The Soviet-Polish War

Discussions on other historical eras.
Serus
Member
Posts: 57
Joined: 03 May 2005, 09:46
Location: Warsaw-Poland

#31

Post by Serus » 28 Aug 2005, 15:44

RCW Mark wrote:I stand corrected about the "Miracle on the Vistula" line. So, if Stroński said that Piłsudski shouldn't get the credit, then who did he attribute the "miracle" to?

My understanding was that the intervention of the Częstochowa virgin was believed by some as the decisive force and that the church was not about to disagree (which is different, of course, from actively promoting it as an explanation). Those people may not have used Stroński's wording, but their explanation still acted to effectively discredit Piłsudski.

Mark
You didnt understand, (my poor english maybe the cause), Stroński didnt atrribute the "miracle" to someone specific afaik, in Polish you can say: "This was a miracle!" , when you want to express that something unexpected happened, something that cannot be rationally explained, without being very religious or having someone/thing specific (like the Virgin of Częstochowa) in mind. Maybe very religious people believed that Częstochowa Virgin or the God himself was the reason of vicotory, probably yes. But what is important here - Stroński was first to use the teriminology of "miracle" and he's goals weren't religious but political. As was said earlier, the "miracle" lost the anti-Pilsudski meaning quickly (already in the interwar era i think).
Conclusion - i only wanted to clear things up by informing who exactly was the first to use the expression "Miracle on the Vistula" and what were the goals of using it in first place. It was Stroński who created the expression as a tool to discredit Pilsudski. It wasnt created by the Church (but it doesnt exclude the Church from using it for different reasons than Stroński). Later the expression lost its original pejorative anti-Pisudski meaning. Today its in popular use - even historians use it altough they find it silly, the victory wasnt especially "miraculous" considering the odds (numerical parity of forces, over-extended Soviet lines, etc...).
I hope that it clears the things up.

User avatar
RCW Mark
Member
Posts: 396
Joined: 08 Oct 2004, 21:04
Location: New Zealand

#32

Post by RCW Mark » 28 Aug 2005, 16:15

Thank-you Serus, that was very helpful. You can use "miracle" in that sense in English too -- at least nowadays -- although there is often an implication of a supernatural cause.

mark


Jacob Peters
Banned
Posts: 88
Joined: 20 Dec 2006, 05:20
Location: Boston, USA

#33

Post by Jacob Peters » 09 Jan 2007, 00:13

The expansionist designs of the Polish in their attempt to restore their feudal empire using as an excuse "Polish Partitions" clearly were the cause of the conflict. Geographically, the "Polish Partitions" as far as Russia is concerned pertained not mostly to ethnic Polish territory but primarily to ethnic Ukrainian and Belorussian territory which had been robbed by the Lithuanians and Poles centuries prior from the Riurikid dynasty of Russia. In 1918 and 1919 the Bolsheviks were in no position to stage a war with Poland seeing how Kolchak, Denikin, and the Cossacks had pinned down the soviets to only a strip of land in central Russia. In 1919 the Poles had unleashed aggression upon the Lithuanian-Belorussian SSR and seized Minsk in August. They additionally proceeded to occupy parts of Ukraine. When the civil war in Russia seemed over in the spring of 1920, the Polish army suddenly advanced across the plains of the western Ukraine. It marched 150 miles in two weeks, took Kiev on 6 May, and threw bridgeheads across the Dnepr. The Poles in effect unleashed aggression against the Soviet Ukrainian republic thereby provoking their Soviet Russian brothers to intervene.

The reference to Bolshevik desires for "world revolution" is a distortion and misinterpretation. The Bolsheviks never vowed to invade other countries in order to establish the power of the proletariat. Marx and Lenin had frequently insisted that it would be the domestic proletariat which would overthrow the bourgeoisie and take power for themselves. This was partially realized with the establishment of the Hungarian Soviet Republic and Munich Soviet Republic. They were of course destroyed by aggression from Czechoslovakia, Romania and the Weimar regime.

