Talk:History of Poland
|
|
/Gathering scientific evidence and bibliography - moved out of main namespace
BTW, i posted Dagome Iudex in latin. i will soon post article with discussion about Scandinavian beginnings of Mieszko. (first version) szopen
--- You're going to have to do better than: It was a wise political move to maintain sovereignty and remain independent from the German state. --MichaelTinkler
Re the tribes -- are they tribes or peoples? I'm not trying to be troublesome, but Baltic ethnicity has been a thorn in my side for a couple of months now. Personally, I would like to see only pertinent information, with links to each ethnic/cultural group involved...JHK
This article is *really* unNPOV and repeats lot of Polish nationalist propaganda. --Taw
- ...et tu Taw contra me ? ;-)) --Kpjas
- yup, this Introduction really needed lot of NPOVification. --Taw
Old Introduction:
History of Poland is over 10 centuries long. It has been and to the present day is determined by Poland's geographical location. Poland has always been regarded as a bridge or barrier between the West and the (savage) East. From 966 AD Poland was included into the Latin Christian World and it was planned to make Poland as a forefront spreading Christianity eastward and defending the West at the same time. On numerous occasions Poland's existence was endangered by aggressive expansion of her neighbours that were greedy for new land - in 10 and 11th centuries the Czech and then Germans, Swedes, Russians and Austrians. There were times when once the grand and mighty Polish state was reduced to a small dukedom that was almost totally dependent on Russia. Worse still, Poland was altogether wiped out from the maps of Europe for many years until 1918 when after the World War I it regained independence. One of the features that best characterizes Polish people is that they stand strengthened in times of oppression and hardship. It is very well illustrated by the first line of the Polish national anthem : "Poland will not perish as long as we are alive..." Now, Poland is a proud nation of indisputable sovereignty, united with her allies in the NATO and aspiring to become a full member of the European Union.
Taw, I will be happy to copyedit for better English, sections, etc. In answer to your question about the use of the word 'duke', do you know what he was called in Latin documents of the time? I'm fairly familiar with those titles, and could probably come up with a correct translation in historical context. I am pretty sure that the title usually given is indeed Duke, but that meant something different in the 10th c. than in the 12th, and was also different for east and west...JHK
The problem is that in Polish we have only one word 'ksiaze' for many different concepts. In this case, Mieszko was just a crownless Christian ruler of a country. I'm not sure about his relation to the Emperor. It changed too often during early Polish history, and all crownless rulers are called 'ksiaze' anyway. Iirc he wasn't Emperor's vassal. --Taw
- That's why I thought it would be good to see the Latin -- anybody know where to find it? JHK
- Oldest Latin documentation ('Dagome iudex') calls him 'iudex', which is probably a translation of some tribal function. But such name isn't used by Polish historical terminology, so it's not very useful. --Taw
Given the iudex thing, does anyone know (or have a good dictionary) any other possible translations for iudex (besides judge) in this context? JHK
What kind of evidence is *this* depending on:
- The masses did not identify with Poland until the advent of nationalism in the 18th-20th centuries.
I changed it to 'do not seem to have identified' pending further explanation.
BTW, Dagome Iudex is, IIRC, not the oldest document with reference to Poland. Is one of the oldest, but not _the_ oldest, unless i am mistaken. Widukind, Ibrahim Ibn Jakub etc wrote about Poland and Mieszko earlier.
And, in summary of Micheal Tinkler changes i saw "queation", but i can't find any his question here? User:szopen
Removed for the main page :
In 1985 the Sczeczin bishop Jan Galecki praised the Catholic clergy of Poland for the roll they played in the establishment of "Stabilisation of the Western Territories".
This roll of getting rid of minoritieswas defined by the highest ranking
church official of Poland Primate Cardinal August Hlond over many years.
This is more a rant to justify some sulky feelings of resentment against
Poland than Polish history in its own right. It was Hitler and his politics
that was detrimental to the prosperity of the German Volk than Polish
nationalists etc.
Kpjas
Removed: Since the death of the Polish moderate leader Pilsudski in 1935, Poland's rulers have been openly nationalistic, lead by the highest authority in Poland the Primate of the Catholic Church of Poland, Cardinal August Hlond.
This just didn't make sense in context of where it was in the article, nor did it make sense in English. I also took out (again) this bit Kpjas objected to, because it didn't really fit.
