Why didn't Poland ask for Subcarpathian Ruthenia after the end of World War I?
Re: Why didn't Poland ask for Subcarpathian Ruthenia after the end of World War I?
It wasn't Polish territory, Poland handed over Bukovina to (the entity called later) Romania in 1699.
Poland only claimed territories owned before the second partition.
Poland only claimed territories owned before the second partition.
Re: Why didn't Poland ask for Subcarpathian Ruthenia after the end of World War I?
Not quite; Poland also laid a claim on Masuria, I believe--hence the plebiscite there in 1920. Ditto for Poland's claim on Upper Silesia--hence the plebiscite there in 1921. Poland actually did get to keep a sizable part of Upper Silesia after the plebiscite--though none of Masuria due to its extremely overwhelming loss in the plebiscite there (indeed, an overwhelming Polish loss in all parts of Masuria).
Re: Why didn't Poland ask for Subcarpathian Ruthenia after the end of World War I?
For that matter, Poland also unsuccessfully claimed Teschen right after the end of World War I before finally briefly acquiring it in 1938.
Re: Why didn't Poland ask for Subcarpathian Ruthenia after the end of World War I?
The territories were populated by Poles (real or imagined) so plebiscites were needed to find the truth.
And it wasn't really Poland because Poland was preoccupied with events in the East but mostly local Poles. Except maybe for Teschen, the government neglected the issues.
And it wasn't really Poland because Poland was preoccupied with events in the East but mostly local Poles. Except maybe for Teschen, the government neglected the issues.
Last edited by wm on 25 Jun 2020, 23:47, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Why didn't Poland ask for Subcarpathian Ruthenia after the end of World War I?
So, Yes, Poland wanted to secure all of the ethnically Polish lands--not merely those that previously belonged to it in the 18th century. By that logic, though, Poland could likewise lay a claim to Bukovina due to its Polish minority.
What do you mean "it was really Poland"?And it was really Poland because Poland was preoccupied with events in the East but mostly local Poles. Except maybe for Teschen, the government neglected the issues.
Re: Why didn't Poland ask for Subcarpathian Ruthenia after the end of World War I?
The government was preoccupied with the war with the Soviets. Generally, it's believed it didn't care much about the lands. The local politicians, activists, people demanded action and acted unilaterally themselves.
So it wasn't Poland but rather grassroots developments.
And the Poles formed a majority there (or at least that was believed), in Bukovina, it was a tiny minority.
So it wasn't Poland but rather grassroots developments.
And the Poles formed a majority there (or at least that was believed), in Bukovina, it was a tiny minority.
Re: Why didn't Poland ask for Subcarpathian Ruthenia after the end of World War I?
I thought that Poland wanted Upper Silesia due to its vast natural resources?wm wrote: ↑25 Jun 2020, 23:57The government was preoccupied with the war with the Soviets. Generally, it's believed it didn't care much about the lands. The local politicians, activists, people demanded action and acted unilaterally themselves.
So it wasn't Poland but rather grassroots developments.
And the Poles formed a majority there (or at least that was believed), in Bukovina, it was a tiny minority.
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: Why didn't Poland ask for Subcarpathian Ruthenia after the end of World War I?
Hi wm,
What made Hungary the legitimate owner of Ruthenia?
They were only a majority in the south-west of the territory.
Sid
What made Hungary the legitimate owner of Ruthenia?
They were only a majority in the south-west of the territory.
Sid
Last edited by Sid Guttridge on 26 Jun 2020, 08:15, edited 1 time in total.
-
- Member
- Posts: 10158
- Joined: 12 Jun 2008, 12:19
Re: Why didn't Poland ask for Subcarpathian Ruthenia after the end of World War I?
Hi futurist,
The fact that there was, according to your map, only a tiny minority of Poles in Bucovina doesn't really give much ground for a Polish claim.
Mind you, that didn't stop the Poles pushing well beyond the Curzon Line elsewhere!
Cheers,
Sid.
The fact that there was, according to your map, only a tiny minority of Poles in Bucovina doesn't really give much ground for a Polish claim.
Mind you, that didn't stop the Poles pushing well beyond the Curzon Line elsewhere!
Cheers,
Sid.
Re: Why didn't Poland ask for Subcarpathian Ruthenia after the end of World War I?
Yeah, on ethnic grounds, Hungary could only claim a small part of Subcarpathian Ruthenia:Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑26 Jun 2020, 08:06Hi wm,
What made Hungary the legitimate owner of Ruthenia?
They were only a majority in the south-west of the territory.
