of it. Same for 17th and 18th centuries - they might've influenced Piłsudski's thought somehow, but they are not the main topic of this article. They serve as a historical basis and explanation, but not as the main axis IMO. That's why I believe that this article should focus on what Piłsudski called as he did. Of course, if there is consensus that the phenomenon of all-time Polish imperialism deserves its own article, then so be it. However, I seriously doubt it as it would only spark a lot of problems for wikipedia and could be based mostly on personal research rather than scholarly works. Halibutt 14:34, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I will respond to several questions above in this single entry. First of all regarding Pilsudski's nationalism (or lack of) I am sorry to have brought that up. While Lysy and myself may disagree on whether he was a nationalist, this discussion belongs to other talk pages.

Now, to the page move. The article, as it currently stands, is broader than Miedzymorze concept. While "Polish imperialism" is not a name I would like to see, something like Ambitions of Greater Poland may be more exact because the article goes at length to describe the concept of the Polish centered federations and its several real (PLC) and hypothetical (PLMC, PLRC, Miedzymorze) implementations. History has shown that the skepticism towards the stated "equality" in the Polish-centered mega-states is justified. There are several systemic biases in national historiographies. Examples are the perception that Pilsudski was a Polish nationalist (widespread in Russia and Ukraine) or the idea of hipothetical equality of non-Polish nobility to the Polish one in the PLC as well as the proclaimed "tolerance" there towards the Orthodox christianity.

Personally, I think that the title change to Polish imperialism was not justified. It may have been even inflamatory, but it was not frivolous. As such, the single-handed moving a page back which required usage of a sysop tool was not justified. Should a different admin would have than deleted the Polish imperialism entry to make room for a page moved again and moved the page, this would not have been taken lightly, I assume.

This was not how AndriyK's page moves where handled and I am not talking about his moves that changed "... of Chernigov" names to "...of Chernihiv" which may indeed be "merithorical". I am talking, for instance, of this move discussed at (Talk:Igor_Svyatoslavych#Requested_move) which has nothing to do with the language evolution whatsoever. Nevertheless, it is now being reversed by a vote rather than by an admin deciding single-handily that it can be "reverted on sight". --Irpen 18:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your comment on the bias "national historiographies". We've been all brought up in some specific culture, read specific textbooks and it's often difficult to accept that there may be other points of view, that could be equally valid. It is however critically important to recognize that there are other views and try to respect them instead of pushing a single POV only. This goes both ways of course. Back to our issue here, this article could be names Piłsudski's concept of Międzymorze but Międzymorze seems shorter and we don't really need a descriptive title. I believe the title should reflect what people may be looking for. The "Międzymorze" word is mentioned in a number of other articles, and this in my view justifies the title. As for Ambitions of Greater Poland, I don't think it would make a good title. First of all it's descriptive, but secondly look at Greater Poland to see why this would be misleading. The sole purpose of this particular article is to explain what "Miedzymorze" means, so that someone encountering this word would be able to find the answer here. It's possible that the "Ambitions of ..." deserve a separate article (although personally I doubt it would do any good) but then it would be a separate one. --Lysy (talk) 20:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
As to Kazak's arguments (mind if I join you?), they are bizarre indeed. For instance, the destruction of the Saxon Square Orthodox church was not a matter of Piłsudski's nationalism or socialism as he had nothing to do with that. That building (the highest in Warsaw at that time!), along with the monument to Poles killed for loyalty to their monarch and several other signs of Russian rule, was seen as a symbol of Russian oppression. It was visible from almost all parts of the city and was built by the city (large contributions imposed on it by the occupants) for the Russian garrison. And after it was gone, it was decided to dismantle the church. While the decision might seem controversial to some, it was made by the authorities of Warsaw, not by Piłsudski (note that, unlike USSR, Poland was a democracy and not every single thing was decided by the Chief of State, especially after he withdrew to his reffuge in Józefów after the Polish-Bolshevik War). Also note that there were also other Orthodox churches built for the Russian garrisons of Warsaw that were dismantled after they became deserted (most Russians withdrew from Warsaw along with the Russian army in 1915), while several others were left in place (there are three of them still standing, despite the fact that there are barely any Orthodox people in Warsaw nowadays).
As to what Irpen wrote above, Piłsudski's idea was not a multinational state but rather a federation. Also, note that the border treaty with Ukraine was respected by Piłsudski even after Dmowski's negotiators at the Riga talks threw the Ukrainian cause out of the window. And that the border on the Zbruch river was kept, despite the fact that the Russians offered Poland much more territory there. Also, we can only speculate what would've happened with Petlura's Ukraine after the war as in fact it lasted only for several weeks before the allied armies were pushed back. During the war of 1920 the Ukrainian Army was indeed subdued militarily, but this is rather natural. Especially that it was severely understrenght (all six Ukrainian divisions were en cadre and numbered more or less the same as an average Polish infantry division of the time) and fully equipped by Poland. However, it was not dominated by Poland politically in any way. Note that there was no Polish administration there, not even in the front area (which was quite uncommon back then and is even now; usually allied armies have their military administration near the front). So, all in all, if there was no Polish political hegemony there during the war, why should we assume there would be some after the war? And how are such assumptions any more reasonable than assumptions to the contrary?
BTW, how about moving this discussion to Talk:Józef Piłsudski? Halibutt 03:16, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Migrated from Irpen's talk page by Halibutt:

