PolishForums.com
POLAND . The Unofficial Guide
 Unanswered | Archives
Welcome to Poland! Witamy, Guest | PF Members | Gold Members

Polish Forums / Society, Culture /

Found an Interesting Book about Poland by an American Author, dated 1907


page 2 of 2:  « Prev  1  2 posts: 50

SokratesThreads: 19
Posts: 4,464
Joined: Jan 19, 09 ♂ [Suspended] 		 Jun 3, 10, 22:37    #31
TheOther:
Well, not my fault that you got indoctrinated by your commie history teacher... ;)

Interesting, so all the British, French and even German statesmen who's comments i'm parroting were thought by commies as well?:)
Mr GrunwaldThreads: 34
Posts: 2,358
Joined: Dec 16, 08 ♂ 		 Jun 3, 10, 22:53    #32
Sokrates:
Interesting, so all the British, French and even German statesmen who's comments i'm parroting were thought by commies as well?:)

I bet he thinks that ;p
MatyjaszThreads: 2
Posts: 1,786
Joined: Jul 20, 06 ♂ 		 Jun 3, 10, 23:14    #33
TheOther:
The areas were annexed, not occupied...


But isn't it just nitpicking on words, just like with the issue whether Katyń was a genocide or not? Tell me, what exactly is the difference between annexed and occupied in this particular situation?
TheOtherThreads: 5
Posts: 1,584
Joined: Jul 13, 09 ♂ 		Edited by: TheOther  Jun 3, 10, 23:46    #34
Matyjasz:
what exactly is the difference between annexed and occupied in this particular situation

I use the Wikipedia definitions, if you don't mind.

Occupation:
Military occupation occurs when the control and authority over a territory passes to a hostile army.

An occupied geo-political entity is not necessarely dissolved.


Annexation:
Is the de jure incorporation of some territory into another geo-political entity. Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized and held by one state that tries to make its move legitimate by being recognised by the other international bodies (i.e. countries and intergovernmental organisations).

The annexation of the Polish territory was recognized by most nations; thus the country officially ceased to exist.
madparasolThreads: 2
Posts: 15
Joined: Feb 25, 10 ♂ 		 Jun 4, 10, 01:36    #35
I don't get it. I post what I think is an interesting subject. Provide a link to the book which spotlights the Poles under the Partition years through American eyes. Yet somehow this thread has mutated into a bickering over semantics, neo-nazism and overall absolutely nothing that has to do with the topic.

All I ask for is some opinions on the book.
TheOtherThreads: 5
Posts: 1,584
Joined: Jul 13, 09 ♂ 		 Jun 4, 10, 02:05    #36
madparasol:
All I ask for is some opinions on the book

The content looks interesting, that's all I can say at the moment.

madparasol:
Yet somehow this thread has mutated into a bickering over semantics, neo-nazism and overall absolutely nothing that has to do with the topic.

Welcome to the world of PF... ;)
madparasolThreads: 2
Posts: 15
Joined: Feb 25, 10 ♂ 		 Jun 4, 10, 02:11    #37
TheOther:
Annexation is a unilateral act where territory is seized and held by one state that tries to make its move legitimate by being recognised by the other international bodies (i.e. countries and intergovernmental organisations).

Well done! Great definition to a meaningless word in this case.

"seized and held by one state that tries to make its move legitimate by being recognised by the other international bodies"

Gee..i wonder how hard it would have been to convince the Royal Seeded Europe that a Democratic Poland was bad for business.

Lets take a step back and see what was happening at the time.

"Stanislaw August's process of renovation reached its climax on May 3, 1791, when, after three years of intense debate, the "Four Years' Sejm" produced Europe's first written constitution." http://countrystudies.us/poland/11.htm

"Destruction of Poland-Lithuania

Passage of the constitution alarmed nobles who would lose considerable stature under the new order. In autocratic states such as Russia, the democratic ideals of the constitution also threatened the existing order, and the prospect of Polish recovery threatened to end domination of Polish affairs by its neighbors. In 1792 domestic and foreign reactionaries combined to end the democratization process. Polish conservative factions formed the Confederation of Targowica and appealed for Russian assistance in restoring the status quo. Catherine gladly used this opportunity; enlisting Prussian support, she invaded Poland under the pretext of defending Poland's ancient liberties. The irresolute Stanislaw August capitulated, defecting to the Targowica faction. Arguing that Poland had fallen prey to the radical Jacobinism then at high tide in France, Russia and Prussia abrogated the Constitution of May 3, carried out a second partition of Poland in 1793, and placed the remainder of the country under occupation by Russian troops." http://countrystudies.us/poland/11.htm

The Polish Partitions were systematic means for the Autocratic States to make sure that Poland did not become a democracy. They did not want to see a strong Poland because they feared it and knew that they couldn't control it to serve their ends.