Sid
https://i2.wp.com/euromaidanpress.com/w ... guage3.jpg
Re: Why didn't Poland ask for Subcarpathian Ruthenia after the end of World War I?
Your last sentence here is precisely why I asked this question in the first place, Sid!Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑26 Jun 2020, 08:13Hi futurist,
The fact that there was, according to your map, only a tiny minority of Poles in Bucovina doesn't really give much ground for a Polish claim.
Mind you, that didn't stop the Poles pushing well beyond the Curzon Line elsewhere!
Cheers,
Sid.
Re: Why didn't Poland ask for Subcarpathian Ruthenia after the end of World War I?
That's a ridiculous statement.Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑26 Jun 2020, 08:13Mind you, that didn't stop the Poles pushing well beyond the Curzon Line elsewhere!
The lands were legitimately Polish for hundreds of years. Similarly, Bukowina was legitimately Romanian for hundreds of years.
In both cases, the legitimacy was strengthened by the fact both countries were able to effectively control the territories (possession is nine-tenths of the law.)
In the case of Silesia, Teschen and other lands the victorious Allies were partitioning territories of defeated Germany and Austro-Hungary among their minor allies (so they were employing the right of conquest).
In this, the Allies were driven by their selfish political needs, not the best interests of the people populating the handed over territories.
For example, territories homogenously populated by Hungarians and by Germans were allocated to Czechoslovakia because Czechoslovakia was an important French ally, and Hungary and Germany were French enemies.
Similarly in the case of Polish Eastern Borderlands Britain was driven her geopolitical needs (called the balance of power in Europe) and only by her geopolitical needs.
The best proof of that is the fact that Britain wanted to handed over vast territories to Russia, although Russians didn't live there and never lived there.
Re: Why didn't Poland ask for Subcarpathian Ruthenia after the end of World War I?
Britain considered Ukrainians and Belarusians close enough to Russians due to them being fellow Eastern Slavs--unlike the Poles--no?wm wrote: ↑26 Jun 2020, 10:04That's a ridiculous statement.Sid Guttridge wrote: ↑26 Jun 2020, 08:13Mind you, that didn't stop the Poles pushing well beyond the Curzon Line elsewhere!
The lands were legitimately Polish for hundreds of years. Similarly, Bukowina was legitimately Romanian for hundreds of years.
In both cases, the legitimacy was strengthened by the fact both countries were able to effectively control the territories (possession is nine-tenths of the law.)
In the case of Silesia, Teschen and other lands the victorious Allies were partitioning territories of defeated Germany and Austro-Hungary among their minor allies (so they were employing the right of conquest).
In this, the Allies were driven by their selfish political needs, not the best interests of the people populating the handed over territories.
For example, territories homogenously populated by Hungarians and by Germans were allocated to Czechoslovakia because Czechoslovakia was an important French ally, and Hungary and Germany were French enemies.
Similarly in the case of Polish Eastern Borderlands Britain was driven her geopolitical needs (called the balance of power in Europe) and only by her geopolitical needs.
The best proof of that is the fact that Britain wanted to handed over vast territories to Russia, although Russians didn't live there and never lived there.
Re: Why didn't Poland ask for Subcarpathian Ruthenia after the end of World War I?
It does seem like Poland got more of a raw deal in relation to Germany after WWI than Czechoslovakia did. Czechoslovakia got the Sudetenland with its big fat three million Germans without any plebiscite and also got both a part of Upper Silesia and Polish-majority Teschen, again without any plebiscites. In contrast, Poland had to compete in plebiscites in both Masuria and (the overwhelming majority of) Upper Silesia--with Poland only getting Posen and the Polish Corridor for free in the west, and with Poland even losing out on acquiring Danzig!
Re: Why didn't Poland ask for Subcarpathian Ruthenia after the end of World War I?
In the case of the Curzon Line, the largest colonial empire on this planet was trying to hand over territories that weren't British to the second-largest colonial empire on this planet.
The absurdity of that is mind-boggling.
Two colonial empires were conspiring against one of their victims (is should be remembered Britain gladly accepted the partition of Poland at the Congress of Vienna).
George Nathaniel Curzon wasn't a funny quirky British Lord, he was one of the overseers that ruled and perpetuated the British colonial empire (India inclduded) for many years.
The absurdity of that is mind-boggling.
Two colonial empires were conspiring against one of their victims (is should be remembered Britain gladly accepted the partition of Poland at the Congress of Vienna).
George Nathaniel Curzon wasn't a funny quirky British Lord, he was one of the overseers that ruled and perpetuated the British colonial empire (India inclduded) for many years.