Ribbentrop-Beck Pact - should Poland ally with III Reich

[Domen]

Nationalist identities were not present at that point.

This is a modern myth - not entirely, but to some extent for sure.

Some sort of nationalism was present, even in Medieval period, and I already wrote about this before in another thread.

Of course it is true that majority of population did not feel strong national belongingness or allegiance, and it is true that nationality or ethnicity is a fluent thing - that can change over just a few generations, or even the same person can change his ethnic or national allegiance.

This has been - by the way - always true, because even in the 19th and the 20th centuries - period when nationalism was stronger than ever - majority of population of any European state did not feel any kind strong national belongingness or allegiance. There are some exceptions, particularly in states very heavily influenced by radical national ideologies - such as Nazi Germany. But generally most people only feel weak ties with some ethnic group or nation.

So it is generally true, that nation is a largely fictional and fluent human-made theoretical construct, not something objectively existing.

=====================================

However, nationalism in its base, is mostly about distinguishing between "us" and "them".

And such nationalism - as well as ethnic conflicts - were present already in the Middle Ages.

I wrote about this in another thread on this forum. But here some more examples of distinguishing nations (in original Latin texts the word used was usually "gens" - which in this context is translated as nation, not as family):

1) Kronika Wielkopolska (early 1200s) - a Polish source:

"(...) Germans, knowing neighbouring Slavic states, often consort with Slavs and in the world there are no any other so friendly and kind towards each other nations as Slavs and Germans. (...)"

And apparently just 100 years later German reputation among Slavic people was already much worse:

2) Dalimilova Kronika (early 1300s) - a Czech source:

"(...) Who is wise should see (...) how this greedy and fraudulent nation [Germans] is muscling into the most profitable levels of church hierarchy, into the most important benefices, into the largest estates, into the royal council (...) Dear God, just look how (...) Poles (...) Czechs and native populations of states which are not German, in their own territory are being displaced by Germans from their own offices, benefices, bestowals (...), and their place is being gradually stolen by Germans. Vagabonds have priority, natives are being browbeaten."

3) De quodam advocato Cracoviensi Alberto (first half of 1300s):

"(...) The concern of Germans, wherever they settle, is to become the most important group and not to be subjected to anyone else. (...) At first they behave in a submissive way (...) but all of this is a deceit, because when they already gain enough experience, they start behaving in a different way. (...)"

Another Medieval excerpt about Germans (this time German peasants) who settled in Slavic states:

"(...) These who got accustomed to pasturing pigs, now want to rule. (...)"

============================================

Please note that the original Latin word used in these Medieval texts quoted above was "gens".

In this context (for example "gens Slavorum"), gens translates as "nation", not as "family".

So "gens Germanorum" or "gens Allemanorum" translates as "German / Germanic nation"; "gens Slavorum" - "Slavic nation", etc.

============================================

So claiming that ethnic conflicts was something unknown to Medieval times, is wrong.

 

[Traitorfish]

A question.

If nationalism is indeed the ancient and venerable phenomenon you claim, and if national identities are as old as complex human society,

why do the overwhelming majority of contemporary scholars of nationalism and national identity, whether historians, sociologists or political scientists,

whether realists (i.e. believing the nation is a really-occurring phenomena) or non-realists,

subscribe to a modernist understanding of the nation, to the view that modernism is distinctly associated with modernity?

If it is so obvious that the nation is an ancient phenomenon,

and you insist that it is,

why have so few of the people who spend their lives studying this overlooked it?



Noting in advance that "international Marxist conspiracy" will not be admitted as an acceptable answer.

 

[Domen]

and if national identities are as old as complex human society,

This is not what I said.

And you of course ommited the part of my post, in which I actually agree with you - that nations are largely fictional entities.

That said, many people still feel (and felt even in the past - even long before the "Golden Age" of nationalism, which was 1850 - 1950) some kind of allegiance and belongingness, which can be described as having some similarities to nationalism in its "classic" form, that is the 19th to 20th century one.

why have so few of the people who spend their lives studying this overlooked it?

Political correctness and trend for globalisation are the explanations (in other words - they overlook this deliberately).

.

 

[Angst]

EDIT: Got a little carried away with this post and it contains some language a little too strong imo. I'm sorry Domen, it's not meant like that.

I did not claim ethnic conflicts were unknown in Medieval times. It is you, however, that equate the implications of what a "Pole" is in the 1300s to the implications of what a "Pole" is in the 1900s. That a ethnic group is designated - or even recognized - has very little to do with the modern understanding of "nation". What you merely denote is that "hey Angst groups existed". Yes they did. They could also be classified, probably, and somewhat meaningfully geographically be demonstrated as living within a boundary. They could also be met with prejudice or favor from other ethnic groups, they could claim freedom and fare war in favor of their traditions or customs, and they could even found an ethnically sound state.

But they could not become a "nation".

Especially not in the humanistically counter-productive idealistic way certain Eastern Europeans side with in modern times. The complex implications of what a "nation" is is so different between then and now that it's meaningless to equate the two. However you are of course free to continue post-Sovjet-Bloc pipe dreaming and glorify a simple nomer of language or geography to inherently become equal to a 19th century imperialist construct.

