Talk:Partitions of Poland

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Old talk was archived: /archive 1 (Jan. 2003 - Aug. 2005) & /archive 2 (Dec. 2005 - moving debate)

Contents

[edit] Poland partitions maps

Silesia should be gray, not lime green, since Prussia had already controlled it for three decades before the First Partition of Poland. Also, more of Hungary in the First Partition map should be lime. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.174.249.172 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC).

Yes. john k 05:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Freemasons and liberals, oh my!

I don't know enough about this subject to make amendments myself with sufficient confidence. However, two points spring out at me from the article as it stands:

The run-up to the second partition contains the historical weasel-word 'inevitable', in a somewhat cryptic statement about freemasonry. The cited source for this 'Freemasonry Watch', which strikes me as a not-altogether-neutral reference. If freemasonry really did play a significant role, shouldn't this be better explained? If it didn't, can the reference be abandoned altogether?

Secondly, there seems little mention of the reasonably common historical argument that Poland was attacked not (only) because it was historically weak, but because Stanislaw Poniatowski showed strong signs of turning it around at last. I'm aware this view is debateable, but I'd consider it a deal more relevant than freemasonry. AlexTiefling 13:45, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Update: I'm now researching this topic, and hope to update the article fairly soon. AlexTiefling 14:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Commonwealth - Poland

Recently Irpen has changed all the instances of the usage of the word Poland to Commonwealth. At the same time I've been always taught that the Commonwealth ceased to exist with the signing of the May Constitution that merged both parts of the Commonwealth into one kingdom. So, isn't it factually inaccurate to refer to the Commonwealth that was no longer in existence in the times of the last partitions? Halibutt 07:36, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Why wouldn't you look carefully? I only changed for the first partitions. While at it, please provide references for the requested information. --Irpen 07:43, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm only asking, Irpen, no need to get upset. //Halibutt 13:38, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
If this was a question, then I didn't get it. You made a statement that post-May constitution country should be called Poland (which was not disputed by my edits). You also made a statement that I have changed all the instances of the usage, which is simply not true. I only changed for the parts of the article when the usage of the term is correct as per your own assertion. In the end you asked why I did something that I didn't do. So what were you asking?
And then Molobo without wasting any more time reverted all my edits, that also included some good-faith requests for citations of the kind of info that should be very non-obscure if it is true and a rephrasing of misleading phrase which before my change could have been understood that the loss of 4 million of population was not through a transfer of land at which they lived but through a physical destruction of such a 4 million people. --Irpen 21:34, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with those changes - I always thought that Poland was rather misleading when used to refer to PLC (just as referring to UK as England or SU as Russia - it was just the most important province of a larger entity, after all). After May Const., as Halibutt points out, a case for Poland being an official name is much better, though.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Original research"

User:Ghirlandajo claims that the Soviet and German partition of Poland in 1939 is my original research as his justification for removing an image of Germans and Russians fraternizing during WWII. I don't understand, then, why he wouldn't first remove the actual text of the article that plainly describes the Fourth Partition as such. For the record, however, here are some references. Appleseed (Talk) 12:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] On Russia's rights to acquired lands

I wonder why the fact that the lands recieved by Russia in the first partition of Poland, as well as in 1939 were originally Russian lands, taken by Poland from Russia by various means after the X-XI century is not mentioned in the article? With respect, Kosoi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.152.153 (talk • contribs) 13:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC).

Because:
  1. Those were Rusin, not Russian lands
  2. They were not taken by Poland from Russia, but by Lithuania during fights mostly with Tatars
Hope that helps. cheers Szopen 14:37, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

as can be seen clearly from this map http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Kievan_Rus_en.jpg, the borders of the ancient rus stretch quite far into the west. the ancient russians (are you refering to them as rusins, or are you refering to modern rusins?) as you no doubt know, are now split into modern russians, ukrainians and belorussians. Also, I would like to note that your points contradict each other - kinda like "We never been there" and "We're not agressors, they came first". With respect, Kosoi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.152.153 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 19 September 2006 (UTC).