BTW
The book mentions that it was during the last years of the Sobieski rule that the Commonwealth started to decline.
pg.152

http://www.archive.org/stream/polandknightamon00vannuoft#page/152/mode /2up
TheOtherThreads: 5
Posts: 1,584
Joined: Jul 13, 09 ♂ 		Edited by: TheOther  Jun 4, 10, 03:03    #38
madparasol:
"seized and held by one state that tries to make its move legitimate by being recognised by the other international bodies"

The nations that partitioned Poland tried and succeeded in making their moves legit, because "Amid the distractions of the French Revolution and its attendant wars, however, no state actively opposed the annexations" (from the source you mentioned: http://countrystudies.us/poland/11.htm , last paragraph).

madparasol:
The Polish Partitions were systematic means for the Autocratic States to make sure that Poland did not become a democracy

That and simple imperialism.
Chicago PollockThreads: 10
Posts: 638
Joined: Apr 10, 10 ♂ 		 Jun 4, 10, 06:27    #39
Wow! I mean...wow! you most certainly are a "pollack" polak...

From the book:

"Ancient Poland had no middle class, no bourgeoisie, A class so necessary for the perpetuity of a nation. It was in consequence of this inequality in the national character, and as a result of certain fatal diplomatic mistakes, and a false political method, that Poland was reduced to a state of internal anarchy in the 18th Century. She then easily fell a prey to the three neighboring monarchies."
Lodz_The_BoatThreads: 58
Posts: 2,314
Joined: Sep 7, 08 ♂ 		 Jun 4, 10, 07:48    #40
Very interesting
IronsideThreads: 59
Posts: 6,789
Joined: Feb 26, 09 ♂ 		 Jun 4, 10, 12:11    #41
Chicago Pollock:
Ancient Poland had no middle class, no bourgeoisie, A class so necessary for the perpetuity of a nation. It was in consequence of this inequality in the national character, and as a result of certain fatal diplomatic mistakes, and a false political method, that Poland was reduced to a state of internal anarchy in the 18th Century. She then easily fell a prey to the three neighboring monarchies."

I have never heard about the book before but my conclusion is the same, interesting !!
MatyjaszThreads: 2
Posts: 1,786
Joined: Jul 20, 06 ♂ 		 Jun 4, 10, 23:02    #42
TheOther:
The annexation of the Polish territory was recognized by most nations; thus the country officially ceased to exist.


According to your definition of occupation, an occupied geo-political entity is not necessarily dissolved. Which means that it CAN be dissolved. Moreover, if you really want to pick on words, it doesn't say anything about recognition from other states, which means that basically both words could be used interchangeably…Well at least in this particular case.

Either way, what I do find interesting is why did you feel the urge to bring this subject up?
TheOtherThreads: 5
Posts: 1,584
Joined: Jul 13, 09 ♂ 		Edited by: Moderator  Jun 4, 10, 23:11    #43
Matyjasz:
Which means that it CAN be dissolved

Yes. And if this happens and is generally accepted by other nations, then it's called annexation. can we get back to the book please

Matyjasz:
why did you feel the urge to bring this subject up?

Because there are a few folks here on PF who tend to insist that only the Polish version of history is correct. One has to challenge that occasionally. :)
madparasolThreads: 2
Posts: 15
Joined: Feb 25, 10 ♂ 		 Jun 4, 10, 23:49    #44
Chicago Pollock:
It's probably still true today, thus the Polish Diaspora.

I was referring to this portion of your comment...but I'm sure you don't seriously believe this. right?

Touché on your response.