Also, I revised much of the article to maintain chronological order and to introduce more NPOV. Then I noticed the bloody thing starts up again with the Middle Ages. I will try to incorporate the bottom section of the article, which has a lot of great information, into the upper portion and break it down into coherent chronological parts. JHK
Removed from the article:
The Polish Roman Catholic Primate, Cardinal Hlond, returned to Poland from exile at the end of the war. One of his actions unpon arrival was to expel many ethnic German members of the clergy. There is still debate as to the reasons for Hlond's actions. Doubtless there were different motivations in different cases. Hlond was certainly a supporter of Polish nationalism, and this may have had something to do with the expulsions. But it should also be noted that some of the clergy had been seen as Nazi sympathizers, or even collaborators, and this may have had something to do with Hlond's actions. Finally, the expulsions, not only of German clergy, but also the majority of the ethnic German population, must be considered as part of the Soviet-supported reprisals against the Germans at the end of the war."
SC
- This is one of Helga Jonat's leftovers. -- Zoe
Removed:
- This popular statement is however very misleading, because what is now referred to as 16th century Poland, includes a number of other non-Polish states.
- From this time Poland was under the variable influence of Roman Catholic Church. During the Counter-Reformation, when many of Poland's neighbours had different religions (Protestant Swedes and Germans, Orthodox Russians and Ukrainians, Muslim Turks, not to mention many Jews living in Poland at that time), it became popular to say that 'Polish means Catholic', and much propaganda stressing this connection appeared. For example it was said that Poland was a forefront of Christianity, referring mainly to the wars Poland fought against Muslim Ottoman Empire throughout the 17th century.
- The masses do not seem to have identified with Poland until the advent of nationalism in the 18th-20th centuries.
These are personal opinions that are put in to prove that Poland was not what it is claimed by (Polish) historians to be. I expect facts and balanced opinion based on scientific evidence from this article and not opposing Communist nationalistic propaganda with anti-Polish propaganda.
Kpjas 07:46 28 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Consider breaking this article into series. I think it has already been done, but there lacks a series box, like in History of Russia.
The public domain text from http://lcweb2.loc.gov/frd/cs/pltoc.html can also be copied here. --Jiang 23:29, 26 Oct 2003 (UTC)
I;ve made few major changes. First, i removed constant mentioning that those and those prince joined Silesia to German empire (silly considering that in opinion of some whole Poland was formally part of HRE, HOLY ROMAN empire, not GERMAN empire). Second, i've corrected scale of Mongol invasion. It was exxagerated by XIX century German historians, but scaled down by Polish historians in XX century. Third, i corrected "Mieszko vassal of empire" mentionings. Mieszko and Boleslaw were keeping some of their lands as fief from empire, more or less formally, that for sure. Their exact relationship with empire is under very heavy studies from about 60 years.
I've also added mentionign that German law does not mean German settlers, and corrected mentioning that German settled only "easy" lands. Germans also settled in sparsely colonised regions of Sudety, for example, so it is not true. The article is IMHO in mess. Someone would hav to correct it, put all sudden mentionings of "Popielids" etc into correct places.user::szopen
The interests of the Russian-Soviet Empire in the Nazi-Soviet pact were to incorporate as much as possible of the nations they had already MOSTLY sujegated. That's why the border was placed were it was in the agreement! They didn't care for the strange math that chooses to count over two nations (Ukraine and Belarus') as a group instead of separately, in order to make the Poles look relatively more substantial! Genyo 16:30, 25 Mar 2004 (UTC)
| Contents |
Western Betrayal
I'm preparing an article on the concept of Western Betrayal User:Halibutt/Western betrayal. Please feel free to drop in and help me finish it.Halibutt 09:51, 5 Apr 2004 (UTC)
India
Is there a sense mentioning one of many Polish refugee camps and one of many functioning Polish embassy? I'm talking about that mentioning of camp in India during WWII. Szopen 09:35, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
- I asked Nichalp to elaborate it a bit. ([1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki.phtml?title=User_talk:Nichalp&curid=449517&diff=0&oldid=0)) Halibutt 10:30, 7 May 2004 (UTC)
Russia and the 1918 events
Monedula added the following phrase: The downfall of Imperial Russia in 1917 (see Russian Revolution of 1917) was followed by the "Declaration of Rights of Peoples of Russia", promulgated on November 15, 1917 and signed by Lenin and Stalin. That Declaration granted to peoples of Russia the right to self-determination, including the right to secede completely. . With all due respect, no part of Poland was under Russian rule after 1915 and, although this declaration might've been a pretty gesture, it had little to do with both internal and international situation of Poland in 1918. At the moment the central powers collapsed allowing for Poland to be reborn, the nearest Russian administration was some 400 kilometres eastwards from the Polish borders and Lenin might've as well grant Zimbabwe independence - it would have the same effect. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 16:31, Aug 23, 2004 (UTC)
