Polish myths. Poland is one of the countries that count in the world.

What for, Matyjasz?
East Europe doesn't give any benefit to Russia. These are quite subdevelopped countries. The only reason why Russia is anxious about them is their possible transit blackmail.
As to Ukraine, remember only one thing. In 1990 Poland had to pay world prices for gas. That was a tremendous period but Poles survived with idea that it is the price of independence. After Yushenko victory Ukranians denied any possibility to pay Russia for gas the same price as Poland. That could mean that an average Ukranian with 180 dollars salary would receive some 15 dollars less for some 1-2 years. The majority didn't want to pay such maney for independence. USA Government supported Ukranians in their desire to pay less to Russia altough 16 years earlier Poland had to cope with its energetical problems.
That is the Ukranian independence.

Doesn't seem to be so. You don't take into account Ukraine, Belarus and Latvia. They occupy territory from Black to Baltic seas and can blackmail Russia and other countries by gas transit. Poland will also have problems with Ukraine. As to Ukraine its growth is real and has prospects. Russia won't be able to interrupt it. In this case Poland will be interested in Baltic gas tube. Poland can cope with its problems but as to Ukraine I'm not sure

The generations of 45 years and younger in Russia aren't interested in territories away from today Russian borders. They know the main challenges and the main prospects are within today Russian territory. Russia as superpower doesn't attract the majority of population because it is not profitable and takes Russian away from solving its own problems.
Some 34% are satisfied by today fronteers and this percentage grows.
But the West provokes Russians.
The Kosovo problem can strengthen those who want to use it as precedent in South Osetia, Abhasia and South Ukraine. It will be more uneasy to persuade the man in the street that Kosovo is one thing and Osetia is quite different (by the way do you know any difference? I don't).
Antimissil awakes military budget vampires. They feel themselves better in case of confrontation.
Lugovoj extradition demand is quite a crazy thing. In 1993 Russian conservative perlament who opposed to democratic changes and new Constitution adoption was bombed by tanks. I was the witness. Approximately 150 of its defensores were killed. They were enemies of president and new Russia (sometimes protesting against changes) but that was Russian blood. And now Russia should forget its blood by British desire to forget Russian constitution adopted following that bombing.
The most interesting fact is that the West doesn't have any force to make Russia follow its desire. And no profitable proposaks to millions of Russians.
That's the reason why we have this situation.
As to Poland...
Well? do you think there are profitable proposals the EU can make? Think on that and you won't be anxious about German attitude

Acctually, my favorite skijumper is Adam Malysz(did i spell that right?) And wasn't Chopin from Poland?

Sometimes united nature of the EU is also in use. For example Russia received a wide oportunity to ignore its EU neighbours from East Europe by the pretext they are not independent enough and problems with them can be solved on level of EU. Thete are many examples of the sort.
As to EU collisions, they are also a reality the exists despite Russia. These collisions won't desappear by the reason that there are very different countries within EU and collisions are possible. Russia uses both collisions and united nature.

I'm sure Germany can have a good business in Poland as well as in Russia All these activities can't contradict one to another. Polish business is also represented in Russia, not only German one.
As to gas challenge, Poland seem to be interested in it in the same degree as Germany. As far as I know gas use per capita in Poland is the same as in Germany. Yuo have tubes only from Russia but even if gas from Central Asia goes to Europe by tubes away from Russia, yuo will continue buyng Russian gas. No way to ignore Russia is possible because Cantral Asia isn't so democratic and secure. So the situation may change only a little.
Even if gas is substituted by nuclear power stations and biofuel (quite a logical thing), I don't think EU is going to admit complete isolation of Russia. There are many Nations surrounding EU and with all these Nations EU may have problems. That's the reason why any isolation is admissible.

So Germans seem to think on problems everybody in the EU should think. The reason for polish criticism can exist only if Poles already have proposals what to do with Russia and but Germans reject these interesting ideas.

So, Matyjasz,
You are offered to represent Polish (at least your own) vision on:
1. How to contribute to Russian democratization. Ideas about Human Rights controle are not admitted by the reason that no controle is possible for forceless people. Idea of strengthening of Kasianov's opposition is also out of discussion by the use by such oposition of extremist Limonov's commandos.
2. What shall EU propose to Russia. Shall Russia feel comfort if the Nation takes into account EU demands?