Well yes, exactly. Rusins splitted into Russians, Ukrainians etc. Then suddenly Russians started to claim some lands which were not Russian, but Rusin, basing on that few hundreds ago they were all part of one ethinc group. Well, If you would want follow that logic, Poles and Russians some centuries ago were all Slavs. Why then Poles could not claim some distant lands, which were never Polish, basing on the fact that they were Slavic? Do you see the absurd of this now? The lands were Rusin; Rusins split into Ukrainians, Belarussians and Russians; but Russians tried to claim all the heritage.
As for contradiction, well, it's because of sloppy editing. I merely pointed that Poland didn't conquer this lands (with arguable exception of Red Rus) by but Lithuania (and some Lithuanian editors would of course then told you about how this "conquest" looked, while some Belarussian editors will maybe try to prove, that this Lithuanians were in fact Belarussians, hence Rusins. Szopen 15:24, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

The political centre of the Kievan Rus moved from Kiev to Vladimir, and than to Moskow. If the western lands weren't lost to Poland for so long, western russians would not become their own ethnicities. Or perhaps you think that Poland had more rights to own Kiev and Minsk than the ansestors of those who lived there for hundreds of years, even before Kievan Rus was consolidated into a medieval super-power? In neither russian nor ukraininan historiography the ancient russians are never called rusins. The truth of the matter is that Russo-Polish relations over the ages have been very complicated, with numerous atrocities commited, even recently, by both participants - Russian NKVD, for example, executed polish officers in Katyn, while polish military massacred Soviet POW's (up to 60 thousand killed) after the Polish-Soviet War in 1920s. All those political issues make it hard to have an unbiased opinion, based on proved facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.152.153 (talk • contribs) 19 September 2006 (UTC).

Well, you see, that's why it's hard to argue with some of our Russian brethren. Polish military _did not_ massacre 60 thousand Soviet PoW - it's a fairy tale created by Russian nationalist specifically to counter Katyn issue. If you are interested in the discussion, please see the Camps for Russian prisoners and internees in Poland (1919-1924) article. Second, I do not claim that Poland had more rights to Kiev than Russia - I claim that Russia had no real right to Kiev. Kiev was and is Ukrainian, not Russian, no matter how hard Russians would try to pretend Ukrainians are just misguided Russians. If you really, really want, you can insert an NPOV statement such as "in official Russian statements the partitions were considered reclaiming ancient Russian lands..." however only if you can find such statements from contemporary times (it should be easy, I, being no Russian, can think immedietely about one) and if you will keep it clearly as presentation of official Russian justification for partitions, not as holy truth. Szopen 07:43, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Being a Russian and a Ukrainian by blood, I am a strong advocate for unity and cooperation of all eastern slavic people. Kiev became Ukrainian after it was liberated from Poland. I do not think that Ukrainians are misguided Russians, with polonized and thus corrupt language. All three branches of eastern slavs sprung from the same root. Instead of "in official Russian... etc. what do you think of "while Austria and Prussia gained Polish territory, Russia acquired lands that belonged to Kievan Rus in the past"? With respect, Kosoi.
PS. Maybe you are not aware of that fact that Ukrainians refered to themselves as "rus'kiy" until mid-XIX century. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.152.63 (talk • contribs) 14:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC).

You may be a strong advocate of pan-slavism. That doesn't mean Wikipedia has to reflect that view. WP:NPOV is worthwhile reading. AlexTiefling 14:55, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

You are most certainly right; however, I think that adding "while Austria and Prussia gained Polish territory, Russia acquired lands that belonged to Kievan Rus in the past" is NPOV, since it gives no opinions, only easily verifiable facts. With respect, Kosoi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.152.63 (talk • contribs) 14:59, 20 September 2006 (UTC).