I understand that the stated form of the state was a federation but I am sure that what was had in mind was a Polish dominated federation as I explained above. As for Ukrainian events, I am talking not about joint operation with Petliura's which I find strange to call "allies" but so be it if this is used in Polish books (collaborators seem more exact to me). What I meant, are events that happened before Petliura was subdued and had to sell out the the aspirations of Ukrainians in what is now Western Ukraine for Pilsudski's help in installing himself in Kiev. From the article linked above (sorry for the Russian):

В сентябре 1919 года войска украинской Директории попали на Подолье в так называемый «треугольник смерти». Они были зажаты между красными русскими Ленина и Троцкого на северо-востоке, белыми русскими Деникина на юго-востоке и поляками на западе. Смерть смотрела в глаза. И не только людям — всему только что рожденному государству. Поэтому, верховный атаман Симон Петлюра просто вынужден был или согласиться на предложенный Пилсудским союз, или фактически капитулировать перед большевиками, как сделали тогда или через год-два Владимир Винниченко и Михаил Грушевский. Решение это — очень болезненное. Польская шляхта была историческим врагом украинского народа. Кровоточила свежая рана ЗУНР — именно в это время пилсудчики распинали украинскую Восточную Галичину. Но все же Петлюра согласился на мир и союз, признав украинско-польской границей будущую границу советско-польскую. Следует отметить, что при этом Пилсудский получал меньше земель, нежели ему предложил Ленин, и в придачу еще и войну с огромной Россией. Надднепрянцы же фактически бросали на произвол судьбы в беде своих братьев-галичан. Но Петлюра решил использовать последний шанс сохранить державу — в союзе с поляками. Попробовал. Было не суждено.

P.S. I have no objection to moving the discussion to Pilsudski's talk. --Irpen 04:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Again, while some things might be a matter of personal point of view, others are quite undisputable. While we might speculate on what would come out of the Polish-Ukrainian alliance after the war, we cannot dispute the very fact that it existed. Both governments did sign political alliance and after that a military alliance was signed as well. And, interestingly enough, both sides kept the promises until the very end when Piłsudski lost all influence on the Riga peace negotiators.
I aggree with one part of the text quoted above that says that in fact Petlura had barely any chance to survive without the alliance with Poland. Yet, the reasons he signed it are only distantly related to how it worked. And I must say that it worked great, at least as long as Poland was strong enough to keep Kiev and even afterwards. So, until one proves that one of the sides violated the treaties or did not consider them signed at all, we should call it an alliance - which it was in fact.
However, other parts of the text above are mere rhethorics, without much support in facts. Perhaps I'm nit-picking, but the author of that paragraph states that the Polish szlachta was a historical enemy of the Ukrainian nation. I find that particularily amusing. Apart from the fact that it would be like explaining the outbreak of World War I on the grounds of historical animosity between Salic Francs and Goths some time before Christ, the author also failed to mention that a large part of the Szlachta themselves were Ukrainian, if we allow such anachronysms to be used.
Also, the author mentions that The fresh wound of WUPR was still bleeding as in that time Piłsudski's men were partitioning the Western Galicia. I find it highly doubtful that it was a problem for Petlura who had more problems with the WUPR than the Poles. Also, it was not an accident that Petlura expressed his desinteressment in the territories west of Zbruch during the Polish war with WUPR. On May 25, 1919, that is roughly a year before the alliance was signed, Poland and the Kiev-based Ukraine signed an aggreement accepting the Polish occupation of Volhynia, parts of Podolia and Eastern Galicia up to Zbruch river (that is all of the WUPR) until the future of that territories is resolved by western powers. Note that it was signed before Petlura became the ruler of Ukraine, these were still the times of Petrushevych (who BTW opposed the agreement). And in fact it was resolved by the Conference of Ambassadors in November. Finally, the author describes the seizure of Western Galicia (seized by the end of June of 1919 and granted to Poland in November) as if it happened simultaneously to the Alliance with Petlura (April of 1920). All of the above is not a mere interpretation of facts, it is a manipulation. Halibutt 16:38, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Just one correction, before I reply to the rest. In "пилсудчики распинали украинскую Восточную Галичину" the word "распинали" means not "partitioning" as Halibutt uses but "crussifying" (or "torturing" in the broader sense). This is the author words and not mine. --Irpen 17:25, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Some comments:

