This issue was bugging me over a log period of time so I post my thoughts here.

We all know what came to Russia after the Great War. Something called Communism. To be exact it was a dictatorship in the name of Communism and happynes for all. We also know how this worked out. When I admire our achievements under the Communist government; from a heroic victory in the Great Patriotic War to The First Space Exploring Nation; I must say I'm not very proud of our history from 1916 to 1953. The revolution in Russia was caused by exaustion from war and a deliberate effort by Lenin and his government to bring down Russia and use it as a base for "World Revolution".

When in 1914 Russia entered the war it was thought that the war would be quick and victorious just as in many other countries. It wasn't. In 1914 Russia was in the middle of reforms and her industries and infrastructure were being built at the highest rate than ever before. Some analysts say that Russia could've become the worlds most powerfull state by 1930's. But again all agree that WW1 could've happened much earlier than 1930's.

But for Russia it could've gone differntly. In 1914 though Russia made a surprise attack on Germany in the East. All generals thought that Russia would not be able to do that for some weeks. The attack had one majour purpose - to divert German divisions from the West so that France has time to recover. Germans came to the East and defeated the unprepared Russian Army. But France was saved due to BEF arriving and many German divisions transferred to the East. There is no need for me to go into detail into WW1. We've all studied the history. But what I find strange that I found no evidence of any men or supplies being given to Russia by her allies. In ww1 Russia fought against 3 enemies at once. 30 to 50% of the German army was fighting on the Eastern Front as well as most of Austrian and Turkish Armies. In my view Russia bared the biggest cost of the war. When I agree that Russia had the manpower to do it, her economic situation could not support such a huge effort. Economic exhaustion was part of the reason 1917 Feb revolution happened.

In all ww1 I could only find one occasion where the Western Allies tried to help Russia and that was the failed Gallipoli expedition. It was part of th Effort to re-create the Balkan war theatre and partly to help Russia struggling with Austria-Hungary. Romanian entrance into war worseed the situation as they were defeated and the Russian army had to cover their front. Russia on the other hand did send 40,000 sldiers to the Western Front when France required it. They were needed to boost morale of the French Soldiers. 1/4 died in the first month of the war in the West (I think it was 1916).

Russian revolution had also huge impact on the army. It came to absurds like regiments voting on whe ther or not to attack. And this was not entirely the fault of the Russian governemnt. Germans had a well organised machine of propaganda that won its war against Russia unleashing Lenin and his comrades. It was Lenins governemnt that signed the Brest-Litovsk treaty.

Here I come to the part that I do not understand. Sometimes people talk about "Russian betrayal" in ww1. I find this strage. When the treaty was signed there was effectively a state of "dual government" in Russia and revolution was sure to come. Under these circumstances was it not a duty or "honour duty" of Western Allies to help Russia in her internal crisis. When Russia collapsed and the illegitemate government signed that treaty the Western Allies lost a valuable friend. Not to mention the fact that Germans did break the B-L treaty and invaded large territories of the Russian Empire.

My guesses are that both British and French governments (esp British) wanted to see the Russian Empire collapse to get rid of a powerfull competitor. It was so easy for them to "give Russia up the Reds" and than blame it for an inhumane regime that they did not prevent from occuring. It was their obligation to protect Russia as an Ally from enemies from "within and without". Also giving virtaully no support to the Whites during the Russian Civil War and "Allies" playing thier own games killed the last hope Russia had to suvive as it was. Russia did have a leader and his name was General Kolchak. He got virtually no aid from his so called allies. Americans, French and the British were seduced by the Reds who promised them large contracts after the war was over. Thats why Russia recieved no aid from Entente.

I do not blame Entente for all Russian mistakes, but I just want to point out that Russian allies could've given Russia more aid. If that was true the history of the world could've been much different and probably in a good way.

Well, the Western allies did come to aid the Whites to get Russia back to the war during the Russian Civil war 1918-1920.

http://www.johndclare.net/images/Russ_w2.gif

The British had no alliance with Imperial Russia; they only entered WW1 because they had guaranteed Belgium's neutrality. No requirement to help Russia.