Let's start with following WP:V and WP:RS: can you provide a reliable reference that all of the lands Russia acquired belonged to the Kievan Rus? You may have some difficulty in arguing that Warsaw was Kievan... PS. Please consider registering, it's quick, easy, and will give you access to better editing tools.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:36, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Comparing the map of the first partition of Poland http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Rzeczpospolita_Rozbiory_1.png and the map of Kievan Rus http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fb/Kievan_Rus_en.jpg it easy to see that such cities (towns?) as Polotsk and Vitebsk, that were re-possessed by Russia, were cities in Kievan Rus, just like Smolensk and Kiev that were liberated from the commonwealth earlier.
Let's take a look at the second partition. The map of Kievan Rus shows us that the western-most Rus city of the time was Peremyshl - but those lands are controlled by Austria, while Russia regained control of Minsk, which is consirably to the east.
The third partition is an exception - but if look carefully, my point was only about the first and the last (1939) partitions of Poland. And even during the third partition, the land taken by Russia was mostly Lithuanian, not Polish.
During the 1939 partition Soviet Union repossed those same ancient lands, but including Lvov this time; those lands were conquered by the poles in 1920-1921.
I hope you don't consider comparing ceveral maps, available at wikipedia, as original research. With respect, Kosoi.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.152.63 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC).

Maps on Wikipedia are not original research, however per our policy of Wikipedia:Avoid self-references you should look for some other sources. I certainly agree that much of territory of PLC and later, SPR, was inhabited by many Ruthenians (later, Ukrainians and Belarusians), and is now part of their independent states. I however find it dubious that significant part of those lands were Russian (i.e. that Russia had any more right to them then Poland), and that at any point it was acting with the intention to 'liberate' anyone. My sources for you are: Review of Jaroslaw Pelenski. The Contest for the Legacy of Kievan Rus'. East European Monographs, No. 337. Boulder, Col.: Columbia University Press, 1998, Kievan Rus' and Mongol Periods. Excerpted from Russia: A Country Study, Glenn E. Curtis, ed. (Washington, DC: Federal Research Division of the Library of Congress, 1996) and The Russo-Polish Historical Confrontation By Andrzej Nowak, Sarmatian Review, 1/97. Some highlights: note that there are attempts of differing polities to legitimize themselves by claiming succession from Kievan Rus and that post-1991 authors in Russia and Ukraine have mainly reverted to exclusively nationalistic interpretations of the problem. Then most historians agree that Kievan Rus' was not a homogeneous political, cultural, or ethnic entity and Kievan Rus' splintered into many principalities and several large regional centers. The inhabitants of those regional centers then evolved into three nationalities: Ukrainians in the southeast and southwest, Belorussians in the northwest, and Russians in the north and northeast; thus Russians are not 'older' the Ukrainians or Belorussians, they all have the same ancestry. Finally, Catherine took the whole of Lithuania, Belarus, and most of Ukrainian lands. Politically, however, it was only a coincidence [...] that the territories acquired by Russia had been at one time part of the Kievan Rus. It did not occur to Catherine to rationalize her policy of expansion by arguments of national unity. All subsequent justifications, made either by the conservative Russian Slavophiles or by the liberals, merely reveal a bad conscience about the crimes committed by their ancestors; and also the struggle between Muscovy and the Polish-Lithuanian state with the historical contest between France and Germany for the control of Burgundy, Lorraine, Holland and Belgium. Just as the Dutchmen and Lorrainers were neither French nor German, so were Ukrainians and Belarusians neither Poles nor Russians. Thus attemps to portray the Russian partitions as some kind of liberations or reunifications are quite erroneus. Please read the above three articles before replying, and if you disagree with them, please present scholarly research that contradicts them.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:07, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"thus Russians are not 'older' the Ukrainians or Belorussians, they all have the same ancestry" - unfortunately, you are not reading my posts from above, but going with your stereotype of a Russian nationalist. I never claimed that Russians are somehow "older" or in any way "better" than Ukrainians or Belorussians. However, while Russia can claim ansestry from Kievan Rus (just like Ukraine and Belarus), Poland can't, thus Russia had more rights (however small, still more than zero) than Poland to those lands. Certainly, Kievan Rus was multi-ethnic, but I doubt that poles or mazovians ever made up a significant proportion of it's population. With respect, Kosoi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.150.107 (talk • contribs) 21:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC).

