Talk:History of Poland (1918–1939)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the History of Poland (1918–1939) article.
Article policies
Poland Portal
History of Poland (1918–1939) is within the scope of WikiProject Poland, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Poland on Wikipedia. To participate simply edit the article or see our current projects and discussions. On the main project page we have some tools to help you out. Don't hesitate to ask questions!
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] Piłsudski's quote

"Independent Poland first of all, and then we will see to its size". No Google hits other then Wikipedia. No Google Print nor Scholar hits. While Zerkalo Nedeli doesn't seem like a very POVed publication, it is classified as a newspaper, not an academic publication, and the current reference does not quote the author. We should try to find a primary source for that - the Zerkalo Nedeli article must surely be based on *something*. English academic source would be preferable, non-English but academic would also be good.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:00, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I did some copyedit of the article and the quote is really pointless. I have never heard that Piłsudski's was assigned a task of recreating PLC, and the quote actually contradicts the sentence, showing that Piłsudski didn't care about the size or borders. I decided to move it here for dicussion. I also removed this quote from PSW article, where it served no purpose. I have no objections to adding this quote to Wikiquote, if anybody thinks it is valuable enough.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:12, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Piłsudski's first task was to expand the control of the newly created state to as much of the territories formerly controlled by Poland as feasable.

<ref name=MirrorPetl>"Pilsudski's quote: "Independent Poland first of all, and then we will see to its size". Quoted from:<br>{{ru icon}}/{{uk icon}}"A Belated Idealist," ''[[Zerkalo Nedeli]]'' (Mirror Weekly), May 22-28, 2004. Available online [http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/495/46522/ in Russian] and [http://www.zn.kiev.ua/ie/show/495/46522/ in Ukrainian].</ref>

[edit] Disgusting Polish Chauvinist POV

All this talk about "Polish Partitions" is a myth concocted by Polish chauvinists in a desperate attempt to portray the oppressive Polish landlords as "helpless victims". During the so-called Polish Partitions, Russia took back land from Poland-Lithuania which had previously been stolen from Kievan Rus which was the first Russian state that existed from 880-1240. In 1349-52, the Polish landlords stole Halicz and Volyn which had Ukrainian population. Meanwhile, the Lithuanians stole Polotsk, Turov-Pinsk, Chernaia Rus, and Vokovysk. In mid 1300s, Minsk, eastern Volyn, Podolia, and Kiev were stolen by Lithuania. Vytatus annexed lands Deniepr and Dnester as far as the Black Sea as well as Smolensk, Viazma and the area around the upper course of Oka River in the east. Therefore, "Polish partitions" as far as Russia is concerned resulted in White Russian and Little Russian (Ukrainian) territory being liberated from the Polish thieves. Jacob Peters

Yes, that's quite amusing. Now, please familiarize yourself with WP:NPOV and related policies.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:52, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I can be as POV as I want at the discussion section. You can therefore refrain from dodging debate. Those arbitrary rules do not apply here. The simple fact is that Russia in "Polish Partitions" annexed land from Poland-Lithuania which had been stolen by the Lithuanians from former Kievan Russia. Byelorussia and right-bank Ukraine belonged to Kievan Russia in 880-1240. Jacob Peters

WP:CIV and releated policies do apply here, and if you persist in calling names like 'Polish thieves' you may be blocked for uncivility. And don't expet people to engage in any debate with you unless you provide sources for those very controversial and offensivly-framed arguments, as per WP:DFTT.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  14:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You are incorrect. I do not have to adhere to a NPOV in this section. I can be as POV as I wish. You can spare us of this arrogant burreaucratic attitude and arbitrary rules. You could also spare us of childish threats of "you will be banned" due to your inability to have a debate.