These are quite easy questions. If you answer them Germans will feel a great shame

As an Australian I can assure you that in the early 1980’s during Solidarnosc (forgive spelling) Poland was headline news every night. And of course again in 1989.

However, in Australia we live near the Solomon Islands (recent civil war), East Timor (likewise – and only recently independent from Indonesia), Fiji (recent military coup) – broadly an unstable region. Europe as a whole is now fairly stable which is a good thing but it does tend to make the news from there comparatively dull. So it is not just Poland not getting into the news it is most of Europe. (Germany and France are in the news a lot because of their opposition to the Iraq war)

On the flip side how often does Australia get mentioned in Poland????



The guys name was Paul Edmund de Strzelecki (probably not originally Paul but the Polish equivalent). Great explorer and Polish Patriot - not necessarily a great speller - the mountain was called Mt Kosciusko (pronounced Koz - zee -osk - ko - not much like Tadeusz...). That error was not noted for manym many years.

As in Russia Australia isn't mentioned often in mass media. Poland more frequently but also it is not among the first more mentioned states.
In my opinion not frequently mentioning in mas media is the asset of a Nation.
Mass media usually write about states that have troubles. If the life is stabilized TV and papers loose any interest. You should be happy mass media in the world doesn't pay attention to your country!

Truhlei, summerizing from all of your posts I have read in this forum (not only those above quotes), are you happy if I deem you as a 'Practical Autocratist' (Putinist)? If you represent the opinion of majority of Russians (possibly), then obviously Russia itself has progressed a lot. Though I feel that as the Poles are so ardently individualistic, all your writings may never be convincing enough!
Regards.

Stefan,

Sometimes words people write say nothing about the object of these words, but a lot about the author. Your post isn't really about Poland. I think, however, it reveals a lot about your limited knowledge of the subject.

In my opinion, if Poland would be a person, I would say it would be a very uncertain person who doesn't have a strong believe in it's own potential. I think recent emigrations are a prove of that.

I thought it was a british invention - designed by a Geordie for use on boats.
The hinged windscreen wiper, I thought, was invented by an American woman.
Someone enlighten me.

Polish part of the invention was the rubbery thingie on the wipers.

Poland Will become one of the top superpowers in the next 15 years.

I don't want to be nagging or something, but the First World War was not started by Germany, but by Austria-Hungary and actually all the European participants except Belgium and Luxembourg were to blame for it's coming to be.
(Alphabetical)
Austria-Hungary: simply wanted to show their muscles in revenge against small Serbia where it did not have any muscles.
Bulgaria: simply wanted revenge for the lost Second Balkans War and felt betrayed by it's fellow Slavic countries
France: had been stirring up things in Europe ever since the lost Napoleontic wars and European politics (Metternich and the Concert of Europe) were aimed at preventing France from ever developing Napoleontic dreams again. Furthermore they sought revenge for the lost Franco-Prussian war.
Germany: had the bad luck to be suddenly in 1871 the biggest and strongest country in Western and Central Europe. This made them naturally look suspicious in the eyes of the British (although they were mainly concerned about their naval presence). It also had the bad luck that Kaiser William 2 came to power in 1888. It's attitude towards Austria's politics was ambivalent: at first it encouraged Austria and, after seeing the Serb answer to the ultimatum of 25 July 1914 declared that there was no reason for war.
Great Britain: Could have made its intentions clear in the early days of the July-crisis, but didn't. Didn't care about Belgium, it was only the idea of Belgian harbours (and of course as the Dutch were pro-German in those days) the Dutch ports in German hands right before their nose. In fact, Britain could have stopped all of it if King George would have pressurized William 2 to stop Austria. But he did not. Also, British-German relations were easing up considerably in the early months of 1914.
Italy: played along for Southern Tyrolia. The Italian decision not to adhere to previous promises of joining Austria and Germany, but instead to join the allies was solely taken by one man, it's prime minister. In the Alps the Italians have never been able to win from the Austrians.
Russia: perhaps the biggest perpetrator. Seeking more influence to the West and a change to take revenge on Austria for the 1878 war. Nicolas could have stopped Russian involvement, but he was too weak to stop his generals and he was generally not liked by his ppl. It was the Russian mobilisation that set things in motion for WW1, what would have been normally a local Balkans-conflict.
Serbia: had been festering the atmosphere in Europe for over a decade at the time, all in search of their dream: the Pan-Slavic state. Politician had few sympathies for the Serbs, they were called King-killers as they killed their own king and the crown prince of Austria. While it had been messing around with its Slavic neighbours for a few years at the time, it now was messing with the wrong guy.