  1. Międzymorze was never realised. From what I read it was indeed intended to be a federation, not an empire. Piłsudski didn't want to force others into joining, but expected them to do it for their own interest. He did expect Poland to have leading role, but not the sole vote in such a federation (and yes, I'd say he was a Polish patriot/nationalist). However, when it became obvious that there would be precious little cooperation from his neighbours, he decided to secure some parts of the territory (Wilno) that he deemed Polish. This, coupled with his waning power and the rise of Dmowski faction, set the stage for a nationalist state that was quite untolerant to its non-Polish minorities. However, the rather injust and shameful actions of Second Polish Republic should not impact our vision of the rather idealistic plan of Międzymorze. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  2. Yes, I moved the article back and using my admin powers deleted the necessary redirect. RfM are often about people asking for admins to use their power, so it is mostly a technical aspect - I have the powers, I used them without cluttering the RfM page. I did this because I strongly feel that this content does not belong in the article Polish imperialism, although I would not VfD (or rather, AfD) such an article, if it would be created and sourced (and yes, it may contain some overlapping info with the current article). I am not aware of any policy requiring listing such cases on RfM, and my reasoning was same as Halibutt's above - such a rename bordered on vadalism and certainly was controversial, and should be discussed beforehand. However if I indeed broke an existing policy, please let me know. If somebody feels that I am mistaken and such a move should be done, feel free to use the Wikipedia:Requested moves page - I certanly wont dispute a vote result. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
  3. I have not read the entire discussion sparked by this event - I will do so in a few hours. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Page being moved back

Regarding (2) above (the unilateral move with the deletion of redirect without the vote) is the part I disagree. There is the policy on that and no matter how academically correct the move seems to people who have a clue, the way WP works is that people who have little academic background but strong political views have their votes counted at WP:RM equally to people who "know better". We are having a mess now with Ukrainian articles moved by AndriyK who perfectly knew what he was doing and there is still no consensus from the voting pages, though if only votes from established Wikipedians with good contributions were counted, the consensus to move is overwhelming.

The bottom line is that because the rules are imperfect, we end up with time consuming WP:RMs and some of them, being perfectly sensible, still fail because they don't get consensus from WP community, to a large degree a non-academic community. This hurts articles and it is now Ukrainian articles being hurt by voters recruited by AndriyK at internet forums who came here, registered, voted and left, similarly to the mass fraud of the absentee votes in Ukrainian 2004 election. There were several sysops who watched AndriyK doing this mess and not reverting him but rather voting ar WP:RM listings. These are the rules. Perhaps they should be changed but they should not be applied selectively. --Irpen 21:33, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S. This is not to say that I think that the Polish imperialism is a good title for this particular aticle which still needs some NPOV'ing as much as most of the history at WP. --Irpen

  1. The decision to revert it at admin's discretion. It's up to admin do decide whether a move was controversial or not or obvious vandalism. The apparent consensus on this talk page only proves, that the decision in this case was correct beyond doubt.
  2. Wiki does not provide a convenient method for users to revert a malicious page rename. This unfortunately leaves space to vandalism and it's up to admins to prevent this.
  3. I'm sure Ghirlandajo was pretty aware of how unacceptable his action was, this is why he chose not to use the Wikipedia:Requested moves to reach the consensus. As the discussion above shows, the consensus clearly is that the "Polish Imperialism" would not be an appropriate title for this article.
  4. The fact that Ghirlandajo's action was inflammatory and that he never attempted any discussion before he renamed the article proves in my opinion, that this was a purposeful provocation and I am quite angry about it, because we are loosing our time here now.
  5. Ghirlandajo's recent (irrelevant) comments on this page, like that the Warsaw Pact was protecting "each other from aggressive neighbours in the West" are on the verge of trollism.
  6. Comparing the situation here with the moves by AndriyK is missing the point, as as far as I understand AndriyK has valid arguments against Soviet linguistic theories. I'm not an expert on this, though. Apparently the admins share the view that the situation is not that obvious there, since they have chosen not to revert the move, as you say.
--Lysy (talk) 08:22, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

This has become and ethics and policy dispute rather than the title dispute but I will use the same talk page to respond to preserve the contexts.