Russia's alliance was with France.

But both Britain and France were under immense pressure on the Western front, as they sent waves upon waves of attackers on the German trenches. It wasn't pretty. They were also economically exhausted, buying supplies from overseas (esp America) and supporting their huge field armies.

America was neutral until almost the end of the war; unlike in WW2. No requirement to help Russia either.

In 1918 the Great War was almost over. The numbers of supplies and men were pityful compared to the strength of the Red Army. Also the Poles were clearly fighting for their own imperialist interests not helping the Russian Empire.

A few points:

Britain also attacked Turkey in the middle east not just at Gallipoli, perhaps another roundabout way of diverting resources from Turkey's war with Russia. Other than this, the western allies repeatedly had enough problems of their own to handle on the Western front, France's armies had problems in some areas with discipline, Britain's army nearly broke apart in 1918 and so on. It's hard to see how the western allies could have done anything more than she did to support Russia in WWI. You might want to include what you think the Western allies should have done so that we may compare it to what they realistically could have done. Think about the fact that the West was economically and militarily battered by the war, we had enough problems of our own without sorting out your mess.

All the western allies sent considerable numbers of troops to fight in the Russian civil war on the white russian side. For that matter, the Czar's regime was hardly perfect, and the communist regime was a relative unknown, though suspected. Hindsight tells us it was unwise to "permit" Red army victory, back then who could have known the full extent of the problems Russia would sink into? I don't doubt for a moment that Britain would be reasonably happy to see Russia weakened, and vice-versa, but to suggest that we willingly brought about the regime of Lenin knowing what it would do is wrong.

If you meant in 1918, the Western powers were even in a less able position to help. They had exhausted themselves on the Western Front, losing millions of men, and emptying their treasuries. Even if they had the will (they did not, not after 4 years of pointless slaughter), they did not have the means.

The British had no alliance with Imperial Russia; they only entered WW1 because they had guaranteed Belgium's neutrality. No requirement to help Russia.

Russia's alliance was with France.

Some basic history for you, no offence :)
http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/alliances.htm
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/tripalent_formationofthetripleentente.asp


But both Britain and France were under immense pressure on the Western front, as they sent waves upon waves of attackers on the German trenches. It wasn't pretty. They were also economically exhausted, buying supplies from overseas (esp America) and supporting their huge field armies.

America was neutral until almost the end of the war; unlike in WW2. No requirement to help Russia either.

The situation was no different on the Eastern Front. Trust me. But Russia somehow did find 40000 to sent to the Western Front. Also if the Western Allies did not want the Eastern Front collapsing they would've found the men in 1917. USA could've interevened as they came in helping the Entente not just France and Britain. If they weren't what were their 10,000 troops doing in Vladivostok in 1919?

In 1918 the Great War was almost over. The numbers of supplies and men were pityful compared to the strength of the Red Army. Also the Poles were clearly fighting for their own imperialist interests not helping the Russian Empire.

Weren't they fighting for independance?

Some basic history for you, no offence

XIII is right actually. If you look at the link in that link you will discover another page on which it says:

Britain, allied to France by a more loosely worded treaty which placed a "moral obligation" upon her to defend France, declared war against Germany on 4 August. Her reason for entering the conflict lay in another direction: she was obligated to defend neutral Belgium by the terms of a 75-year old treaty.

With Germany's invasion of Belgium on 4 August, and the Belgian King's appeal to Britain for assistance, Britain committed herself to Belgium's defence later that day. Like France, she was by extension also at war with Austria-Hungary.


No offence :mischief:

Some basic history for you, no offence :)
http://www.firstworldwar.com/atoz/alliances.htm
http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/section/tripalent_formationofthetripleentente.aspAhem, the key word is 'inter-related alliances'. ;) The Brits guaranteed Belgian independence; I remembered vaguely they'd an understanding with France. France had an alliance with Russia (vs Germany).

I don't remember Britain having a direct alliance with the Czar.