- The comparison with Zimbabwe is not correct. Poland might have been occupied by Germany, but de jure it still was part of Russia. The Declaration provided a basis for international recognition of Poland after WWI, so it must be mentioned. — Monedula 17:42, 23 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Well, you apparently forgot of the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk in which Russia gave up all claims on Poland and other Central European areas. Poland was neither de iure nor de facto a part of Russia. The basis for the post-war recognition of Poland were various international treaties, but I doubt this Lenins declaration was among them (contrary to what commie propaganda tried to prove for the last 50 years...). Also, it is a fact that the independence of Poland was recognized by France before Lenin issued his funny declaration. Among the most important bases were:
- Fourteen Points of Thomas Woodrow Wilson, in which he found the reestablishemnt of Poland as one of the 14 aims of the war (XIII. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant.)
- Versailles Treaty
- Polish-French Alliance of 1917
- The edicts of the A-H monarchy starting the future core of the Polish Army
- the German and Austro-Hungarian Act of November 5, 1916 (Independence of the Kingdom of Poland Act)
- Creation of the Regention Council and the Council of the State
- The Treaty of Brest-Litovsk has nothing to do with the Declaration, because it was concluded several months later (you did non notice that???). And the moves of Germans, Americans and others were not very important, because Poland did not belong to them anyway (and again, the Declaration had come earlier than many of them). Btw, when exactly did France recognize Polish independence? — Monedula 09:22, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)
- Yup, you're right, I worded it wrongly. What I ment to say is that it was a pure propaganda document, with absolutely no influence on what happened in Poland. On the contrary, the moves of the Entente were far more important since it was them who won the war and it was them who accepted creation of Poland as one of the aims of their war.
- As to the Franco-Polish alliance, it's hard to tell. The full military and political bilateral treaty was signed in 1922. However, on August 15, 1917 a treaty was signed with Dmowski to allow the creation of an allied Polish army in France and Polish National Commity, a Polish government-to-be. This predated the declaration by three months. [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 12:18, Aug 26, 2004 (UTC)
To Ruy Lopez
I agree that we should avoid touchy terms. However, in this context the usage of the word "totalitarian" is 100% acceptable. If Nazi Germany and Stalinist Soviet Union were not totalitarian - then which states where? The very word "totalitarism" (or "totalitarianism" was coined to show similarities between the two states - and that's what the wiki article on the phenomenon says. [[User:Halibutt|[[User:Halibutt|]]]] 02:28, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
- Totalitarian is just a propaganda term. "Totalitarianism is any political system in which a citizen is totally subject to a governing authority in all aspects of day-to-day life." I'm subject to the governing authority (the US government) in all aspects of my day-to-day life - I can't smoke pot or visit Cuba or refuse to pay rent to someone the state recognizes as my landlord. "It involves constant indoctrination achieved by propaganda to erase any potential for dissent, by anyone, including most especially the agents of government." OK, at a certain level perhaps this would mean something, although I don't think a Russian farmer in 1938 was indoctrinated any more than an American farmer is today between school, church, work and leisure (watching television, going to a sporting event and singing the national anthem etc.) It is just a POV propaganda term that is unnecessary to the article, let people make up their own mind.
- If you want to point to other wiki articles, look at USSR or RSFSR. They are not defined as totalitarian there, because people would not allow it. If it would be POV to call the USSR totalitarian there, it would be POV here. And even for Nazi Germany, I don't fail to recognize that the Nazi party came to power through legal, electoral means, and was enormously popular across a strata of Germany society. Ruy Lopez 13:10, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Sorry Ruy, but I don't really understand your POV. I see that for you the US of A are a totalitarian regime. I also understand that you feel opressed by lack of freedom of speech, having to report on the police station everywhere you go, having to obtain an internal passport in order to visit your friends in another town, and having to become a party member in order to be promoted in your job or obtain an external passport.