I am not under any streotypes. And who has more rights to those territories - other then their inhabitants - is really a rather pointless debates, especially as allegiances of local population varied in time. Bohdan Khmelnytsky vs. Symon Petlura, Chuguev Uprising and Bulavin Rebellion vs. Kosiński Uprising and Nalyvaiko Uprising, polonization vs. russification and sovietization. The lands were inhabited by many people, who could also claim they had rights to them: "Long before the organization of Kievan Rus', Iranian and other peoples lived in the area of present-day Ukraine. The best known of those groups was the nomadic Scythians, who occupied the region from about 600 B.C. to 200 B.C. and whose skill in warfare and horsemanship is legendary. Between A.D. 100 and A.D. 900, Goths and nomadic Huns, Avars, and Magyars passed through the region in their migrations." Having common ancestry does not mean much, otherwise Finland would still be a happy part of the Swedish Empire, or all Slavs would live happiply in a Pan-Slavic state :) Now don't get me wrong: I am not saying Russia cannot claim ancestry from Kievan Rus, but as I showed you in the quote about Catherine above, regaining ancestral lands - than inhabited by a different nation and culture - was far, far back to the simple policy of imperialist expantion, both to Catherine and to Stalin.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:08, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

By your logic Russia than had no claim to Sweden in 1700, or to any other succesful agressor? The lands taken by Poland in 1920-1921 have been a part of Russia for decades non-stop (or for centuries on and off) - in 1939 Stalin took them back. I think that comparing casualties for the Germans and the Soviets during that war illustrates the will of the population of eastern provinces very clearly. Anyways, I find this disscussion rather fruitless. I understand that in Poland people prefer to talk about the partition of Poland by Germany and USSR over the partition of Czechoslovakia by Germany and Poland a year earlier, or about how Poland was betrayed by the west over how polish government did everything in their power to destroy a defencive alliance between France and the USSR, or about Polish valor in combat over the cowardice of polish leaders during that war. It is natural. But that is not subject of history, but of historiography. In my opinion, the biggest Polish tragedy is their leaders. Remember what Churchill said? With respect, Kosoi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.12.148.124 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 21 September 2006 (UTC).

Since you fail to cite any references for your arguments, this is really going nowhere, and I am not going to engage in POV games on talk. As for the leaders - well, I think we had quite good leaders. Although modern politicians are really competeting for the 'worst ever' award in most contemporary countries, Poland included...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:54, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] So-Called Polish Partitions

Russian annexation of "Polish" territory was not only legal because of the Sejm's approval, but it was philosophically justified. In all but one of the Malorussian and Belorussian provinces annexed from Poland, the majority of the population was either Malorussian or Belorussian:

http://demoscope.ru/weekly/ssp/rus_lan_97.php

Podolia: 81% Malorussian; 12% Jew; 3% Russian; 2.3% Polish

Kiev: 79% Malorussian; 12% Jew; 6% Russian; 2% Polish

Volhynia: 70% Malorussian; 13% Jew; 6% Polish; 3.4% Russian;

Mohilev: 82% Belorussian; 12% Jew; 3.4% Russian; 1% Polish

Minsk: 76% Belorussian; 16% Jew; 4% Russian; 3% Polish

Vitebsk: 53% Belorussian; 13% Russian; 11.6% Jew; 3.3% Polish

Grodno: 44% Belorussian; 22.6% Malorussian; 17.3% Jew; 10% Polish; 4.6% Russian;

Vilnius: 56% Belorussian, 17.5% Lithuanian, 12.7% Jew; 8% Polish

Kowno: 65% Lithuanian, 14% Jew; 9% Polish; 5% Belorussian; 2.5% Russian
—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.110.139.235 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 28 October 2006 (UTC).

I fail to see how ethnic population is relevant here. Anyway, even from your data it's obvious that Russians made below 3% in most of these provinces. --Lysy talk 17:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You clearly have problems with reading comprehension. Velikorusskiye, Malorusskiye, and Belorusskiye together composed the Russan category in the 1897 Russian census.