The situation was no different on the Eastern Front. Trust me. But Russia somehow did find 40000 to sent to the Western Front. Also if the Western Allies did not want the Eastern Front collapsing they would've found the men in 1917. USA could've interevened as they came in helping the Entente not just France and Britain. If they weren't what were their 10,000 troops doing in Vladivostok in 1919?In 1917, the Western lines were almost broken when German units fr the Eastern front joined their Western front counterparts for a final assault IIRC... They're barely hanging on, until the Americans arrived.

And the Americans at that time were fiercely isolationist; they had little interest in the affairs of others.

I don't know why those 10000 US troops were in Vladivostok.

Weren't they fighting for independance?
If that was the case they would've stopped at kerzon line (border between Belorussians and Poles) Poland included large areas of Ukraina and Belorussia and Pilsudskiy himself said that his goal was Poland of 1600. (Greater Poland)

You can read Vry's insightful article on the origins of WW1 here... ;) Might be helpful. :)

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95423

Well if you read the second link you'd understand that 1907 treaty was a treaty combining 3 powers into one alliance, not just 3 separate treaties.

Britain entered the war (officially) because of "London Treaty" (1837) that allowed Britain to protect Belgium.

And the Americans at that time were fiercely isolationist; they had little interest in the affairs of others.
Meaning we will sell you weapons as long as you fight our silly little wars? :lol: I don't buy that. "Isolationism" IMO is "we will fight the looser once you've exhausted yourself enough". But thats IMO.

You can read Vry's insightful article on the origins of WW1 here... ;) Might be helpful. :)

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95423
As you can see I did post in that thread ;)

Isolationism was more of a 'touch me and you'll die; otherwise don't bother me and stay away' kind of thingie IMO... ;)

Well if you read the second link you'd understand that 1907 treaty was a treaty combining 3 powers into one alliance, not just 3 separate treaties.

Even if this was the case, history tells us that the British quite clearly did not consider it to bind them in times of war to garunteed assistance. If they had they would have declared war much sooner and specifically over different events than Belgium's invasion.

Meaning we will sell you weapons as long as you fight our silly little wars? I don't buy that. "Isolationism" IMO is "we will fight the looser once you've exhausted yourself enough". But thats IMO.

Uhmmm no. America would have been much better prepared for WWI had she been planning to throw herself into it when the fighting was all but over. As it was she had to accept French and British equipment to get sufficient troops together in time. Hardly fits with preparing to join in when the war was almost over to be frank. Americans overall were against joining the war, and her actions after the war with the league of nations speak of isolationism rather than anything else.

I can assure you that that Britain and France didn't want the Russian collapse. After it all they could do was sit tight and wait for the serious German attempt at a break through in 1918. If there is talk of "betrayal" (don't doubt it, but haven't really heard it) I think we can take it as an indicator of how IMPORTANT the Russian contribution was. France certainly wanted to be allied to a powerful Russia.

And I think you may underestimate how powerful Germany (with the Austrians and Turks thrown in for good measure) actually was.

40.000 Russians on the western front is really only a detail in the general mayhem. Since all new that the western front was where the war would be decided I assume they may have been there as symbolic gesture. A Russian presence in the theater of war where it would all be decided.
No offense to the Russian effort in the east, but the Germans grew intensely frustrated by the fact that they had continous victories in the east, but nothing they achieved brought them an inch closer to a successful conclusion to the war.

As far as the US is concerned, they first had to raise and train an army, and once they had a million men to send in 1918, Russia was already out of the war. And besides the western front always had priority.
Of course this meant that the US in 1919 still had a big army to send to Russia. (Though as far as I remember the far east was held by the japanese until 1922, when it was called home after having become hugely impopular with the Japanese public.) The effort to help the white side in 1919 may have been extremely badly organised but part of the problem seems to have been that no one really expected the reds to win, until it was too late. The white forces seemed to be superior in just about everything. The expectation was that they could handle the situation. Very few people understood what was happening in Russia anyway.

If they weren't what were their 10,000 troops doing in Vladivostok in 1919?