  1. move to an empty entry does not require to be proposed first while it is often a good idea (see talk:Polans)
  2. When moving to an empty entry, editors still need to exercise good judgement, but "judgement" is a much broader notion than the policy. Someone's judgement may seem bad to someone else.
  3. comparing the situation with the moves by AndriyK and how they are being handled is exactly to the point. The vote shows the so called "validity" of his arguments and every admin who voted showed that no one shares his views. In fact, as the vote showed, almost every established wikipedian did not share his view. But it is not up to anyone's discretion to revert it single-handily, since while being just examples of AndriyK's poor judgement and fervent UA-nationalism, the moves were not simple vandalism but rather the reflection of his POV fringe even among Ukrainians (as you can judge by votes of Ukrainian editors rather than visitors). It's just that no one decided to bend the rules to undo the moves done with bad judgement but not frivolously. AndriyK than recruited dozens of absentee and, possibly, sockpuppet voters at the outside internet forums and at some of his moves the consensus is still not reached, but only because of a dozen of voters who voted their political preferences. Anyone's judgement is a no substitute to policies. Policies allow reversion on sight of simple vandalism only. This was not the case.

In any case we can move on now. As for the title, how about using "expansionism" instead? It is probably not viewed so in Poland, but the project seemed indeed expansionist to every Polish neighbour and Miedzymorze is indeed a rather obscure word in English. I am not saying it isn't used at all but not much, AFAIK. Opinions? --Irpen 17:54, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Polish expansionism? Well, I'd prefer Polish federationism. What do you think about this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:07, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, federalism implies the equality of federation members. The whole issue here is that all the Poland-centered federations, whether their proponents proclaimed prometheist ideas or were blunt about subduing the neighbours, were in fact either Polish-dominated, or such a domination was implied, even if subconsciously.

On the side note: my personal opinion is that the main reasons of PLC's demise was the lack of equality to non-Poles. Be it the Ruthenian or Lithuanian nobility, which had to get polonized in order to achieve politically, or commoners, who felt like relying on violent cossacks was the only option to have their religion protected, since their native protectors abandoned them by getting polonized. But this is just me.

If expansionism seems too inflammatory, let's think about other names. --Irpen 18:32, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

When I think of Międzymorze and equality, I tend to compare it with EU and the equality withing its member states: bigger has more votes and call pull more weight. Miedzymorze would not have been completely equal, but I think that it might have been closer to EU model of equality then the PLC one (although in PLC Poland and Lithuania were equal, the other minorities were of course not). And yes, Irpen, I agree that it was a major factor that led to the destruction of the PLC. Btw, if you are interested in alternative histories of that era, this may be interesting: 163x series. On the Baen's Bar board people are discussing the fate of PLC and Muscovy in this series and authors are closely listening to those discussions - unfortunately, there are just two Poles (one being me) and AFAIK not a single person from 'further east' participating in those discussions :( --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:04, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

There is no reason to assume that there would have been anything close to EU in terms of equality in Miedzymorze. The proclaimed ideas are no indicator of what was really being built. --Irpen 19:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. But this article is about the concept, not about speculations what it would be. The concept was a federation. It's only a matter of personal judgement whether someone thinks that outcome would be different, and as such it's not a justification for renaming the article. As to the current title, I think it is just perfect. Of course it's not an English word, but WP is not a dictionary. It is a name of a concept and article explains the concept. That's what it should be. There's no English word for it. It is also not a Polish dictionary word but a name. An alternative would be Intermarum. I don't think a descriptive title would be better, as the article would loose its focus to explain the specific Międzymorze concept, and would have to be broader. Maybe Polish expansionism deserves a separate article of its own, but in my opinion such a title would not be appropriate for any article, as it's intrinsically very judgemental. --Lysy (talk) 19:55, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

