POLAND . The Unofficial Guide	Unanswered \| Archives
POLAND . The Unofficial Guide	Poland for Expats and Tourists	Witamy, Guest \| PF Members \| Gold Members

Polish Forums / History of Poland /

Why are Jews pestering Poland for "proper" WW2 monetary restitution/reparations?

page 4 of 18: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 ... 14 15 16 17 18 Next »

♂

Apr 8, 10, 04:18 #91

Bratwurst Boy:

Well...with hindsight it was not the nice thing to do.

Disappointing response, because you try to qualify it with this excuse-

Bratwurst Boy:

But as it was...you took or you were taken...those were the times.

Might makes right eh? Social Darwinism? Taken by whom - Poland? Didn't Poland have multiple chances to take away the 'nation' that was to become Germany in future but refrained from doing so?

Bratwurst Boy:

My question: What do you think of your ancestors who let that happen?

Letting it happen suggests it was a free and organic process, but it wasn't, was it. It was 3 nations ganging up on a weaker nation. I think they were scared of what Poland had stood for politically and was potentially moving towards. Despotism and absolutism didn't like it, so it was nipped in the bud.

My ancestors didn't let it happen because it wasn't as though they had a say in it. What do you think of your ancestors who let it happen and didn't do anything to stop it. Surely if we accept your proposition that Prussia was enlightened, then ergo your ancestors would have had opportunity to voice their veto of the partitions?

♂

Edited by: Bratwurst Boy Apr 8, 10, 04:24 #92

Ozi Dan:

Disappointing response, because you try to qualify it with this excuse-

Well...those were the times. I'm not judging them. I'm just reading about the partitions and about the many wars Poland was involved before, not different to any other aspiring country in Europe.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland#Decline_of_the_Polish.E 2.80.93Lithuanian_Commonwealth

Again...you took or you were taken, that was the reality for centuries. What do you want to hear?

It isn't as if Poland never tried to take something the moment they could....

dtaylor5632Threads: 49 Posts: 4,398 Joined: May 2, 09 ♂	Apr 8, 10, 04:27 #93
Will you all just get gf's and maybe try to be sleepy?? ;)

♂

Apr 8, 10, 04:34 #94

Bratwurst Boy:

I'm not judging them.

I'm not asking you to judge them. I asked if you regret what they did.

Bratwurst Boy:

Again...you took or you were token, that was the reality for centuries.

Again... taken by whom? I assume you mean that Prussia would have been taken by Poland so Prussia pre-empted that with their participation in the partition?

It's easy to defend actual events with abstract notions of supposed potential harm but there is absolutely nothing to evidence that this was the case with Poland vis a vis Prussia.

Unless of course you mean Prussia might have been taken by Austria/Russia? In that case, why didn't Prussia preemptively take from those nations, instead of riding on their coat tails and taking a share of Poland?

Bratwurst Boy:

As isn't as if Poland never tried to take something the moment they could....

Like what? An admittedly flawed but proactive and liberal form of government? Just face it - Poland was light years ahead of Prussia in terms of political consciousness and morality and Prussia didn't like it. It was scared that these notions would spill over and sow the seeds of popular government mandate into Prussia.

Kill or be killed is just a lame catch cry that everyone thinks acts as a blanket excuse for anything.

TheOtherThreads: 5 Posts: 1,441 Joined: Jul 13, 09 ♂	Apr 8, 10, 04:44 #95
Ozi Dan: but if you mean ceased then I disagree Ooops, sorry. Yes, I meant 'ceased'. Gotta go. I'll answer tomorrow.

♂

Edited by: Bratwurst Boy Apr 8, 10, 04:49 #96

Ozi Dan:

I'm not asking you to judge them. I asked if you regret what they did.