The Bolsheviks had insisted early in 1920:

But our enemies and yours deceive you when they say that the Russian Soviet Government wishes to plant communism in Polish soil with the bayonets of Russian Red Army men. A communist order is possible only where the vast majority of the working people are penetrated with the idea of creating it by their own strength. Only then can it be solid; for only then can communist policy strike deep roots in a country. The communists of Russia are at present striving only to defend their own soil, their own constructive work; they are not striving, and cannot strive, to plant communism by force in other countries.” ---EH Carr, The Bolshevik Revolution, volume 3, p.165, London

szopen
Member
Posts: 814
Joined: 21 May 2004, 16:31
Location: poznan, poland

#34

Post by szopen » 09 Jan 2007, 16:27

jacob, come on. Who unleashed aggression? polish inhabitants in Vilnius? In Minsk Polish units, which were recruited from local Polish population, were so weak (because Polish minority there was weak) that they withdrew without any fight. On the other hands, Poles living in Vilnius "committed act of aggression" by defending their own homes against communists attacking from the west during their "target vistula" operation.

In 1920 Polish attack was just another offensive in the war which already lasted for more than a year and which was started by bolsheviks. Stating that the was was effect of Polish imperialist policy is repeating the bolshevik propaganda.

Jacob Peters
Banned
Posts: 88
Joined: 20 Dec 2006, 05:20
Location: Boston, USA

#35

Post by Jacob Peters » 10 Jan 2007, 21:46

jacob, come on. Who unleashed aggression? polish inhabitants in Vilnius? In Minsk Polish units, which were recruited from local Polish population, were so weak (because Polish minority there was weak) that they withdrew without any fight.
The root of the Polish-Soviet conflict lies with Poland's hegemonic, expansionist designs to its east in an effort to restore its feudal empire and domination of Russian peoples in Malorussia and Belorussia. It was the Polish army which had unleashed unprovoked aggression against the Lithuanian-Belorussian SSR in 1919. Poland did not have any valid justification for annexing half of Belorussia and part of Ukraine because these territories contained a Russian majority. Poland's aggression in the 1919-20 period led to the recovery by Soviet Ukraine and Soviet Belorussia of robbed territory in the Treaty of Riga.

szopen
Member
Posts: 814
Joined: 21 May 2004, 16:31
Location: poznan, poland

#36

Post by szopen » 11 Jan 2007, 11:08

Jacob Peters wrote:
The root of the Polish-Soviet conflict lies with Poland's hegemonic, expansionist designs to its east in an effort to restore its feudal empire and domination of Russian peoples in Malorussia and Belorussia.
A lie. Direct repetition of Soviet propaganda.

First, it was Soviets which started their offensive in 1918, attacking Polish units in Vilnius in January 1919. Their offensive was protested by Polish government, which warned Soviets that their further advance will be considered an act of war.
Second, Poland offensive was meant by Pilsudski as a way to creation of independent states which would be allied with Poland (Dmowski had different plans, but it was Pilsudski who directed Polish army).
It was the Polish army which had unleashed unprovoked aggression against the Lithuanian-Belorussian SSR in 1919. Poland did not have any valid justification for annexing half of Belorussia and part of Ukraine because these territories contained a Russian majority.
A lie. This territories had not Russian majority. Poles, Ukrainians and Belarussians lived there, with small minority of Russians. Also, Poland couldn't unleash aggression against Litbel in Vilnius, since fights started in New Year's eve (as provoked by communists trying to take over the city) while the Litbel officially was created .. when?

Second, Poland _did_ had valid justification. SOviet Russia just declared partitions null and void, therefore implicitly recognising Polish rights to revive the borders.

In addition, as you know, Pilsudski's plan was not creation of Polish empire: he wanted to create a Polish-led federation. That's why Dyneburg was given to Latvia and Kiev was meant to be capitol of Ukrainian republic.