The article as it is now, is broader than Intermarum. Intermarum/Miedzymorze deserve a separate article and, OTOH, the Polish expansionism is a worthy topic on its own. I agree that it is controvercial but no less that anti-Polonism, the article that will stay here forever. A different issue is what is the current article about: the M. or the striving for domination in C-E Europe tradition in the Polish political thinking. Perhaps, such two articles will have to largely overlap. --Irpen 20:08, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

What I'm trying to explain is that title "Polish expansionism" is inappropriate, as it contains an element of personal judgement that there existed something like "Polish expansionism". This also would be a bad precedent as everyone would then be creating arbitrary articles to suit his political agenda. If you think that these issues need a separate article how about East European territorial disputes instead ? This would seem more neutral and not implying the belief that one side of the disputes was "imperialistic" or whatever. Personally, I believe that in EE only Russia had the imperialistic drive not Poland. But hey, I only know what I've read in MY history books :-) --Lysy (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, why not move the information about PLRC and PLMC to their relevant articles, leaving only a see also link? This would solve the problem, I think. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:35, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
I think it would. --Lysy (talk) 20:40, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't like the idea of removing relevant info from articles based on political convenience. So many Ukrainian articles have been butchered last month by AndriyK and Andrew Alexander that I really feel that this is a wrong approach. There is nothing wrong with overlapping between several articles. Same info may be relevant for several topics. --Irpen 20:43, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm lost again. Who said: "removing" ? I only tried to explain why "expansionism" or "imperialism" are POV loaded titles. Piotrus suggested moving the information to their relevant articles if you're upset because of them not belonging to Międzymorze and I agreed. I somehow feel you're missing my point above ? --Lysy (talk) 21:21, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

We have many articles with POV loaded titles. Some of them are pure BS and others are rather encyclopedic or, at least, have an encyclopedic potential. All I said is that with the current content the article fits a different title better. Thus, changing the title, without removing anything, would be the best solution, IMO. With changing some accents, the article may also be fitted to the M. title. I favor both solutions implemented at the same time, rather than choosing one or another. --Irpen 21:28, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

I know there are many POV titles already, but that'shardly an excuse to create yet another one. How about keeping the current title for article explaining the Intermarum concept then, and creating another one History of East European territorial disputes, if you think we need a broader coverage ? --Lysy (talk) 21:47, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

What I meant, is that a title being considered loaded is not a reason not to have an article. Some loaded topics are still encyclopedic.

"History of EE terr. disputes" is too broad a title for a topic that concentrates on the history of ideas generated by a row of Polish thinkers with a specific view on what they see as a "multinational federation". There is a clear connection between the centuries of real or hypothetical federalist ideas in that they implied Polish domination, though to different degrees. I am sorry if anyone finds this offensive, but this is how it was viewed from the outside of Poland. --Irpen 22:11, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, I could help with the article on Polish imperialism if there really is a need to have it here. However, in it we should concentrate on actual attempts to create an empire, and not on some situations that possibly could've developed into an example of some sort of imperialism. Piasts' expansion into Bohemia comes to my mind or the Vasa's question comes to my mind.
I fully support what Lysy wrote above. As to Irpen's ideas - we might follow this logic in a zillion of examples. For instance, there surely is an analogy between Ukrainian tradition of murdering the Jews, priests and Poles and the Orange Revolution in that both resulted in an uprising against the supreme power. Sensible? Not really. But that's exactly how you do it: take some phenomenon that was true for several centuries, compare it with a clearly-defined phenomenon that was true for 2 years in world's history and claim they are actually the same. But let's leave that alone since we won't go far with such logic.
I have a question for Irpen then. Międzymorze was not only about Ukraine, in fact initially Piłsudski did not think of Ukraine at all. So, the question is: how is the 17th century conflict between the gentry and Ukrainian peasants related to the proposed alliance between Poland and Finland in 1919 (it was the first state asked by Piłsudski to join Międzymorze)? Or, what is the analogy between the Chmielnicki's Uprising and the Polish-Latvian Military Alliance of 1919? On one side we have Wiśniowiecki's expansion into Left-bank Ukraine (his personal imperialism, I'd call it), on the other we have Międzymorze and the joint Polish-Latvian winter operation at Daugavpils. I fail to see how the two are related. Halibutt 22:34, 5 November 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt. I had to quote you below, because you "hate" when people reply after the specific paragraphs. Sorry, for the page is getting to big but so be it. Also, you start twisting my words into nonsense analogies . There is no need for that since the discussion is a valid one and there is no need for that in any case (Wolodarka?). To the point

Well, I could help with the article on Polish imperialism if there really is a need to have it here. However, in it we should concentrate on actual attempts to create an empire, and not on some situations that possibly could've developed into an example of some sort of imperialism.