Regretting having annexed another people? Yes, that was not a nice thing to do,period!
But these times were like this...and what would had happened without it?
For example:

http://www.answers.com/topic/partitions-of-poland

...
The basic causes leading to the three successive partitions (1772, 1793, 1795) that eliminated Poland from the map were the decay and the internal disunity of Poland and the emergence of its neighbors, Russia and Prussia, as leading European powers. The first partition was proposed when Frederick II of Prussia feared that Russia was about to take the Danubian principalities from the Ottoman Empire and thus provoke an Austro-Russian war.

Poland now was a pawn in the power games of Prussia, Austria, Russia, the Ottomans, the Swedes and what not...

Ozi Dan:

I assume you mean that Prussia would have been taken by Poland so Prussia pre-empted that with their participation in the partition?

Are you playing daft with purpose? How much do you know about european history? I gather you are not a European?
For many centuries borders were changed, whole countries annexed, war and peace changing....that was the way of Europe!

Poland descended into anarchy precisely because they were involved in so many wars before...

Ozi Dan:

Poland was light years ahead of Prussia in terms of political consciousness and morality and Prussia didn't like

Better read that link and some books:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Poland#Decline_of_the_Polish.E 2.80.93Lithuanian_Commonwealth

War, destruction, economic breakdown, social disintegration

Nothing to do with Prussia and at the time of the first partition surely no role model for anybody anymore.

Bye

♀

Edited by: Bzibzioh Apr 8, 10, 04:50 #97

Bratwurst Boy:

And as we now know far to much hassle, Poles make mean subordinates!!!

And don't you forget that!!!

:)

Bratwurst Boy:

Poles in the annexed part became prussian citizens...

Well, I'll bet they didn't chose to be ones. They were forced to be ones. See the difference? Forced citizen is not a loyal and useful citizen.

Bratwurst Boy:

Poland descended into anarchy precisely because they were involved in so many wars before...

Go back to Wiki, dear ...

♂

Edited by: Bratwurst Boy Apr 8, 10, 04:52 #98

Bzibzioh:

And don't you forget that!!!

:)

Promised! :)

Bzibzioh:

Well, I'll bet they didn't chose to be ones. They were forced to be ones. See the difference? Forced citizen is not a loyal and useful citizen.

Well, I learned that most Poles actually thrived in Prussia, their numbers grew, they prospered, a middle class got more and more influence, they used the relative freedom of press and expression, they took part in the elections, even more Poles immigrated into Prussia...
I don't think there was a united anti-prussian front, especially as Prussia had as the most modern state alot to offer for it's new citizens and alot of Poles took it.

But yes, annexing another people is bad...but at least they weren't expelled as the Germans were in the annexed german territories later.

Bzibzioh:

Go back to Wiki, dear ...

Oh I'm coming from there...just read the index ;)
As in:

...
Seeking preponderance in Eastern Europe
Moldavia
War with Sweden
Attempts to subordinate Russia
Conflicts with the Ottoman Empire and Crimean Khanate...

...and so on!

*waves*

BzibziohThreads: 6 Posts: 3,657 Joined: Oct 15, 08 ♀	Edited by: Bzibzioh Apr 8, 10, 05:12 #99
Bratwurst Boy: Oh I'm coming from there...just read the index ;) Try this one: in the 17th and 18th centuries the Polish legislature, the Sejm, operated on the unanimity principle: any member could nullify legislation by shouting “I do not allow”. This made the nation largely ungovernable and neighbouring regimes began hacking off pieces of its territory. And you are welcome!

♂

Edited by: Bratwurst Boy Apr 8, 10, 05:15 #100

Bzibzioh:

Try this one: In the 17th and 18th centuries the Polish legislature, the Sejm, operated on the unanimity principle: any member could nullify legislation by shouting “I do not allow”. This made the nation largely ungovernable and neighbouring regimes began hacking off pieces of its territory

I read about that too...but

War, destruction, economic breakdown, social disintegration

has more to do with it I think....

Ireallyhavetogonow!

BzibziohThreads: 6 Posts: 3,657 Joined: Oct 15, 08 ♀	Apr 8, 10, 05:18 #101
Bratwurst Boy: has more to do with it I think... You can think what you like but you are wrong. Why I'm so nice tonight? Sometimes I amaze myself ;)

♂

Apr 8, 10, 06:10 #102

TheOther:

I'll answer tomorrow.