This article is propaganda because it talks about "Polish Partitions" even though land taken by Russia pertained primarily to Byelorussia and Ukraine. Both Byelorussia and Ukraine belonged to Russia in 880-1240 and it is a well-known fact that the Lithuanians proceeded to conquer Russian lands in the middle 14th century. One has to only observe the massive eastward expansion of Lithuania for an indication of Lithuania's thievery of Russian territory. Poland then proceeded to exploit Russian lands following its merger with Lithuania. Ukraine and Byelorussia are not historic Polish territory but are historic Russian territory. They belonged to Russia from 880-1240 and were fully reunited with Russia in 1772-1795. Lithuania and Poland stole Ukraine and Byelorussia which prompted the Tsar who was "Ruler of all Rus" to return Ukraine and Byelorussia to its rightful owner Russia. Interwar Poland which comprised stolen Ukrainian and Byelorussian territory comprised at most only 64% of Polish while another 22% were Rus. Jacob Peters

Jacob, your effort in rewriting history may seem amusing, but Wikipedia is not a place for original research. If you can not or do not want to adhere to WP:NPOV please try at least to observe WP:CIV as you've been asked above. --Lysytalk 18:50, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

What you call history is actually insolent rhetoric of Polish nationalism which is subject to sympathy in western propaganda outlets. Ukraine and White Russia which Russia took from "Polish Partitions" were not historic Polish territory but were in fact historic Russian territory from 880-1240. Lithuania and Poland took White Russian and Ukrainian territory in the middle 14th century.

1772: Poland lost one third of its territory and one third of its population. Russia got the ancient territories of Kievan Russia and Muscovy: about 36,000 squares miles and 1.8 million people. Most of these people were ethnic Russians and Greek Orthodox in their religion. This action was entirely legal because the Sejm ratified the agreement which allowed Russia, Prussia, and Austria to liberate territory alien to Polish nobility in culture and language.

1793: Russia got 89,000 square miles of Byelorussia and Right-Bank Ukraine with 3 million people. These people were mostly eastern Orthodox. This action was again legal because the Sejm approved of the manouevres.

1795: Russia got western Byelorussia, part of Ukraine, Lithuania, and Courland.

http://mars.wnec.edu/~grempel/courses/russia/lectures/16catherine.html

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

Jacob Peters

I've checked both web pages that you list above and they both mention partitions of Poland, contradicting your claims. What's your point ? And what does the ethnicity and religion of the peoples living there have to do with it ? --Lysytalk 22:34, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't waste your time, Lysy.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:02, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

You are wrong. The first link contains a phrase which has a dubious perception of "Polish Partition" implying that it is propaganda: "The so-called First Polish Partition had been under discussion for some time.... Poland lost one third of its territory and one third of its population. Russia got the ancient territories of Kievan Russia and Muscovy: about 36,000 squares miles and 1.8 million people. Most of these people were ethnic Russians and Greek Orthodox in their religion."

The ethnicity and religion of Ukraine and Byelorussia is completely relevant because these people were not Polish and prior to the conquest of their land by Lithuanians who later merged with Poland, they had nothing to do with Poland. In fact, in "Polish Partitions" it was Russia that took back territory which historically belonged to her in 880-1240 as demonstrated by the above links. It is wholly incorrect and dishonest to say that the Pilsudski thugs were going after "Polish land conquered by Russia in Polish Partitions" because Poland did not go after ethnic Polish land. They went after ethnic White Russian and ethnic Ukrainian land whose people were not Catholic. As a result of Pilsudki's aggression against White Russia and Ukraine, Poland's interwar population was 23% Ukrainian and Byelorussian. These people did not want to be dominated by oppressive Polish landlords. Their early 20th century revolutionary movements aimed to give land to landless peasants from oppressive Polish landlords. The Poland did not try to "liberate land from Polish Partition" but rather aimed to rebuild their monstrous, oppressive Polish-Lithuanian Empire. The fairy tale of "Polish Partitions" is an attempt by Polish nationalists to portray their people as poor little victims when in fact Poland had been a hugely expansionist and oppressive Empire until it was justifiably eliminated by Russia and Prussia. Jacob Peters

Polish thieves sounds so ugly. It is definately offensive and wrong to say so. There are plenty of neutral terms that are much more befitting - Polish imperialists or, perhaps, Polish agressors. After all, Churchill, a man who praised Polish bravery, didn't hesitate to call Poland a "hyena" because of it's foreign policies... Ko Soi IX 23:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lies and unproven facts