Because the Great War had already ended and there was no pressure in the Western Front. :p

If that was the case they would've stopped at kerzon line (border between Belorussians and Poles) Poland included large areas of Ukraina and Belorussia and Pilsudskiy himself said that his goal was Poland of 1600. (Greater Poland)

So? Even Finland and the Baltic states where trying to grab land of Russia/Soviet-Russia. Finland was trying to grab East-Kareilia wich is culturally Finnish area. ;)

Sometimes I'm amazed no one has accused me of creating 'Verbose' as an AE... ;)

If that was the case they would've stopped at kerzon line (border between Belorussians and Poles) Poland included large areas of Ukraina and Belorussia and Pilsudskiy himself said that his goal was Poland of 1600. (Greater Poland)

You're quite correct, Gelion; Pilsudski was bent on re-creating the Rzeczpospolita that Russia, Prussia and Austria had destroyed in 1795. Today this is viewed by a majority of Poles as a foolish error that did nothing but antagonize the Ukrainians, Lithuanians and Belarussians against us. A more intelligent Polish foreign policy - although in our defense nearly everyone in Eastern Europe at the time was on a land-grab binge - would have been to negotiate viable borders and support independent states along our eastern border. There were a few instances of this, in particular with the Ukrainians, but in the end nationalists took over again as usual and opted for a land-grab opportunity (Treaty of Riga, 1921). Mind you, the fact that Poland didn't view Ukraine, the Baltics and Belarus as necessarily Russian-sphere areas doesn't bother me at all - Russian nationalism and imperialism didn't end with the Romanovs in 1917; my problem is simply that it was idiotic for Poland to try to rule these countries again.

The "Curzon Line" BTW had been rejected by Lenin in 1920 and would only be accepted by the Soviets in 1941-ish when Stalin, after being attacked by the Germans, began to produce maps of the USSR's western border with Poland that ran along the Curzon Line. This is why, according to Soviet sources, the Soviet armies entered Poland in July 1944 but Polish sources note that the 1939 Polish-Soviet border was crossed in January.... Lord Curzon, when he drew that damned line, had taken some sketchy ethnographical evidence (mostly from Ukrainian and Russian nationalists) and drew a rump of a state that ignored 123 years of both Russian and Prussian re-settlements, forcible Russification or Germanification, and in some cases outright expulsions from certain regions. To make matters worse, in World War II, as the Soviets gave their new map of Eastern Europe to the West, it was noticed that a clerk in 1920 had mis-drawn the Russo-Polish border in Galicia/Wolhynia, accidentally including the town of Lwów/Lviv/Lvov/Lemberg in the USSR when Curzon had originally intended it to be included in Poland - but Stalin refused to budge, even after personal addresses from Roosevelt on it.

In short, the borders that Poland dreamed of in 1918, that it got in 1921, and the ones it was saddled with in 1944-45 were all quite unjust and involved much ethnic cleansing and destruction of local history to achieve. I am derived from a family deported by the Russians from Wilno/Vilnius, a city that in 1900 was 70% ethnically Polish (plus 10% Jewish, 5% Lithuanian and 5% German) although the surrounding countryside was almost completely Lithuanian. We're stuck with the ones we have now, but the lesson is that with overlapping histories it is not easy to draw borders even when there is much good will on all sides, and in 1918-1920 nobody had much good will in Eastern Europe.

As for Russia's allies, Britain did eventually sign a convention (not a formal alliance, but about as close to one otherwise as they could) with Russia. Britain did send some supplies to Russia during the war through Murmansk. You'll recall that the British Secretary of War, Lord Kitchener, died when his ship struck a German mine as he was on his way for a conference with the Tsar in Russia in July 1916. The Americans were not only not formal allies of Russia's, they were not allied with the British or French either. Wilson was only able to convince pacifists and isolationists in Congress to declare war after he declared the U.S. at war with Germany but not allied with the Entente. The U.S. was declared an "associated power", which in theory would only operate in vague coordination with other powers also at war with Germany - but in reality of course the Americans rapidly became dependent on the British and French for training in trench warfare, and American units were piecemealed out to fight under British or French command in many instances before Foch was declared overall Allied marshall, including over American forces.

