Poles and Baltic countries hypothetical question

[Futurist]

Hi wm,

It is unusual for a country to offer more territory than is demanded and equally unusual for a country to turn territory down when offered it.

Unusual claims require an unusual amount of evidence to substantiate them.

What are your sources?

Cheers,

Sid.

TBF, it's not unusual for a country to reject or even give up territory when demographic concerns are severe enough. For instance, many Israelis are arguing in favor of an Israeli withdrawal from the West Bank in order to preserve Israel's Jewish character. Likewise, Charles de Gaulle argued in favor of a French withdrawal from Algeria in order to preserve France's European and Christian character. Similarly, one could support the partition of India in order to preserve India's Hindu character. Heck, some white nationalists in the US nowadays are perfectly fine seeing the US partitioned so that they could get their own white ethno-state.

Interwar Poland was only around two-thirds Polish and thus demographic issues might have very well been a real concern to their leadership. However, this doesn't explain why exactly Poland didn't take Belarus and create a nominally independent Polish puppet state out of it. This would have probably been much better for Belarusians than being put under Soviet rule was.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi wm,

You are not addressing my question, which relates to your earlier claim that the USSR offered Poland Byelorussia in 1921 but Poland turned it down.

To repeat:

"It is unusual for a country to offer more territory than is demanded and equally unusual for a country to turn territory down when offered it.

Unusual claims require an unusual amount of evidence to substantiate them.

What are your sources?

Cheers,

Sid

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi futurist,

None of your examples are equivalent.

Israel hasn't been offered the West Bank and so is in no position to turn it down.

India didn't want partition to preserve a Hindu state. It was the Moslems who wanted a separate state of their own, which became Pakistan.

France left Algeria because it, like other colonial powers, couldn't afford the expense of retaining increasingly hostile colonies (which were meant to return the mother country a profit) by force in the modern world. It was not an act of generosity but one of increasing necessity. It was a matter of jumping before they were pushed.

As for the Belarus question, wm is yet to provide any evidence in support of his claim that it was offered to Poland by the USSR. Nor have you.

I will believe anything, so long as robust evidence supports it, but it is currently lacking in this case.

I therefore feel impelled to ask you, too: What are your sources?

Cheers,

Sid.

[wm]

As I've said Polish negotiators: Stanisław Grabski and Jan Dąbski said that later after the peace was signed.
Usually Dąbski's book The Peace of Riga... is given as the source.

[wm]

Why not take it and create a nominally independent Belarusian puppet state, though? At least that way Poland's Polish character won't be threatened.

Also, were any parts of Ukraine also offered?

No, and it wasn't openly offered - the Soviets were ready to offer more, but the Poles, motivated by internal Polish political politics, deliberately didn't exploit the opportunity (in the case of Belarus).

The reason was simple, the political parties both Grabski and Dąbski represented considered Ukraine and Belarus (independent or a part of Poland) a serious future geopolitical threat. For that reason, they wanted parts of them, the most promising from the point of view of their Polonization but not more.

And really an independent Ukraine or Belarus would fall prey to the Soviets in no time, and Poland wouldn't be able to save them.

[Sid Guttridge]

Hi wm,

OK, presuming that "it wasn't openly offered", how do you know about it?

If Dąbski's book The Peace of Riga contains it, what does it say?

Failing that, what secondary sources refer to the book in this context?

It would perhaps be important here to mention that Dabski was the chief Polish negotiator of the Peace of Riga.

Cheers,

Sid.

[Futurist]

Why not take it and create a nominally independent Belarusian puppet state, though? At least that way Poland's Polish character won't be threatened.

Also, were any parts of Ukraine also offered?

No, and it wasn't openly offered - the Soviets were ready to offer more, but the Poles, motivated by internal Polish political politics, deliberately didn't exploit the opportunity (in the case of Belarus).

The reason was simple, the political parties both Grabski and Dąbski represented considered Ukraine and Belarus (independent or a part of Poland) a serious future geopolitical threat. For that reason, they wanted parts of them, the most promising from the point of view of their Polonization but not more.

Why would an independent Ukraine and Belarus be a serious future geopolitical threat?

And really an independent Ukraine or Belarus would fall prey to the Soviets in no time, and Poland wouldn't be able to save them.

But would the Soviet Union actually be willing to go to war against Poland again? I mean, in real life, it was unprepared to go to war against Poland again up to the point that Nazi Germany already invaded Poland.