Jacob Peters
Banned
Posts: 88
Joined: 20 Dec 2006, 05:20
Location: Boston, USA

#37

Post by Jacob Peters » 13 Jan 2007, 22:57

First, it was Soviets which started their offensive in 1918, attacking Polish units in Vilnius in January 1919.
Nice try. Vilnius is not a part of Poland nor was Poland's annexation of Vilnius of any serious legitimacy. The fact is that the Russian Bolsheviks in 1919 were pinned down by Kolchak, Denikin, and Iudenich and were in no position to wage war with Poland.
This territories had not Russian majority. Poles, Ukrainians and Belarussians lived there, with small minority of Russians.
This is a rather arbitrary, self-derving classification of people. You want to try and present "Ukrainians" and "Belorussians" to be totally distinct people from Russians because it justifies Polish expansion and imperialism on the basis that these people are "not Russian". Never mind that Belorussian means "White Russian". There was never a firm sense of national identity among the isolated peasants of Ukraine and Belorussia. It was hard to bring peasants into active support for the new, abstract, arbitrary notion of Ukrainian nationalism.Their dissatisfaction was rooted in the oppression of their Polish landlords. The arbitrary "Ukrainian" and "Belorussian" identities formed as a result of the Polish colonization of Russian territory. And then there is the Polish census in the 1930s which created bogus, arbitrary classification such as "Ruthenian" and "Local"(Belorussian) in an effort to mask minorities.


Also, Poland couldn't unleash aggression against Litbel in Vilnius, since fights started in New Year's eve (as provoked by communists trying to take over the city) while the Litbel officially was created .. when?
Vilnius is not a part of Poland but is in fact the historic Lithuanian capital which the Poles seized in an effort to revive their imperialism. The fight was provoked when the Polish seized the capital.
Second, Poland _did_ had valid justification. SOviet Russia just declared partitions null and void, therefore implicitly recognising Polish rights to revive the borders.
Sorry, but Poland was not and is not entitled to rule Russian or East Slavic territory. What you call Poland's borders was in fact what composed the Polish empire until it was justifiably eliminated in the late 18th century.

szopen
Member
Posts: 814
Joined: 21 May 2004, 16:31
Location: poznan, poland

#38

Post by szopen » 14 Jan 2007, 12:32

Jacob Peters wrote:
First, it was Soviets which started their offensive in 1918, attacking Polish units in Vilnius in January 1919.
Nice try. Vilnius is not a part of Poland nor was Poland's annexation of Vilnius of any serious legitimacy. The fact is that the Russian Bolsheviks in 1919 were pinned down by Kolchak, Denikin, and Iudenich and were in no position to wage war with Poland.
Vilnius of course was part of Poland (hint: 3rd May constitution).

Neither Poles were in position to fight with Russia, fighting with Ukrainians and having serious troubles with Czechs and Germans.
This territories had not Russian majority. Poles, Ukrainians and Belarussians lived there, with small minority of Russians.
This is a rather arbitrary, self-derving classification of people. You want to try and present "Ukrainians" and "Belorussians" to be totally distinct people from Russians because it justifies Polish expansion and imperialism on the basis that these people are "not Russian".
No. I mean it because:
1) Ukrainians didn't want to be Russian (ask any Ukrainian)
2) vast majority of Belarussians in 1918 considered themselves "tutejsi" and had no national conscience.
oppression of their Polish landlords.
As for example my family. They wake up every morning and started oppressing Belarussians. The problem is they had to go to the village few dozen miles further to find one.
Also, Poland couldn't unleash aggression against Litbel in Vilnius, since fights started in New Year's eve (as provoked by communists trying to take over the city) while the Litbel officially was created .. when?
Vilnius is not a part of Poland but is in fact the historic Lithuanian capital which the Poles seized in an effort to revive their imperialism. The fight was provoked when the Polish seized the capital.
Once again, Soviets and Russians had no right whatsover to Vilnius. Lithuanians had some arguments, but Soviets - never. Polish INHABITANTS OF THE CITY seized their own city, after SOVIETS recognised partitions as null (and therefore implicitly recognised Polish pre-partition borders).
Second, Poland _did_ had valid justification. SOviet Russia just declared partitions null and void, therefore implicitly recognising Polish rights to revive the borders.
Sorry, but Poland was not and is not entitled to rule Russian or East Slavic territory. What you call Poland's borders was in fact what composed the Polish empire until it was justifiably eliminated in the late 18th century.
[/quote]