The 1897 census clearly showed Malorussians and Belorussians were a majority in every single province except for Kaunus. What you call "Polish Partitions" was in fact Russian territory from 862 until the 14th century stolen by Lithuanians and Poles. These territories above are indisputably Ukrainian, Belorussian, and Lithuanian territory because of the simple fact that they belong to the separate states of each of these groups. In no way are any of the lands above Polish -- neither historically nor demographically. Historically, they belonged to the ancient Russian state from 862 until 14th century and were finally recovered from the Lithuanians and Polish in the 18th century. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.110.139.235 (talk • contribs) 23:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC).

Oh well, I know that Russian nationalists claim that Belarusians and Ukrainians are just a different kind of Russians, but how is this relevant here ? --Lysytalk 08:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Conveniently, Polish nationalists would like to claim that Ukrainians are different from "Ruthenians" in order to try and mask the presence of ethnic minorities in the interwar period. Polish nationalists would also like to say Belorussian linguistic group was different from the "Local" linguistic group in the 1931 census. Polish nationalists also deliberately undercounted Ukrainians and Belorussians who numbered 6 million in 1931 even though there were 7 million Uniates and Orthodox Christians.

You call these the "Polish Partitions" even though the demographics above clearly show that Poles were a small minority in each Malorussian and Belorussian guberniia. The claim that Poland has a right to the territories it went after in 1920-21 as a result of "Polish Partitions" would be like saying Turkey has a right to rule Irak, Syria, the Balkans, the Caucusus,and all of North Africa. This depiction of a failed empire like Poland as some sort of victim oppressed by big powers is wholly dishonest. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.110.128.212 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC).

If anybody could write an article on Malorussia/Malorussians, it would be appreciated.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  16:55, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Would you appreciate a link to Little Russia/Little Russians instead ? :-) Evv 22:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Certainly, I now created appopriate redirects.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:20, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

"This depiction of a failed empire like Poland as some sort of victim oppressed by big powers is wholly dishonest" - I could not have had worded this better myself, and I agree all the way. Unfortunately, many polish people are russophobic, heavily biased against most things soviet and russian. In such a mind, any russian/soviet claim would be invalid by the sole virtue of being russian/soviet. A simple mechanizm is used - vilify Russia/USSR as much as possible while whitewashing Polish history - and voila. Considering the effects of Cold War propaganda, innumerous campaigns designed by professionals to smear USSR with s..t as much as possible, it is understandable why biased polish claimes are seldom contested by wikipedia public. Since Russian/Soviet political weight was many times that of Poland, Russian/Soviet history on wiki is done by many contributors, and is if anything, slightly biased against Russia. On the other hand, Polish history on wiki was written mostly by Poles, and since I'm sure it is less interesting (visited less frequently), it contains heavy pro-Polish bias. With respect, Ko Soi. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.14.34.85 (talk • contribs) 12:50, 10 November 2006 (UTC).

[edit] Objectiveness?

The article is filled with loaded words with no reference. "Dared to", "Abused", "Took great care". It makes the article look as if written by nationalist poles, rather than neutral writers. I have slapped a template onto the article to mark this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 195.24.29.51 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 7 November 2006 (UTC).

  • Of the three usages cited, only "dared to" seems POV to me. The word "abused" does not appear at all. Both references to "abuses" relate to constitutional abuses, which are not a POV invention, but a clearly discernible feature of most constitutional law of any complexity. And saying that Frederick the Great took care of his new subjects is hardly a Polish nationalist POV, and is (to the best of my reasonable knowledge of the subject) accurate. Frederick did not wish to see peasants/serfs flocking over the border back into Poland, as was the case in Russia. Accordingly, he offered his new subjects a more competitive standard of living, and suffered far fewer defections. The article, although woefully incomplete, seems to present with reasonable clarity the documented historical facts of the division of the territories of the Polish crown among its neighbours. The introductory section could perhaps be a little more coolly analytical about the weakness of the Commonwealth in the early part of Stanislaw II's reign, but it's not inaccurate as such. I don't think the article needed a POV tag slapped on it. AlexTiefling 15:49, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../p/a/r/Talk%7EPartitions_of_Poland_9995.html"