Damn, this article is full of crap. For example, the article does not mention how Poland REPEATEDLY BETRAYED France - for instance, in March 12 1938 German troops entered Austria. France tried to prevent this from happening, as the french (and the soviets) feared strengthening Germany. However, there was a problem. Two days prior to that somebody killed a polish soldier on the polish-lithuanian border. Poland declined Lithuanian proposition to create a two-nation commission to deal with this problem, and instead issued an ultimatum. Germany and Poland discussed future partition of Lithuania (Germany wanted Klaipeda), however, the invasion did not happened, as on March 16 and 18 the polish ambassador to USSR met with the Soviet foreign affairs narkom, and the narkom hinted that while there is no defensive treaty between Lithuania and USSR, one could be arranged should a Polish-Lithuanian war begin. So what was France to do? Her "fatefull" ally Poland was potentially starting a conflict with USSR with a blessing from Germany. Certainly, the Poles wouldn't hear about Soviet troops passing thru their territory to fight the Germans, but they were brazen enough to accuse the french of not supporting their cause against the Lithuanians. With Poles uncooperative there was little France could do. This was the first betrayal of France by Poland. Do you want to hear more? You will. And certainly, pan prokonsul, I've got sources. Plenty. But I'll give you just one for now, it is a book by Y.Muhin "Antirossiyskaya Podlost'" which can be found here http://www.patriotica.ru/authors/muhin.html, sorry it is in Russian only, but this book has extensive and serious bibliography should a need for more sources arise. I will mobilize some more info, since this page needs some serious cleaning and upgrading. Soon to be back, with respect, Ko Soi IX 23:36, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS. A non-English book published on a 'patriotica.ru' does not strike me as a very reliable source (just as I'd be careful with a book published on 'patriotyzm.pl'). That said, this page certainly needs expantion and proper inline citations.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Damn you are fast. Certainly, that particular book has an anti-polish bias, however, it has a large and verifiable bibliography. And surely this page seems like something befiting patriotyzm.pl more than wikipedia.org. Basically, I think that whitewashing any imperialism is wrong, and that we must explain why Churchill called Poland a "hyena". With respect Ko Soi IX 23:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Churchill indeed called Poland of the 1930s a "hyena". The opinion of this wise and respected (probably the most respected in the 20th century) politician certainly should be reflected in the article. Ko Soi IX, you should not hope that this happens anytime soon, as long as the article is tended and owned by a bunch of tendentious editors who view Wikipedia as a propaganda machine for spreading nationalist agenda. The history is black and white to these guys. The Poles are always represented as innocent victims of endless "massacres" and "betrayals". You should quickly scan through all the other articles on Polish history to see what I'm talking about. I share the opinion of Renata, Scurinae, Irpen and other non-Polish wikipedians editing the Eastern European topics that Poland-related articles are the least neutral segment of Wikipedia. This is disgraceful and needs fixing by the community at large. --Ghirla -трёп- 09:59, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Are there any sources affirming that Churchill's labels were not a POV? --Brand спойт 20:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