Sure thing. Catch you around.

Bratwurst Boy:

But these times were like this...and what would had happened without it?

Poland would probably have remained sovereign and un-partioned?? Dunno?? What's the answer when someone says what would have happened if I didn't steal something from you? I'll take a real stab here and guess that the thing wouldn't be stolen...

Bratwurst Boy:

Are you playing daft with purpose?

How can one who is daft be daft with purpose? Being daft presupposes that you have no purpose, doesn't it? Oh, I see, you're pretending to be daft with purpose by saying my daftness is purposeful, but your real purpose is to purposely pose a daft question when you know that a daft answer will prurposely be given. Understand?

By the way - nice way of avoiding my proposition that if Prussia thought it was going to be taken by a nation it should have pre-emptively taken them instead. It's daft to think that I would miss that or your other non responses. Are you pruposely being daft in not responding or is it the case that you have no legitimate answer and are again trying to smoke and mirror me?

Bratwurst Boy:

I gather you are not a European?

The "Ozi" in my nick certainly doesn't suggest I'm Austrian.

Bratwurst Boy:

Poland descended into anarchy precisely because they were involved in so many wars before...

Insightful. And here I thought we were talking about the partition and Prussia's role in it, but yet again, you choose to deflect with obtuse and irrelevant arguments. In any event, the involvement in so many wars was certainly not the precise cause of Poland's decline into anarchy. It may have precipitated and caused the underlying destabilising effect that propelled the political vacuum that ensued in anarchy, but it was not the principle cause.

Bratwurst Boy:

Better read that link and some books:

Great response! When I'm next confronted with a tricky proposition that I don't agree with but can't argue against, I'll tell my adversary to go read a book. Can you tell me what book to read and precisely what I should be looking out for, because you are effectively saying that your response will be contained within the text of such book. As I can't read minds, you'll need to let me know what from the book backs up your position.

Bratwurst Boy:

Bye

Ah, the joy of the internet forum. When you've got nothing relevant to say, say bye, log out and pretend it's all going to go away... no 'donning of helmet' this time eh? And here I thought you said you were going to defend Prussia in one of your old posts? I suppose you can't polish a turd though, can you...

Bratwurst Boy:

But yes, annexing another people is bad...but at least they weren't expelled as the Germans were in the annexed german territories later.

So sorry - but it was a case of expel or be expelled. You know,

Bratwurst Boy:

those were the times.

Actually, I'll qualify that and say that the expulsion of Germans was wrong purely because German children were adversely effected and probably suffered horribly as a result of the expulsion. To my mind, children, no matter what nationality, are sacred and sacrosanct, and any act that effects children adversely should be abhorred as an evil. I hope your nation has learned that poisoning your own children's minds and giving them guns to kill others, as it did in the past, is reprehensible - think carefully if you intend to reply with 'those were the times'.

SeanusThreads: 22 Posts: 30,160 Joined: Dec 25, 07 ♂	Apr 8, 10, 07:59 #103
Media Watch, what did you understand by my post? You seem to be arguing the same as me yet trying to contest me. I don't think spurious claims should be entertained. What claims are really valid?

convexThreads: 47 Posts: 7,189 Joined: Nov 25, 09 ♂	Apr 8, 10, 12:04 #104
Ozi Dan: Insightful. And here I thought we were talking about the partition and Prussia's role in it What was Poland's role in the partition? Did Poland fight to defend its sovereignty, or did the people accept that their leaders sold them out?

BzibziohThreads: 6 Posts: 3,657 Joined: Oct 15, 08 ♀	Apr 8, 10, 12:44 #105
convex: Did Poland fight to defend its sovereignty, or did the people accept that their leaders sold them out? Yes, Poland fought. And lost. This thread is not about partition of Poland.

convexThreads: 47 Posts: 7,189 Joined: Nov 25, 09 ♂	Apr 8, 10, 12:51 #106
Bzibzioh: Yes, Poland fought. And lost. It definately seems to have gone that way, and there were a couple of skirmishes, but all in all, Polish leadership sold out their countrymen and it went pretty quietly.