I leave Turkey out of this as the war against the Ottoman Empire has the mess we have in the Middle East nowadays as a consequense. Also, I leave Poland out of this as Poland at the time was not a country de facto: split by three other countries, it was not on the map at the time.

M-G

Germany started WW1 on purpose when its leaders decided that the moment was the best to hit.They had been preparing for this war for more than a decade.However they lost the war because of the mistake to overestimate the russian danger and send there more divisions than needed with the result of weakening the western front and abandoning crucial operations the Schliffen plan ordered.That is they changed the original Schliffen plan with devastating consequences.

Why are you so keen on blaming the Germans only Southern?
Which sources do you have?
Maybe you should brush up your knowledge...here is a good link:

firstworldwar



I would point the finger rather at Serbia which started this massacre!

First world war - causes

Almost all historians outside Germany and even some german ones agree.
Anyway I take into account the research of Liddel Hurt who was a military historian and very objective.
The Germans had their plan to attack(plan Schliffen) ready from 1904 and worked it to the slightest detail.They had counted that the french army would require 40 days at least to complete its mobilization,during which the german army would have advanced to very advantageous positions.The russian army would need more than 2 months to complete mobilization due to more primitive transportation means,worse roads etc.

So what happened?The French been heavily pressed during the first two weeks by Germans begged the Tsar to start his attack on Pommern before his army was ready.The Tsar agreed to sacrifice thousands of his soldiers and two russian armies entered Prussia causing great damages to german infrastructure.The german marshall Pridvitc did not count that the Russians would attack before their full mobilization and after one not decisive battle he decided to withdraw his forces behind Wistula river ready to withdraw even behind Oder.

When he announced his objective to retreat so far to Kaiser,the Kaiser immediately requested his retirement and replaced him with Hindenburg sending divisions from western front to the East by train.Hindenburg later won the battle of Tannenberg and smashed the one russian army,however the chance to defeat France was lost for Germans cause the removal of these divisions striped them of the extra force needed to penetrate the western front.The Germans simply lacked the power for that.

Please cite some...

Your post has nothing to do with the causes for this war and that Germany planned WWI for a decade is plain a lie! And of course you can't bring any sources for that.
(And no, building up a navy is not a declaration of war)

(Because this view point to only fault Germany was already out of date shortly after the war)

URL



In short and easy words:

Germany unified in 1871 building a powerful country upsetting the centuries old "balance" between Great Britain and France about who should run the continent.

Germany unused to her muscles and plagued with an idiot of a Kaiser wants also something of what the british Empire and the french Empire already had....getting annoyed by the old bullies rejection of the new kid on the block.

Tensions arose...alliances were build....Europe becomes a powder keg which is lit by a Serb as he assassinated the Archduke.

Austria-Hungary boils and goes to war with Serbia...Serbs run to Russia...Russia mobilizes...Germany is alllied with Austria and declares war and mobilizes and invades Belgium on the way to Paris seeing that as the only way to actually have a fighting chance between GB/France on one side and Russia on the other side...

The rest is history!

except they had a full year to sort that out after the vast majority of the russian forces simply upped and went home. No,they "lost" the war because of,and I hate to admit this,they realised that the US build up and potential was just far to great.

The US should have let the europeans squabble alone...maybe without their meddling there wouldn't had been a Treaty of Versailles, no Hitler and no WWII...

What's wrong with the Treaty of Versailles? ;P

Someone got very angry and decided to do something about that....his names starts with an A.
Making beneficiaries pay dearly for it...

:)

The most important thing is that this angry man and his "few" supporters were eventually content with the outcome of their actions, right? :)

They were??? That's news to me...