I don't get a notion of "need to have it here". What is "need". Some people voted to keep Antisemitism in Poland but as per consensus it was replaced by a redirect to a History of the Jews in Poland. Do people who voted "keep" and those who voted "delete and redirect" voted so because they felt that they "need" or "don't need" the article? I hope not. Also, above I suggested "expansionism" rather than "imperialism". Expansionism is a broader word than attempting to create an Empire and even imperialism is broader than that.

As to Irpen's ideas - we might follow this logic in a zillion of examples. For instance, there surely is an analogy between Ukrainian tradition of murdering the Jews, priests and Poles and the Orange Revolution in that both resulted in an uprising against the supreme power. Sensible? Not really. But that's exactly how you do it: take some phenomenon that was true for several centuries, compare it with a clearly-defined phenomenon that was true for 2 years in world's history and claim they are actually the same. But let's leave that alone since we won't go far with such logic.

This is the exact twisting I talked about two paragraphs earlier. The article is already about the Polish-originated ideas of "federalism" applied to CE Europe. I didn't bring up the point that M. had to be something because things before were like that. The point is that the idea of M is a logical continuation of the Polish political thinking and the article speaks at length about it. And I think it is an entirely valid point. And I think it is also relevant too (not to be cut out or moved elsewhere). However, when I look at the article as a whole (and it even gets to EU times), I see that it needs a broader name than Miedzymorze and it would be a pity to cut the pieces out just in order to make a broader name unsuitable. --Irpen 00:51, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I know we are starting to run in circles again, but how about Polish historical federalism ideas then ? --Lysy (talk) 01:02, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Maybe so. Also, we could still have M as an article and I don't see a problem if they ;argely overlap. It would still be better than the recent case when Ukrainization, I wrote was destroyed by one user who pasted my content to Derussification that fits his political agenda. --Irpen 01:11, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
No, it wasn't me ;-) --Lysy (talk) 01:21, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

No it wasn't. It was AndriyK's, as well as Chernihiv mess. --Irpen 01:28, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

As to the whole need thingie, it was what I call a mental shortcut. Replace if we really need it here with if we really feel that Wikipedia would benefit from such article's existence. I'm not so convinced, BTW, but as I said, I could help - as long as we keep close to the facts and sources.
As to the context - here we differ. For me this article is on M., and the rest is simply some basic perspective. Without such explanation one would wonder why the hell Poland wanted to create a federation with anyone. Or would wonder what wa sthe problem with it. For you, this article is on something much broader and M. is only one of its aspects. Here we differ and I doubt this can be solved anyhow, as it's simply a matter of our personal preferrence. I like to put as much background into the articles as possible - and they still are the same articles on the same topic for me. For you apparently the title should be broadened when the topic is. Other than that, the whole concept of M. was not a continuation of Polish political thought, but of certain political concepts of the past. Halibutt 05:03, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
I think the WP would benefit from any factual article. I am fine with Polish federalism name. It would also be a good article to collect Polish imperialism and Polish expansionism redirects. It would largely overlap with what's written here but this is natural since M was the last implementation of these ideas. EU, OTOH, would be irrelevant. --Irpen 06:32, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Come on, Irpen, why do you insist on "Polish imperialism" redirect ? Will anyone be looking for such a term ? Do you plan to create "imperialism" redirects for each country ? This seems like political agenda pushing on WP. Not to mention that "Polish imperialism" would have to have a completely different content than "Polish federalism" so a redirect would be incorrect. --Lysy (talk) 10:07, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
BTW, check the articles mentioning the phrase Polish imperialism. Some of them are hillarious, really. Halibutt 13:54, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

I do not, as Lysy's message suggests, "insist" on P, Imperialism redirect and I am not pushing any agenda. However, I suggest you consider such a solution because if there is no such redirect from P. Imperialism to Polish Federalism, there is no placeholder for the Polish imperialism entry and we may have page moved there again :). Personally, I don't care whether this entry redirects to Polish Federalism or does not exist. --Irpen 07:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Piotrus solution