BzibziohThreads: 6 Posts: 3,657 Joined: Oct 15, 08 ♀	Edited by: Bzibzioh Apr 8, 10, 13:01 #107
convex: It definately seems to have gone that way, and there were a couple of skirmishes, but all in all, Polish leadership sold out their countrymen and it went pretty quietly. You don't know much about Polish history. Kościuszko's uprising was anything but little skirmish. And besides: what's your point?

♂

Apr 8, 10, 13:32 #108

Ozi Dan:

Once again, where is the copy of the invitation you purport exists? I have given you many months to procure it and you've come up with: an itinerary!

Once again, p. 505 of Rising '44 by Norman Davies provides the correct factual matrix and surprise, surprise, it is different to your version of events.

Sorry Danny Boy but as usual you picked the wrong source to lie about. When I turn to page 505 of Rising ’44, I see the following text “an official invitation was sent to the Government in Warsaw,” but you try to claim that Poland was not invited. As I read down I see that invitations were sent to General Boor [sic], the chiefs of the Polish Air Force and the Polish Navy and to individual generals. And as I read further down the page I find out that not only were Polish pilots in the RAF were invited join the parade but that they actually joined the parade! And so did Polish men and women who had worked in the ground crews! So, according to Davies: Poland was invited to take part in the parade, Polish representatives were invited to take part in the parade and Poles actually took part in the parade. I didn’t know that Poles actually took part in the parade, obviously I didn’t read that book carefully enough the first time. Thanks for pointing out the page where Davies finally nails your lie Danny Boy.

ZIMMY:

Only you could have intentionally misinterpreted General Anders comments in "An Army in Exile". As a reminder, from his book:

"An invitation was, however, extended to twenty-five airmen from amongst those Polish airmen who had had so big a share in the Battle of Britain.

So Anders is saying that Polish airmen were invited to the parade. Good to know that you understand Poles were invited.

ZIMMY:

Commenting on the victory parade, Minister Harold Macmillan noted

Do try slightly harder. MacMillan was a member of the Conservative party, the government of Britain in 1946 was from the Labour party: therefore it is impossible that MacMillan was a minister at that time. Sorry to again bring up these things called facts.

rychlik:

You're an ignorant piece of s'hit. Poland was a devastated country. Whatever compensation went to Poland, Moscow got the first dibs on it. Russians are filthy thieves. Poles got some compensation but not as much as they should've. Stalin did not allow the Poles to participate in the London parades and the Brits were afraid of upsetting the Soviet Union. As well, the Soviets did not allow Poland to get any compensation after the war from the West (ex. USA).

So your beef is with the USSR: they stole your reparations. And whine to them about missing out on compensation from the west: the west offered and Poland said no.

Marek11111Threads: 49 Posts: 1,870 Joined: Aug 6, 09 MEMBER ♂	Apr 8, 10, 16:58 #109
Harry you always posting the same garbage in your posts in any discussion, do me a favor just shut the f*** up you idiot.

♂

Apr 8, 10, 17:27 #110

Marek11111:

Harry you always posting the same garbage in your posts in any discussion, do me a favor just shut the f*** up you idiot.

