Actually, this point of yours appears to be debatable:wm wrote:It was. But after another Polish uprising it became an integral part of Russia. Too many uprisings for their taste I suppose.Futurist wrote:Wasn't Poland technically not a part of Russia but rather in personal union (or something like that) with Russia, though?
"Sources agree that after the fall of the January Uprising in 1864, the autonomy of Congress Poland was drastically reduced. They disagree however on whether the Kingdom of Poland, colloquially known as Congress Poland, as a state, was officially replaced by Vistula Land (Privislinsky Krai), a province of the Russian Empire, as many sources still use the term Congress Poland for the post-1864 period. The sources are also unclear as to when Congress Poland (or Vistula land) officially ended; some argue it ended when the German and Austro-Hungarian occupying authorities assumed control; others, that it ended with the creation of the Kingdom of Poland in 1916; finally, some argue that it occurred only with the creation of the independent Republic of Poland in 1918."
Because having Poland keep these territories will make Germany weaker and thus less threatening than it would have otherwise been?Maybe, but why? From the goodness of their hearts? Russia didn't need an independent Poland for anything, an independent Poland would constantly foster discontent in the Russian partition.Futurist wrote:Wouldn't Russia have ensured that Germany will not recapture these territories (Posen, Upper Silesia, et cetera), though?
Breaking the Hindenburg Line and knocking all of Germany's allies out of World War I was unconvincing?They were but unconvincingly, with Russia in fight it would be self evident even for an intellectually challenged German there was no hope.Futurist wrote:The thing is, though, that Germany was actually losing in the West by November 1918
Thanks; I will certainly make sure to take a look at this article.For example: Underconsumption theories.Futurist wrote:Source, please?