  1. Move sections: 'The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth precedent', 'Prince Adam Jerzy Czartoryski plan' and the 'World War II and since' to Polish federalism.
  2. Copy appopriate material from Polish-Lithuanian-Muscovite Commonwealth, Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth, Prometheism and other (?) articles to Polish federalism article, but don't delete anything from those articles (keep them as they are in term of content - of course linking the Polish fedralism article)
  3. Keep reduced Międzymorze as an article about Międzymorze concept only

What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

Though I don't see the need to have an article on such an obscure phenomenon, and I don't see a much continuity between various Polish federalist ideas of various epochs, this seems like a good solution for those who do. Halibutt 18:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
Fine with me. Frankly, I don't care, as long as no POV titles are being used and no content is deleted (but only moved around or preserved). --Lysy (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

From what I see, there is a continuity from ealry PLC through hypothetical PLMC and PLRC to hypothetical Miedzymorze. The federalist idea itself in these unions is not uniquely Polish (there were other real or hypothetical federations) but they certainly had things in common and, to a degree, were all assumed by their founders (whether bluntly or subcontiously) to be or to become Polish dominated to different degrees. There is nothing unique in wanting to dominate the megastates if they have to be created. Austria wanted to dominate Austro-Hungary, one can say that Russia dominated the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation has little to do with true federalism. It is an interesting topic and for Poland we already have most of the material written. I think, it would make an encyclopedic article. --Irpen 07:47, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccuracy

"Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, that, from the late 14th to the late 18th century century, had united Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (the latter also incorporating modern Belarus and Ukraine). "

As far as I remember, Belarus and grater part of today's Ukraine were parts of Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Galicia was a part of Poland before the creation of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

Right. But where is the inaccuracy in the sentence above that you mention ? They seem not contradictory to me... --Lysy (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I was mistaking.--AndriyK 13:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
Still to be even more pecise, Polan was incorporating Galicia(including the eastern one) and Lithuania - Balarus and a great part of modern Ukraine.--AndriyK 13:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Miedzymorze now

The words "The Międzymorze will be created in the year 2007, when Romania nad Bulgaria join the EU." have been removed. What is wrong with the above statement? Xx236 15:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Well, it's somebody's political fiction. Międzymorze is a thing of the past, not the future.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

How about the article reform we discussed earlier? --Irpen 18:43, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You mean Polish evil impearialism, or what ? --Lysytalk 19:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

You said that. What I meant, was "Polish Federalism". --Irpen 19:15, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Międzymorze is being used by Russians as the prove of Polish imperialism or idiocy. It was in some way more realistic than Soviet or German Realpolitik. Xx236 14:45, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Just becuase Poland is a failed empire, does not deprive them of ability to have imperialist ideas. Stop using the euphemism "federalism" - it is simply a lie, as much a lie as say, that russians, during their 123 year control of Poland did it out of "federalism". With respect, Ko Soi IX 20:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Please check WP:RS and WP:V. We have references to Międzymorze as a federation, none to 'Polish imperialism'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, the name People's Republic of Poland is also a lie as it was not a democracy (people's). At any rate, Miedzymorze is an imperialist enterpirse, aimed at conquering or aquiring non-polish lands. Ko Soi IX 21:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
And do you have any sources backing your point of view? Especially as the aim of Międzymorze was to support independence of Polish neighbours (so they could act as a buffer beteen Poland and Russia out of their own free will) I fail to see how one can argue that M-more would be imperialistic. Do read about federation vs empire.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Między

When I changed the "Tween the Seas" to "Between the Seas", it was merely a copy edit to improve the English meaning. Regardless of what it is in Latin, "Interseas", doesn't cut it in English. I know it works in the case of "International", but not here. Dr. Dan 16:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't "Tween the Seas" but "Tween-Seas." "Tween-Seas" was an attempted translation of the Polish original, "Between the Seas" is an explanation. I don't think a polity could be named something like "Between the Seas." logologist|Talk 17:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Does Tween-Seas make sense in English? As a native speaker of English, I honestly don't see Between the Seas as an explanation, and Tween-Seas as a translation of a "polity" (even "attempted"). I have had a few discussions with some Russian Wikipedians about their difficulties with English syntax and grammar (not that often with Poles), but when confronted with resistance and stubborness, I prefer to leave the errors alone. It's not worth the headache. Niech biędzie. Dr. Dan 00:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Strengthen Poland... and her neighbors?