How classic of you Marek: when faced with the cold hard facts that show you are nothing more than a liar, you just retreat into a world where posts consist of nothing other than personal abuse and vulgarity. Have you nothing to say about how even Poland’s favourite historian (and holder of honourary degrees from the Jagiellonian University, Lublin University, Gdańsk University and Warsaw University) shows that Poles lie about Poland not being invited to the Victory Parade and about Poles not taking part in that parade? Show us your intellect!

richasisThreads: 5 Posts: 833 Joined: Jul 25, 09 ♂	Edited by: richasis Apr 8, 10, 19:28 #111
Harry: the cold hard facts Just when the experts had me convinced of 'the cold hard fact' of 6,000,000 holocaust dead, they go ahead and revise that number downward to 4,000,000, and then again to 1,500,000. Gee, I wonder if we'll witness the same downward revision with respect to their financial loss. [url=http://www.whale.to/b/holocaust_death_stats.html][/url]

HarryThreads: 60 Posts: 8,191 Joined: May 2, 07 ♂	Apr 8, 10, 19:35 #112
richasis: Gee, I wonder if we'll witness the same downward revision with respect to their financial loss. What do you think that Polish government has been doing for the past 21 years?!

♂

Apr 8, 10, 19:52 #113

Harry:

So Anders is saying that Polish airmen were invited to the parade.

That's right, only the airmen were invited.

Harry:

Good to know that you understand Poles were invited.

That's right, only the airmen were invited.

Since you are myopic when it comes to logic perhaps this example will illustrate your (intentional) error. If you are an instructor in a classroom and 30 of your students graduate, do you only get credit for one of them being successful and ignore the rest?

Harry:

. MacMillan was a member of the Conservative party, the government of Britain in 1946 was from the Labour party: therefore it is impossible that MacMillan was a minister at that time. Sorry to again bring up these things called facts.

I did not state that he was the leader, merely that he was a minister; in this case, a "Resident Minister at Allied Headquarters".

Harry:

Poles lie about Poland not being invited to the Victory Parade

So 30 of your students graduated but you only gave credit to one, right?

♂

Apr 8, 10, 20:03 #114

ZIMMY:

That's right, only the airmen were invited.

So, Poles were invited. The airmen, leaders from the west and representatives from the east.

ZIMMY:

That's right, only the airmen were invited.

So, Poles were invited. The airmen, leaders from the west and representatives from the east.

ZIMMY:

If you are an instructor in a classroom and 30 of your students graduate, do you only get credit for one of them being successful and ignore the rest?

So in your eyes all of the Poles should have been invited. Just as all the Americans were invited. Oh, wait a minute, the American Army and the American Navy were excluded while their airforce was invited! But they are bittching, moaning, whining and lying about it to this day. Or do you mean just as the Russians were invited? Oh, wait a minute, the Soviet Army and the Soviet Navy and the Soviet airforce were not invited! But they are bittching, moaning, whining and lying about it to this day.

ZIMMY:

I did not state that he was the leader, merely that he was a minister; in this case, a "Resident Minister at Allied Headquarters".

Please stop lying: MacMillan was not Resident Minister at Allied Headquarters in 1946. He left that position in 1945 when the Conservative party lost the general election.

Marek11111Threads: 49 Posts: 1,870 Joined: Aug 6, 09 MEMBER ♂	Apr 8, 10, 20:26 #115
Harry why you keep coming back to the same topics in any treads, can you stick to a tread and stop your hatred towards Poland. or you been planted by higher power to spread hate until Poland pays the extortionists?

HarryThreads: 60 Posts: 8,191 Joined: May 2, 07 ♂	Apr 8, 10, 20:41 #116
Marek11111: you been planted by higher power to spread hate until Poland pays the extortionists? Hahahahaha! Hahahahaha! As if anybody gives enough of a flying fcuk about Poland to pay somebody to say bad things about Poland! By the way, nice to see you addressing the issues rather than distracting attention from the issues by focusing exclusively on me.

Marek11111Threads: 49 Posts: 1,870 Joined: Aug 6, 09 MEMBER ♂	Apr 8, 10, 21:39 #117
then why you doing it Harry?

HarryThreads: 60 Posts: 8,191 Joined: May 2, 07 ♂	Apr 8, 10, 21:56 #118
Marek11111: then why you doing it Harry? You know how there is an equal and opposite reaction for each action? Well, you, Danny Boy, whoever tells a lie about Poland and then I tell the truth (with the evidence to back what I say).