I don't contend with what the author wrote in the book (to be honest I'm an amateur historian). One thing I know is that there wasn't simply a single thing that let Poland to its political fate but a conglomerate of serious political errors both internal and external starting about 100 years before its ultimate fate in the 18th century.
MediaWatchThreads: 31
Posts: 1,306
Joined: Aug 30, 08 ♂ 		 Jun 5, 10, 00:00    #45
madparasol:
I don't contend with what the author wrote in the book (to be honest I'm an amateur historian). One thing I know is that there wasn't simply a single thing that let Poland to its political fate but a conglomerate of serious political errors both internal and external starting about 100 years before its ultimate fate in the 18th century.


This is probably a true statement.

Indeed the Poles are human and I'm sure over their history of ONE THOUSAND years, they made their share of mistakes and errors.

I can think of a bunch of mistakes the Poles made.
madparasolThreads: 2
Posts: 15
Joined: Feb 25, 10 ♂ 		 Jun 5, 10, 00:06    #46
TheOther:
Because there are a few folks here on PF who tend to insist that only the Polish version of history is correct. One has to challenge that occasionally.

Good point.

There is not a single country on the face of this planet that does not have its own version of its own history. Whether it be true or false or somewhere in the middle. Compare Japanese history through the eyes of the Chinese or American history through the eyes of a Native American Indian tribe...in each case you will hear two different historical versions.

Ultimately you come to "historical truth" when every angle of an issue is exposed, dissected and analyzed.
Bratwurst BoyThreads: 11
Posts: 14,563
Joined: Apr 2, 07 ♂ 		 Jun 5, 10, 00:17    #47
madparasol:
Ultimately you come to "historical truth" when every angle of an issue is exposed, dissected and analyzed.


I don't think there exist the "one and only truth" everybody has to agree with. Viewpoint and time matter.
History is no algebra!
madparasolThreads: 2
Posts: 15
Joined: Feb 25, 10 ♂ 		 Jun 5, 10, 00:46    #48
MediaWatch:
Indeed the Poles are human and I'm sure over their history of ONE THOUSAND years, they made their share of mistakes and errors.

In the words of Alexander Pope (1688-1744)

"To err is human, to forgive divine"

Bratwurst Boy:
I don't think there exist the "one and only truth" everybody has to agree with. Viewpoint and time matter.
History is no algebra!


I agree with what you say but do you refer to truth or opinion? Because when you say "viewpoint and time matter" that is very gray area...there rarely is a single viewpoint of an event whether historical or not (i realize that this may be an opening to some sort of a joke here :))

Lets say you have an event that was witnessed by 5 (random number, obviously 1 or 2 would have been useless to my point being given) parties, if you ask each of the 5 parties what they saw, they will tell you their individual versions of the event. Hence if you get all the 5 answers you can start piecing the jigsaw puzzle and get a more vivid and accurate picture of the issue as a whole. You would be much closer to the truth in that regard than if you simply took one version of the event as the truth.
Chicago PollockThreads: 10
Posts: 638
Joined: Apr 10, 10 ♂ 		 Jun 5, 10, 05:53    #49
ALL CHIEFS AND NO INDIANS!

Continuing from the book:

"Unity is not a Polish virtue. Neither is subordination for the common weal. Every one must lead. There have always been plenty of Princes, Marshals, and Generals in Poland: of obedient privates, very few."
madparasolThreads: 2
Posts: 15
Joined: Feb 25, 10 ♂ 		 Jun 5, 10, 08:54    #50
Chicago Pollock:
Continuing from the book:

hey, i can pull random quotes too. if you're gonna do that then at least write down the page number and relevance or the point you're trying to make.

but at least you're reading. i'm proud of you!

page 2 of 2:  « Prev  1  2

Home / Society, Culture / Unanswered [this forum] | Similar


Similar discussions:

Kissing on the cheek in Poland. Lips for lovers only?  Polish men mostly have short hair, why?


Random: ANSZPERGIER, Michał. Born between 1900 and 1910 possibly around Lodz area.

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


47 [Guests - 40 / Members - 7] users on live forums now


Home | Unanswered | Archives | Random | Statistics Time in Poland: 04:11 / May 27

About Us | Contact Us | Rules, Privacy | Poland Advertising
© 2005-12 PolishForums.com