- But seriously, there is a huge difference between the two states and the rest of the world. If one wanted to follow your logic, he'd have to agree that all (all) political terms are POV, nothing but propaganda and should be avoided. As such, no country's political system should be described since what for some is a republic, for others is a dictatorship... There are lots of such "POV" statements in this very article: fully democratic government, free-market, communists, noncommunists... Why don't you erase those as well?
- Finally, if there is a definition of some phenomenon and it is interlinked - the people still can decide for themselves. Especially that the definition of totalitarism seems quite decent. The article on Nazi Germany has got a link to totalitarism exactly in the header - and nobody opposes it. [[User:Halibutt|[[User:Halibutt|]]]] 19:03, Dec 16, 2004 (UTC)
- An internal passport? To drive a car from one state to another you need a drivers license. To ride in an airplane you need a drivers license. To take a *train* you need a drivers license. This seems to cut off all the possibilities of state to state travel without a drivers license, our "internal passport" (although I have not travelled by bus recently).
- Wal-Mart asks a question on its potential employee questionnaire - Do you believe your interests are the same as your bosses, very much so, somewhat, neutral, not much, definitely not. Guess what happens to people who answer definitely not? People who do not belong to one of the two bourgeois political parties are often discriminated against in jobs, I was just speaking with someone whom the internal security force (the FBI) sent letters to his boss informing him he was in the Socialist Workers Party and that he was a supposedly dangerous radical, suggesting he be fired.
- Although even left-liberal people like Martin Luther King Jr. were persecuted by the government a few decades ago for speaking freely, which runs right up to today, and while the wealthy control virtually all broadcast media, it is possible that the US has more free speech rights than the USSR, just as people in the USSR had more of a right to have a job, a right to eat versus a right to speak.
- Your comment that there is no distinction about how POV a political term is is false. I don't think anyone would argue with someone being called non-communist. Free market is more troubling, especially since socialist and capitalist markets were almost identical, with production being the real difference, it is obviously a propaganda term.
- This article is going beyond speaking of Soviet influence over Poland to criticizing the internal character of the USSR. I am assuming you are speaking of the USSR since totalitarian is being applied to the USSR and not Poland in the article. The USSR was also preparing to be invaded in the late 1930s, something which makes any country more "totalitarian", justa s the US became more "totalitarian" during WWII. This article should discuss Soviet influence and relations with Poland, not the internal USSR. Otherwise, this page becomes a place for debate towards issues which are very tangential to the article. Ruy Lopez 16:55, 17 Dec 2004 (UTC)
- Ok, I'm going to back down on this one, it's not that important after all. But some nitpicking first. Guess what happens to people who answer definitely not? Well of course, they get arrested by the NSA, tortured in their secret prisons for years and then sent to some concentration camp or labour camp to make them resocialised. That's obvious, isn't it.
- The USSR was also preparing to be invaded in the late 1930s, something which makes any country more "totalitarian", justa s the US became more "totalitarian" during WWII. - Ok then, here's the list of the neighbouring countries of the USSR in late 1930's: Poland, Latvia, Estonia, Finland, USA (by sea), Japan, Manchukuo, China, Sinkiang, Mongolia, Tuva, Afghanistan, Tuva, Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Romania, Hungary. Could you tell me which of them was planning to invade it?
--[[User:Halibutt|[[User:Halibutt|]]]] 02:59, Dec 18, 2004 (UTC)
Duplicate articles
I came across two boxes claiming to be lists of articles about the history of Poland. It looks as if there is some duplication which needs to be tidied up. --Henrygb 11:56, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)
| History of Poland series Timeline |
|---|
| Prehistory of Poland (until 966) History of Poland (966-1385) History of Poland (1385-1569) History of Poland (1569-1795) History of Poland (1795-1918) History of Poland (1918-1939) History of Poland (1939-1945) History of Poland (1945-1989) History of Poland (1989-present) edit (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:History_of_Poland&action=edit) |
These are an effect of our (still unfinished) work at the Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Poland. We are striving to categorise the Polish history onto a set of four or five series. The Polish statehood is simply a series listing all the independent states formed on Polish territory. Halibutt 14:14, Jan 24, 2005 (UTC)