JUSTIFIABLY ELIMINATED? In other words, Polish semi-democratic rule, in which it doesn't matter whether one was Polish or not as long as he had citizen rights, was justifiably eliminated by oppressive three other empires? Why is so?
Second, Polish claims to the territory were as valid or invalid as Russian. The territory was NOT inhabited by Russians.

But I think I know the answer. You are using the words just as from te elementary books of Marxist version of history, which I hated so much in my childhood. Soviets and Russia are good, Poland is wrong.

The fact is that it was Soviets which started the war in 1919, and only when repelled they started to whine. After all, Polish offensive in 1920 was just another one, and in that Kiev was not to be incorporated into Poland but was meant as capitol as free Ukrainian republic under Petliura.

As for "imperialistic Polish plans" you should read Pilsudski's call for local population, in which he explained his plans and motives. Pilsudski has no intention of creating Polish empire. His opponents, yes, but Pilsudski's vision was Polish-dominated federation of independent states.

User avatar
Askold
Member
Posts: 1848
Joined: 23 Mar 2002, 09:30
Location: Ukraine
Contact:

#39

Post by Askold » 18 Jan 2007, 23:28

Haha, I see a troll at work ;)

This is a rather arbitrary, self-derving classification of people. You want to try and present "Ukrainians" and "Belorussians" to be totally distinct people from Russians because it justifies Polish expansion and imperialism on the basis that these people are "not Russian". Never mind that Belorussian means "White Russian".

- You got to do some more reading up on the terminology if you want to succseed at trolling. Naturally Ukrainians and Belorussians are different from Russians, you already posted the same provoking comment in Holocaust sectiona and even Russians told you that they are different. Now you try the same trick in this sectin :) While Belrussians literary come from the term White Rus (Bila Rus), the term itself comes way before the existance of "russians" as such. In the Middle Ages, present day Russia was reffered by its neighbours as Moskovia, while modern Belarus was called White Russ and Ukraine as simply Rus (Western Ukraine or Galicia was referred to as Red Rus).

There was never a firm sense of national identity among the isolated peasants of Ukraine and Belorussia. It was hard to bring peasants into active support for the new, abstract, arbitrary notion of Ukrainian nationalism.Their dissatisfaction was rooted in the oppression of their Polish landlords.

- Wrong again. The pesants were united by their faith and language - that was the bases of the national identity. Oh and as much as you try to portray a picture of Polish landlords and Ukrainian pesants, there were also Polish pesants and Ukrainian landlords. Actually quite strong Ukrainian middle class grew out of the Third Estate - the educated clergy.

szopen
Member
Posts: 814
Joined: 21 May 2004, 16:31
Location: poznan, poland

#40

Post by szopen » 19 Jan 2007, 11:10

Askold wrote: Oh and as much as you try to portray a picture of Polish landlords and Ukrainian pesants, there were also Polish pesants and Ukrainian landlords. Actually quite strong Ukrainian middle class grew out of the Third Estate - the educated clergy.
Oh yes. Ruthenian magnate Ostrogski and Polish noble Kosinski ;-) (hint: 1591)

User avatar
Benoit Douville
Member
Posts: 3184
Joined: 11 Mar 2002, 02:13
Location: Montréal

#41

Post by Benoit Douville » 01 Dec 2007, 21:57

I want to share this amazing video that I just found about the Polish-Soviet War:

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=HwNpVsdIb ... re=related

Regards

User avatar
Kim Sung
Member
Posts: 5039
Joined: 28 May 2005, 14:36
Location: The Last Confucian State

#42

Post by Kim Sung » 02 Dec 2007, 08:34

Benoit Douville wrote:I want to share this amazing video that I just found about the Polish-Soviet War:

http://fr.youtube.com/watch?v=HwNpVsdIb ... re=related

Regards
Interesting footage, thanks!