Marek11111Threads: 49 Posts: 1,870 Joined: Aug 6, 09 MEMBER ♂	Apr 8, 10, 23:20 #119
Harry but your evidence is half truths and misleading statements in one word your evidence is crap. you are being delusional and dishonest is that you main purpose ?

♂

Apr 9, 10, 01:55 #120

Harry:

Sorry Danny Boy but as usual you picked the wrong source to lie about.

Did I? Let's have a look at an exchange we had regarding this issue some time ago:

Harry:

Ozi Dan:
The Poles were invited to the VE Day Parade but didn't bother to turn up, did they? A. Certain individual Poles were invited on the night before the parade when it became apparent tot he organisers that the Communist faction wouldn't show.
Please stop with the lies. Invites were issued to free Poles “a week or so” after news of the parade was announced. See http://www.geocities.com/skrzydla/Victory_parade.html (written by a Pole who says two lines later “every Englishman was a S.O.B. in our eyes”).

Unfortunately for you, the lie lies in the fact that you say I lied about no Poles ever being invited, when I never said that. See how easy it is to lie about what someone else said when you try to prove a lie you said with another one of your lies. Owned again, aren't you.

Out of interest, having regard to p.505, please elaborate on:

1. when the invitations were sent to certain free Poles (2nd sent., 2nd para.);
2. why the invites were sent at that time (1st sent., 2nd para.);
3. precisely who those free Poles were who were invited (2nd sent., 2nd para.)
4. the invitees response (last sent., 2nd para.).
5. the result of the above vis the participation at the parade (1st sent., 3rd para.);
6. which Poles did not participate in the parade (2nd and 3rd sent., 3rd para.).

To use your own words,

Harry:

Thanks for pointing out the page where Davies finally nails your lie

It's always a nice touch to use a liar's own words to point that out to them. Thanks Hazza!!

convex:

What was Poland's role in the partition? Did Poland fight to defend its sovereignty, or did the people accept that their leaders sold them out?

Poland by that stage was really in no fit state to organise any real form of cohesive resistance because its government by that stage had been significantly weakened both by internal forces and external pressure. There were 3 stages to the partition, the first occurring in the 1770's and the next two in the 1790's (I think) with the last in 1795.

By that stage, the real ethnic 'rulers' were the minority magnates, who had effectively become clients of foreign powers. I know it's hard to believe but they actually formed a confederation allied to the foreign powers when patriotic Poles tried eleventh hour legal reforms to do away with certain legal privileges that had by that time been used by those foreign powers to manipulate the magnates. The concensus seems to be that the magnates identified themselves as 'being Poland' and consequently did not want to limit their democratic prerogatives (ie liberum veto). Anecdotally, I went to Uni and was friends with a descendant of the magnate Jan Branicki, who signed one of the papers ratifying the last partition. My friend was adamant that it was a necessary act of realpolitik and agreed with his ancestors actions.

Examples of resistance were the Bar conferederates and Kosciuszko's insurrections, to name a few (this is the main reason why Kosciuszko is revered to this day). These were more 'grass roots' movements though because their was no cogent, organically Polish government to offer resistance, the 'government' per se now also really being a client of foreign rule. This is all off the top of my head, so I stand to be corrected. If you're interested however I strongly recommend 'God's Playground' by Davies and 'Liberty's Folly' by Jerzy Lukowski for detailed analysis of how Poland's democracy atrophied in the late C17 and early C18.

page 4 of 18: « Prev 1 2 3 4 5 ... 14 15 16 17 18 Next »

Home / History of Poland /

Unanswered [this forum] | Similar

Similar discussions:

2nd Polish Corps Monte Cassino Commemorative Cross - can numbers be attributed?

American pilots volunteers in Polish-Soviet war 1920

Random: 3 Polish Lenten soups

Only registered and logged-in users may post here. Please log in or register.

Home \| Unanswered \| Archives \| Random \| Statistics	Time in Poland: 08:34 / Feb 23
About Us \| Contact Us \| Rules, Privacy \| Poland Advertising	© 2005-12 PolishForums.com