For instance, the section about Poland's international situation does not explain why the Poles rejected french ideas about an eastern european defencive pact; the main reason was that Poland was interested in further territorial aquisitions, including those from the USSR. While the section says that "Czechoslovak suspicions of Polish territorial ambitions prevented Polish membership." it does nothing to explain, why would they be suspisious (in reality, they had all the reasons to be). The section says "the Polish regime began to act somewhat incoherently, attempting to shore up its domestic position with a series of diplomatic actions aimed at smaller neighbouring countries" but that is just an euphemism for imperialism. Also, it's an outright lie, as the Poles used not only diplomatic, but also military actions as well, as is illustrated later in this section. Now about Cieszyn. Yes, there was a significant polish minority (about 1/3), but considering polish policies towards their own minorities, this seems a bit two-faced. Also, many polish contributors object to using similar logic to the lands that were conquered by Poland in 1920s and repossessed by Russia (USSR) in 1939, on the grounds that it was merely propaganda to cover up "russian imperialism". This is all for today; soon I shall bring more information about Polish betrayals of France and the role Poland played in starting the war. With respect, Ko Soi IX 23:01, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Your revisionist and unsourced speculations are sometimes amusing, if completly unencyclopedic. But please stop repeating offensive slurrs like calling Poland 'hyena'. Thank you, -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Pan prokonsul, while it may sound like an offensive slur, it is what Churchill said about Poland. There are other remarks by him that portray a similar view of Poland. You are not going to dispute that Churchill was a serious historian, are you? You claim that those "speculations" are unsourced, but I gave you a source, and if you want, I'll find that exact book on a different web-site so that you don't cry. Surely, you may believe that it was France that betrayed Poland, not the other way around, but that's not true. If you noticed, I haven't changed anything in the article yet, as it would be futile before enough proof is presented. The reason why it is commonly believed that France betrayed Poland is hidden in post-war international relations. While both the Soviets and the Americans were interested in whitewashing polish history, none of them were interested in protecting french history. Soon I shall bring more info. With respect, Ko Soi IX 00:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

'Cause the French can not protect themselves? Mon ami, tu truveras ce que tu veux... Please be aware, however, of the NPOV policy which states: If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts; If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents; If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia. For the moment, generally, I find your views as a nice illustration of the latter. You are free to prove the contrary. Bonne chance. --Beaumont (@) 09:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mon ami, quand la vérité est cachée quelqu'un doit parler. As for the French inability to defend themselves on their own against Germany - 1940 illustrated that well; one of the reasons for that was that France still hadn't recovered from the demographic crisis created by the French Revolution. I find offensive, however, baseless attacks on the french name, i.e. accusing them of betrayal of their allies in WW2, while it clearly was not the case. What I have to agree on is that so far I haven't presented any serious sources; it's a work in progress. But since I haven't changed the article, I don't think there is a problem. With respect, Ko Soi IX 15:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Ko Soi, the French _did_ in fact behaved very badly. They assured Poland about their commitment to attack within two weeks, which was basis for Polish defensive plans. During the invasions, they _were_ still assuring Poland that they are in fact starting the offensive already. In the same time, they _knew_ that real offensive is impossible within two weeks.
As for Polish interest in acquisition from USSR, please, quote your sources. As fo Cieszyn, I always read that Poles was majority in Zaolzie, but I can;t find the data now, so let's ignore it. But you seem to ignore the international contexts in which Poland was effectively forced to act as she was by the France and GB (the annex in which the situation of Polish minority was to be considered by four powers, England, France, Germany and Italy - Poland couldn't agree for that solution). Szopen 08:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Sure, the French had interests of their own, and keeping Poland an active, fighting ally was definately one of them. But Poland also had interests of their own, and territorial aquisitions from their neighbours was definately one of them, which has created many problems for French diplomacy. On a side note, Édouard Daladier said to the american ambassador: "...if poles reject this proposition of Russian help, he's not going to send a single french peasant to defend France". While for me the concept of prometheism/międzymorze is enough proof that Poland had interest in territorial aqusitions from the USSR, I'll give you more. From Ribbentrop's diaries, this particular extempt written in Warsaw on January 26th 1939: "Mr.Bek did not hide that Poland had claims on Soviet Ukraine and on aquiring access to the Black Sea; he noted right away about dangers, that supposedly existed, in opinion of the Polish side, on creating a German-Polish treaty aimed against the Soviet Union". As for Cieszyn - regardless of reasons, it was an unsunctioned agression on the Polish side. I really despise this european tradition of double standarts - how is that Poland, that started several wars with it's neighbours (Russia, Lithuania) between 1918 and 1938, was able to care about it's minorities, and be an all-round "white fluffy virgin", while the USSR, that between 1918 and 1938 mostly fought off foreign invasions (Entente, Poland, USA, Japan (civil war and 1938), China (1929) etc) or built up it's industries is somehow an evil monster, with all it's actions deserving the darkest opinions to be cast as truth? With respect, Ko Soi IX 17:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
Could you please point me to any history books that present Poland as the "all-round white fluffy virgin"? It has been a long time since I have run into any. If you cannot point out any such books, you are simply engaging in a straw man argument. Balcer 00:24, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
To pick apart just one of your arguments, check Polish-Soviet War: Poland never invaded the Soviet Union - while SU invaded Poland. I am afraid most of your arguments can be similarly debunked.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  00:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
To Balcer: Soviet historiography has a long tradition of whitewashing polish history in the ww2 era. To Piotrus: there was no SU until 1922. Ko Soi IX 14:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Soviet historiography whitewashing Polish history? Surely you are joking. Balcer 14:21, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
Not at all. Due to Poland being an important ally to USSR during the Cold War, many historical facts that would shed unfavourable light on the poles were overlooked. The idea of French and British betraying Poland was of course amplified, while Polish betrayals would be dropped; soviet polish forces were given disproportional attention; the titanic struggle between the Commonwealth and Muscovite Russia (population - 1/3 of Commonwealth) was not given much attention by historians of that time; Polish aggresive politics during the Interbellum were not shown to everyone (ie. info about most of Polish imperialist undertakings could be found only in specialist literature); while Tsarist Russia was somewhat rehabilitated starting in mid-30s, Polish rebellions against Russian rule were not given the usual "romantic/good" status of rebellions (from Spartacus to Pugachev), but were rather overlooked by Soviet historiography as to avoid tension between allied nations. With respect, Ko Soi IX 17:02, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
Clearly Soviet historiography had many biases and some of them might have worked to Poland's advantage, so to speak. Still, the were plenty of instances in which Poles or at least Polish governments were presented in a very negative light. So, the overall effect was definitely not to achieve a completely unblemished, romantic viewpoint which you have alleged ("fluffy white virgin" and all). I fully agree with you though that Soviet historiography must be used with great caution. Balcer 19:17, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Copied from main