User avatar
antikeitel
Member
Posts: 8
Joined: 14 Dec 2007, 13:02
Location: Philippines

#43

Post by antikeitel » 17 Dec 2007, 06:25

Liluh wrote: If Poland was to reborn in its previous borders, that would include Lithuania and Belorussia. You said "it was yours 150 years ago". Well, lands which were in 1918 refered to as Poland were also "Polish" 150 years ago ;)
I remember from my history class that the Polish and Lithuanians formed a union and then somehow the whole area later became known as Poland. That was partitioned between Germany, Russia, and Austria and Poland disappeared by 1795. Then it was revived by Napoleon as the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, then it disappeared again.

Why didn't they give back to Poland Stettin, Silesia, and Prussia, and establish Belorussia as a separate state? Did not self-determination apply to the Eastern European countries?

Borys
Banned
Posts: 633
Joined: 20 Jul 2007, 18:00
Location: Warszawa Rzeczpospolita Polska

#44

Post by Borys » 17 Dec 2007, 07:10

Ahoj!
Poland ceased to exist in 1569 - it merged with Lithuania into the Commonwealth. For convenience often shortened to "Poland".
It was like Britain - a "political nation". Ethnically you could be anything - Polish, Lithuanian, Ruthenian (Ucranian), you could speak any langauge at home, and belong to mainstream Christian branches - but as long as you spoke Latin you were "Polish" in the sense of "British" versus "English", "Welsh", etc.

And the Commonwealth ceased to exist due to a coup d'etat in 1791 linked to attempts to reform the Commonwealth. And then came the 2nd and 3rd Partition which settled the matter once and for all.

Throughout the XIXth century national sentiments developed. But for some people the idea of the Commonwealth - an above national state - still persisted. This is part of the Piłsudski - pro-Comonwealth, versus Dmowski - pro ethnic Polish state, debate. The same split was found among other potential nationalities. Members of the same famaly, even brothers threw their lot with different options - the Narutowicz/Narutovichius (same family name, different spelling convention) cousins once remvoed were in the Polish and Lithuanian government (hostile), and one Szeptyckij defended Lwów/Lviv/Lemberg against another Szeptycki.

Complicated matters.

As to self determination - it was applied patchily, just like in the West, as long as it suited French and/or British interests and those two countires were ready to impose themselves.
Britain tried to keep Germany from being TOO weakened, as to continue being a viable counterweight to France and Russia. France was happy to weaken Germany further than Britian would like to go, but did not want to weaken Russia too much - wishing to preserve a counterweight against Germany. France tried to keep both Poland and Russia happy.

All in all, many and long books were written on this subject.

Borys

Borys
Banned
Posts: 633
Joined: 20 Jul 2007, 18:00
Location: Warszawa Rzeczpospolita Polska

#45

Post by Borys » 17 Dec 2007, 07:16

Ahoj!
Stettin was at this time solidly German (and since circa 1350 too). Prussia - the southern part - Masuren - had a Polish speaking population, and mostly Protestant at that. Self determination was used, with most of the vote being for germany. Fact is that the vote was at the time when the Soviets were at the gates of Warsaw.
Upper Silisia was mostly Polish, and there was figthing be part of the locals to make it Polish. Other locals - helped by Freikorps - fought to keep it German. The final plebiscite was held in similar circumstances as the one in Masuren.

Belorussia as a separate state - oh, now that would tke a looooooong post. The short of it - the Orthodox locals (80% of the population) thought of themsleves as "locals", not Belarus. The educated locals with nathional/ethnic awareness were Polish landowners.

Borys

Post Reply

Return to “Other eras”