The Americans only showed up in Vladivostok in 1919 because the Japanese did. There was already a great amount of friction between Tokyo and Washington and the Americans feared - quite rightly, as it would later turn out - that Japan was simply attempting to establish its own European-style imperial realm in the Pacific. While recent histories have highlighted Anglo-American frictions after the war, the Americans saw Japan as their principal rival in the Pacific and feared in particular Japanese expansion into mainland China. The Naval treaty of 1922 was squarely aimed at Japan, although the British were also relieved at the results. American forces in Russia during the civil war did pathetically little, seeing far less combat than British forces did, and there was a strong movement in the U.S. immediately to withdraw these troops.

Remember Britain fought Lettow Vorbecks Eastern African German Army with 150-200 000 troops, the best performing German army in WW1, then they had the invasion in the third Afghan War, Then they had problems in occupying the Middle East, then they had the Easter Rebellion in Ireland 1916 and the list goes on. UK fought the war with the back against the wall, so the only culprit would be American War Profiteers, double morale and false isolationism.

Vrylakas said it: The Russians were isolated. A few British submarines could break through the German defense lines in to the Baltic but a large scale help through this line was impossible (unfortunately the British didn´t try it ;) ). And the Murmansk road was also not a route like it was 25 years later. Russia was blockaded by Germany as Germany was by the British. The Entente members couldn´t help Russia.

Adler

They could have done it through Afghanistan (British), but it was war there, and they could have used the Transsiberian railroad, but allies were pressed as it was.

In WW2 most supplies from the Allies to Russia came via Persia and the Caucacus. Relatively speaking, not much was sent via Murmansk or Archangel, nor Vladiavostok.

In WW1, the situation was such that supply via Persia and the Caucacus was impeded by the Turks and the job German agents were doing stirring up Muslims against the British Empire, the Germans looking for a Jihad to be waged against Britain. One of the most interesting areas to study during WW1 is the missions German intelligence officers led against the British...I am most fond of the way the Afghan leader tested the British to the full by taking all his gold (tribute) from Indian banks to Afghanistan. The British did as request, despite the fact that this would be just the sort of thing to happen before an attack. Of course, the British complemented this with a little demonstration of air power for the natives to behold ;)

Back to the subject. The supply route wasn't as feasible in WW1 in many regards, the British war industry was in an even worse position than in WW2 and Britain could spare even less to give to Russia as the need to fight on the ground was worse even than in WW2 as she had to help France to the full.

In my opinion, the German war machine of WW1 was superior matched up to her opponents than in WW2, the difference was simply that France had better manpower and that Russia was run by a more effective totalitarian system that was able to deal with dissent. Whilst the WW1 German army may have lacked the armour and airforce that allowed for Blitzkreig, it had the best artillery for at least the 1st two years of the war and a well-trained and most importantly, well commanded army and reasonable allies. Had they not over-reacted due to the Russian offensive by pulling men from von Kluck to head east to get to the battles after they had been won and the Russians advanced armies crushed, the war could have ended quickly.

Had the Germans of 1914, being as bold as the Germans in 1939 invading Poland, to attack one way and leave the door relatively open on the other front (in WW1 leaving Prussia relatively unguarded as planned) then Paris could have been taken and peace treaty written out, humilitating France, maybe losing Britain some pointless part of Africa, but no doubt ending this silly war.

As the French were fighting and were nearer to home and appeared to need the support most and were clamouring for it, they got it, not Russia. Had also Persia - Caucacus been open, then I think you'd have seen far more aid in the form of raw materials getting to Russia. I doubt that it would have made a difference, as Russia had political disunity combined with a rather passive way of dealing with, in essence, traitors...far too lenient. Had it not been, there would have been no Stalin, Lenin and a great many other of that cohort.

Remember Britain fought Lettow Vorbecks Eastern African German Army with 150-200 000 troops, the best performing German army in WW1, then they had the invasion in the third Afghan War, Then they had problems in occupying the Middle East, then they had the Easter Rebellion in Ireland 1916 and the list goes on. UK fought the war with the back against the wall, so the only culprit would be American War Profiteers, double morale and false isolationism.