Certainly, Poland did much to strengthen her neighbors, such as taking the Lithuanian capital. C'mon, stop it with the lies and revisionist white-washing. With respect, Ko Soi IX 21:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Or giving them their capital (Battle of Daugavpils, Kiev Offensive). This article is about a never-realized political federation, that according to our sources would be composed of independent nations. Certainly Międzymorze would benefit Poland's eastern and southern neighbors - much more so than their absorbtion into the SU did. This is all backed with references. If you have sources to the contrary, please give them, otherwise you are just engaging in revert war for which you may be blocked.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Well, in theory, Soviet domination of Poland was a good thing as it gave the poles freedom from capitalist oppression and an ability to develop communism. According to the opening paragraphs there were three more countries to be invloved in the "federation" - Lithuania, Ukraine and Belarus. While Poland enjoyed poor relationships with Lithuania due to Polish imperialist ambitions and the taking of Vilnius, I am sure that Ukraine and Belarus were stronger as part of USSR than they would be in Poland (WW2 illustrates that pretty well). Thus, I'm not gonna fall for your trap of sources, but rather request sources from you that PROVE that Ukraine and Belarus would be better off with Poland than with the USSR in terms of security. I'm sure you will not be able to provide, but everyone deserves a chance. You threaten me with getting banned, but however you go against common sense and claim something moronic like Ukraine would be safer with Poland than USSR because you got some sources backing it up. Face it, Poland got it's arse kicked while USSR almost single-handingly (even if you deny it) defeated Nazi Germany. Thus, USSR was stronger. So, how would it be that Ukraine and Belarus would be safer in this so called "federation" (under "aegis" of Poland)? Ko Soi IX 04:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunatly, WP:3RR and WP:V are our policies. If you don't like them, I am afraid you will have to find other website to air your grieviances at. The article is no stating that Ukraine or Belarus would be better of with Poland so your edits are irrelevant to your arguments above, but for argument sake it is rather self-evident that anything but absorbtion into SU would be better for those countries: no Holodomor, no millions of dead in Stalinist purges, and Germany stopped during Invasion of Poland (1939)...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
Listen up Ko Soi IX, how can you say that the SU almost single-handingly, (sic) defeated Nazi Germany? The article Battle of Berlin clearly shows how Polish military contributions brought down Germany and brought about the final victory. And the article also has a "plethora" of pictures proving this too. What better sources could there be? The prokonsul has warned you that you are in danger of being you may be blocked, so if I were you, I'd watch out. Of course he never warned user: Molobo, so he might not be completely serious. As for sources showing that that the three nations that Miedzymorze was intended to "benefit", I'm sure P.P., (Prokonsul Piotrus) can provide them. What, you really have the temerity to doubt him? Dr. Dan 06:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
To Proconsul's argument - when we depart from what happened into the realm of what if there is much room for debate, although it is not really historical. For example, I'm not convinced that the "Federation" could stop the Germans - mostly due to lack of heterogenety and a long history of "problems" between the Polish people and their Eastern Slavic bretheren. Holodomor and it's causes are subject to much debate as well, and repression in Ukraine and Belarus weren't in "millions", and they (the repressions) were mostly aimed at the Party. But I also have to admit that my reverts were a bit hasty, and certainly I was banned rightly. I suggest we add a section explaining how polish imperialist ambitions and the long history of hatred between the poles and ukrainians would've made the idea of the "federation" a naive joke at best. With respect, Ko Soi IX 13:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC) PS. My argument was not that Ukraine and Belarus would be better of with Poland, my argument was that the "federation" was not aimed at "strengthening" the said pair of nations as they already were a part of something stronger.
First of all, feel free to expand the article as long as you have proper references (WP:V, WP:RS). Second, I don't believe there ever was a "long history of hatred between the poles and ukrainians". At the very least this seems like a giant POVed simplification; you could as well talk about "long history of hatred between the russians and ukrainians". There were conflicts, there was also cooperation; check Snyder refs for how Poland worked with Ukrainians during the interwar period (and of course check Davies or others on how it stamped on the Ukrainian minority at the same time...). Third, while we cannot know if Ukraine and Belarus (and L. and other countries) would be better of with Poland, it's hard to see how they could be worse; millions died in Holodomor and while I don't have a number for repressions, I'd be not suprised to see it in hundred thousands. Not to mention issues like Sovietization, complete lack of independence and such - all considered, Międzymorze looks like a much better alternative.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/i/%C4%99/Talk%7EMi%C4%99dzymorze_8c3c.html"