Under the guise of combating communism, most Belorussian schools were closed, and publications in the Belorussian language were banned. The government encouraged ethnic Poles (see Glossary) to settle in the Belorussian region, but at the same time it neglected the overall economic development of the area. The Belorussian region became an agricultural appendage to a more industrialized Poland, and unemployment and land hunger were widespread. Between 1925 and 1938, some 78,000 people emigrated from this part of Poland in search of work, mainly to France and Latin America. In 1935 Poland declared that it would no longer be bound by the League of Nations treaty on ethnic minorities, arguing that its own laws were adequate. That same year, many Belorussians in Poland who opposed the government's policies were placed in a concentration camp at Byaroza-Kartuzski (Bereza Kartuska, in Polish). The Belorussians lost their last seat in the Polish Sejm in the general elections of 1935, and the legislation that guaranteed the right of minority communities to have their own schools was repealed in November 1938. The state then involved itself more deeply in religion by attempting to Polonize the Orthodox Church and subordinate it to the government. [1]

I have moved the anon's contribution here, as 1) it replaced other text w/out explaining the reason for it 2) the reference is substandard, i.e. very vulnerable to link rot ('Do NOT bookmark these search results. Search results are stored in a TEMPORARY file for display purposes. The temporary file will be purged from our system in a few hours.') and 3) this belongs in the article on historical demographics of Poland which deals with historical minorities in Poland - or Belarusian minority in Poland (which we need to write one of those days). Last but not least, referring to Detention Camp Bereza Kartuska camp as 'concentration camp' is rather POVed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:20, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Putting Democratic Bloc in quotations is rather POV. Using the phrase "murdered in communist prisons" while at the same time white-washing Poland's abuse of Red Army soldiers as "died from disease" is rather POV . The rubbish you contribute contains systematic bias in favour of Poland and Polish nationalism.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikhail Frunze (talk • contribs).

There was no abuse of Red Army soldiers in Polish prisons.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  08:07, 13 December 2006 (UTC)