The third Afghan War was during & after May 1919, so is hardly relevant to stopping aid to Russia. The North-West passage had always to be guarded (some 40,000 men) to stop German agents getting in, Russians, Afghans and perhaps even Ottomans and Germans too from getting the jewel in the crown of the British Empire.

Of course, this 3rd war was won by Britain after "we" mobilised a vast force and crushed the Afghan invaders and those that had joined in for the fun of it :D

Note: This was after the assassination of the previous leader that I mentioned kept faith with Britain despite giving real worry by moving his tribute from Dehli to Kabul whilst German agents were in town :eek:

In 1918 the Great War was almost over. The numbers of supplies and men were pityful compared to the strength of the Red Army. Also the Poles were clearly fighting for their own imperialist interests not helping the Russian Empire.

Yes, regaining independance is indeed imperialism

If that was the case they would've stopped at kerzon line (border between Belorussians and Poles) Poland included large areas of Ukraina and Belorussia and Pilsudskiy himself said that his goal was Poland of 1600. (Greater Poland)

Nope. Pilsudski's plan was to create independant buffor states between us and Russia. No-one claimed all the lands Poland once owned, not even ultra-nationalists.
Whether these lands You call Byelorus/Ukraine or Poland, it's a matter of discussion. Their status was not decided.


land-grab opportunity (Treaty of Riga, 1921).


Again, Poland took less land than it was offered.


In short, the borders that Poland dreamed of in 1918, that it got in 1921, and the ones it was saddled with in 1944-45 were all quite unjust and involved much ethnic cleansing and destruction of local history to achieve.


Ethnic cleansing is an exagerration - on the other side, it involved that when Ukrainians got the land; and it ment exactly the same when it comes to destruction of local history.
You may claim that giving Podole, Wolyn, Polesie, and eastern Lithuania to Poland was not just, but the same giving it to anyone else was not just either. Eastern lithuania was majorly Polish, which Lithuanians didn't care to accept. They were offered this land as long as they'd have Polish as second national language (as it was, in fact - it was rather a rebirth of Lithuanian nation by separation from Poles than a conflict of two distinctive nations),
or making a Swiss-type confederation. They did not agree.
Byelorus didn't have a national identity at all - bah, today it barely has it too.
Also, parts of it along modern Lithuanian border had a Polish majority as well.
Ukrainians were feeling a national identity, but also, Lwow was a Polish city,
and Podole region was halfly Polish with others having Polish minority as well.
All these lands were important to Polish culture and history.
Many of important Poles came from thes lands, including Mickiewicz, Slowacki, Konopnicka, Kosciuszko, Stanislaw August Poniatowski, Milosz, etc. . Vilnius and Lwow were greater centres of Polish culture in past century.


I am derived from a family deported by the Russians from Wilno/Vilnius, a city that in 1900 was 70% ethnically Polish (plus 10% Jewish, 5% Lithuanian and 5% German) although the surrounding countryside was almost completely Lithuanian.


Sorry, but You are mistaken.
While it was a situation of Lwow (Polish city surreounded by majorly Ukrainian villages), the region around Wilno/Vilnius was majorly Polish.
In fact, while the Poles from Vilnius were expelled, the areas around it remained inhabited largely by Poles up till today - Polish organisations won last local elections in the regions around Vilnius.

Yes, regaining independance is indeed imperialism

Nope. Pilsudski's plan was to create independant buffor states between us and Russia. No-one claimed all the lands Poland once owned, not even ultra-nationalists.
Whether these lands You call Byelorus/Ukraine or Poland, it's a matter of discussion. Their status was not decided.

If the Poles only want after Polish lands I'd be silent. But they also got lands of non-Polish population. If its not imperalism, what is? In fact by 1922 1/3 of the Population of Poland was non-Polsih. Poland tried to grab lands at every opportunity i.e. Vilnus 1919 and Czechoslovakia 1938.

Nevertheless the lands "that were not claimed" became a part of Poland. Thats all one needs to see. In case you will go onto "Russia conquering Poland" business you might want to remember how Poland first conquered parts of Russia when it was under the Mongols and later sabotaged it after the rule of Ivan the IV. As far as I'm concerned the Poles got a just revenge for conquering and enslaving Russia for centuries.

If the Poles only want after Polish lands I'd be silent. But they also got lands of non-Polish population.


Which country doesn't have lands like that?
Russia has a lot. France has. pre-ww2 Germany had, Spain has, Italy has...


If its not imperalism, what is? In fact by 1922 1/3 of the Population of Poland was non-Polsih. Poland tried to grab lands at every opportunity i.e. Vilnus 1919 and Czechoslovakia 1938.


Both Vilnius and Cieszyn regions had a definite Polish majority and small Lithuanian and Czech minorities.
Also, when it comes to Cieszyn,
it was divided on ethnic base immediatelly after ww1, and when Soviet forces were under Warsaw, Czechs invaded us and took it - perhaps Poles acted badly in 1938, but
- Czechs did it first
- the disputed territory was ethnically Polish, there were more Germans than Czechs there
- they finally got it.
When it comes to Vilnius, Lithuania seized it from USSR in 1939, so it would be in analogical situation as Poland in Cieszyn case, if not that Vilnius and surroundings were majorly polish.


Nevertheless the lands "that were not claimed" became a part of Poland.


Nope, the ones that were became Polish. Poland before I partage stretched much further east than Poland after the treaty of Riga.


Thats all one needs to see. In case you will go onto "Russia conquering Poland" business you might want to remember how Poland first conquered parts of Russia when it was under the Mongols and later sabotaged it after the rule of Ivan the IV. As far as I'm concerned the Poles got a just revenge for conquering and enslaving Russia for centuries.

:lol:
You are really serious?
Check the facts; after Mongol invasion, it was Lithuania that conquered most of Ruthenian territory, including part of modern-day Russia, but mostly Byelorus and Ukraine. Poland didn't conquer a thing, it peacefully swollowed Lithuania. No-one was enslaved, more to say. It's the Ruthenian princes (that later converted to catholicism and adopted Polish language) who were trembling Poland in fact.
Poland-Lithuania was the attacked side in every conflict but the one You mentioned, and even in it, the expedition on Moscow was a deed of private armies of our eastern nobles, not of Poland as a state (the parliament didn't agree on war). The exact noble that started the trouble was Mniszech, and it's not Polish surname. He probably was Ruthenian by root...
Also, since the war at the beginning of XVI century, the only modern-day Russian province that Poland (Lithuania, exactly) owned was Smolensk,
which means your idea of Poland "enslaving Russia" are, very delicate to say,
wrong.

Squonk, Germany before 31.12.1937 did not have lands belonging to other nations! Also the Polish were fighting a war to conquer as many Russian territory as possible. In this time the Poles tried to make trouble with nearly every neighbour (for example Polish invasion of Silesia in 1923). Although the Curzon line was indeed not the best solution (as well as the Polish Corridor and Danzig).

Adler

Yeah, I guess the colonies prior and during WWI didn't count as they only belonged to other people and not nations :mischief:

I spoke of Germany AFTER 1919.

Adler

I don't believe you mentioned that, but if you want to be that pedantic about it just to prove a weak point...

Squonk, Germany before 31.12.1937 did not have lands belonging to other nations!


Upper Silesia...
Masures and Warmia...
small areas in Pommerania, Babimojszczyzna etc - they were all inhabited largely or majorly by Poles


Also the Polish were fighting a war to conquer as many Russian territory as possible.


WHAT Russian territory did Poland conquer, or try to conquer, huh?
And again and again - Poland could take more eastern territory, but it resigned from it, because it didn't want to have 50% "national minorities"


In this time the Poles tried to make trouble with nearly every neighbour


How couldn't she?
She regained independance and none of its neighbours was willing to give back any of its territories it's once taken.
Take Czechoslovakia, too - it had boarder conflict with nearly all of its neighbours too.
Poland had conflict with Germany, USSR, Chechoslovakia and Lithuania.
Relations with Romania and Latvia were very good - Poland resigned of Dyneburg/Daugvpilis on Latvian behalf.


(for example Polish invasion of Silesia in 1923).


There were three uprisings in Silesia, no invasion, sorry; 1919, 1920, 1921,
and the boarder was decided by Allies in 1921, leaving a lot of areas that voted for Poland in plebiscite on German side, as well as several majorly-German cities (exclaves on Polish-inhabited territory) on Polish side.

Sorry to say but Upper Silesia was German! In the plebiscite most of the inhabitants decided to stay in Germany than becoming Poles. Only because of the French you were able to get the areas. Masuren Polish? I saw in a history book a few years ago the population structures of the areas of 1914. In this the Polish are in majority only in Posen and Western Prussia (except Danzig and the other cities in that area), with strong minorities in Silesia indeed. No Silesia and Masuren were German.
Polands East border was in that time the Curzon line, a line which was indeed not the best. Therefore the Poles tried to claim other parts and attacked. I don´t want to discuss if this fighting was legal or not but indeed the Poles attacked and were able to seize lands by them. So they (re-) conquered these lands. Poland wanted to regain the territories it belonged after the unification with Lithunia. And some of these territories belonged to other nations. So there is no wonder if it had difficulties with the neighbours.
Concerning the last mentioned uprising I considered it as invasion. Shortly after the plebiscite, 61 % for Germany and even 1/3 of the Poles voting for Germany, the Polish government made an uprising there, which was IIRC supported by some units of the Polish army. Nevertheless this uprising failed due to German troops. In the following time Kattowitz (57 % Germans), Königshütte (75%) and some other German cities became Polish with ca. 500.000 German inhabitants.

Adler

In the plebiscite most of the inhabitants decided to stay in Germany than becoming Poles.


It's 60% to 40%, the Germans won the elections, but the election was held in cities/villages, that's the way it was supposed to be- a village votes for Poland, it is given to Poland.
Concerning the results, it is worth mentioning that - Poland was dumb enough to propose that people borned in Silesia could come and vote.
It hoped that Poles living in Ruhra would cheerfully come and vote for it.
Insead, Poland was in no means to transport them on the place, Germany was, and that gave Germans some boost.
Also, remember that Poland was a new state, and general german claim was that it would collapse after a month or so - which seemed likely, in fact.


Masuren Polish? I saw in a history book a few years ago the population structures of the areas of 1914. In this the Polish are in majority only in Posen and Western Prussia (except Danzig and the other cities in that area), with strong minorities in Silesia indeed. No Silesia and Masuren were German.


Did You check the ethnic by region or by smaller administrative regions?
If You did the secound, You'd see that entire southern Eastern Prussia was Polish when it comes to rural parts.
I have good atlass based on German sources, when I'll be at home, I'll post these maps.


I don´t want to discuss if this fighting was legal or not but indeed the Poles attacked and were able to seize lands by them.


USSR planned to attack us to support the revolution in Germany.
And as long as I know, Poland agreed on Curzon line only after the war took nasty turn for it - but then, USSR was not interested


And some of these territories belonged to other nations. So there is no wonder if it had difficulties with the neighbours.


Chechoslovakia took nationally Polish territory. So wanted Lithuania. Soviets wanted mixed Polish-Byelorussian and Polish-Ukrainian lands.


Concerning the last mentioned uprising I considered it as invasion. Shortly after the plebiscite, 61 % for Germany and even 1/3 of the Poles voting for Germany, the Polish government made an uprising there, which was IIRC supported by some units of the Polish army. Nevertheless this uprising failed due to German troops. In the following time Kattowitz (57 % Germans), Königshütte (75%) and some other German cities became Polish with ca. 500.000 German inhabitants.
Adler

If You look at the map of the results, all the cities - of the larger ones all voted for Germany, indeed - were exclaved by territories that voted for Poland. Germany got these territories so it could keep half of these cities.
Poland got just 29% of the territory.