 

[Traitorfish]

This is not what I said.

And you of course ommited the part of my post, in which I agree with you - that nations are largely fictional entities.

That said, many people still feel (and felt even in the past - even long before the "Golden Age" of nationalism) some kind of allegiance and belongingness, which can be described as having some similarities to nationalism in its "classic" form, that is the 19th to 20th century one.



Political correctness and trend for globalisation are the explanations (in other word - they overlook this deliberately).

.

Those aren't explanations. Those are buzzwords you read in this month's Laughable Backwater Nationalist Review. I'm looking for an actual answer, like a grown-up person with the barest familiarity with the relevant scholarship would give.

 

[Domen]

that equate the implications of what a "Pole" is in the 1300s to the implications of what a "Pole" is in the 1900s.

Even in the 1900s it is hard to say what a "Pole" is.

Polish-speaking population of East Prussia voted to remain within political borders of Germany in the 1920 plebiscite in Masuria.

Similarly, Polish-speaking and mostly Catholic population of Upper Silesia were largely loyal citizens of the German Empire, until Otto von Bismarck came with his "Kulturkampf", and started to persecute Catholics and Polish language (for example Polish language was forbidden in schools, while before 1870 Polish-speaking Silesian children were allowed to take lessons in Polish). As I wrote - most people are not patriots and most people are not nationalists.

Most people first of all care about their families and local communities, and only later - if anything - about state or nation.

But this changes, when persecutions are applied towards some group of population.

For example Otto von Bismarck contributed to revival of strong Polish nationalist feelings among many of Polish-speaking Upper Silesians.

As I wrote in another thread - persecution is what accelerates national feelings, as a form of opposition to this persecution.

Excluded and discriminated populations (be it persecuted due to religion, language, or anything else) often instead of assimilating, start to even more underline their distinctiveness. This was the case with Polish-speaking Upper Silesians, most of whom were loyal citizens of Germany until Otto von Bismarck came in the 1870s with his "Kulturkampf" and told them all: "you are worse than other Germans, because you speak Polish and because you are Catholics".

The effect of this was opposite to what Bismarck intended, because Upper Silesians considered their language, religion, tradition, as important things.

.

 

[Domen]

Angst - you talk about nation all the time.

And Polish 1931 census, the results of which I posted, asked about mother tongue (primary language), not about nation.

Polish 1921 census also asked about ethnicity (Polish word "narodowość" can be translated as both "ethnicity" and "nationality", because there are no separate words for these two things in Polish language - there is no word "etniczność", although we can say "grupy etniczne" which means "ethnic groups").

Nevertheless, the results were as they were - the most numerous population group in Poland's Kresy, were ethnic Polish-speakers.

Ethnic Russian-speakers in that area were 0,3% in 1921 and 0,9% in 1931.

So claims of modern Russian nationalists, that Poland never had more rights to that land than Russia, are inherently wrong.

And I also posted a lot of info about Polish culture in Kresy - to counter totally false claims, that there was no cultural influence of Poland there. Most of so called Western Ukraine as of 1939 (Eastern Galicia and part of Volhynia) was within political borders of the Kingdom of Poland already since 1352 - 1366.

On the other hand, the city of Lwów (Lviv) and entire Eastern Galicia, was never was part of Russia.

In its entire history before 1914, the city of Lviv was part of Halych-Volhynia Principality (up to 1366), then Poland, and then Austria (after 1772).

Ethnic-linguistic structure of the population of Lviv was mostly Polish and Jewish * all the time at least since the 1700s all the way until 1939.

But politically, the city of Lviv was part of the Kingdom of Poland already since the 1300s all the way up to 1772.

* Ethnic Jews include people, who declared their mother tongue (primary language) as either Hebrew language or Yiddish language.

On the other hand, jews in religious (rather than ethnic) meaning of this word, include people who were believers of Judaism.

.

 

[Domen]

Ethnic Jews include people, who declared their mother tongue (primary language) as either Hebrew language or Yiddish language.

On the other hand, jews in religious (rather than ethnic) meaning of this word, include people who were believers of Judaism.

On the other hand, the racist definition of Jews in Nazi Germany was a lot different than this.

In Nazi Germany, a Jew was a person who had - for example - just 2 ethnic Jewish grandparents or 2 grandparents who were believers of Judaism.

So even people who were not aware of allegedly being Jewish (thinking about themselves as German, speaking German language, and being Christians when it comes to religion) could be counted as Jews by the Nazis. This is how Jews were classified in the German population census of 17 May 1939.

This is of course an outrageously racist and national-chauvinistic definition of Jews.

On the other hand, being speakers of Hebrew, Yiddish or believers of Judaism - is something objective.

has very little to do with the modern understanding of "nation".

First of all - modern (2013) understanding of "nation" has very little to do even with that from the 1930s. So this changes all the time, not just once at some point of history in the 19th century. Understanding of "nation" evolves all the time, it did not change just once and for all after the French Revolution.

Most people (and this is true for every country) are not nationalists and even not strongly patriotic (only "moderate" patriotism is quite common).

On the other hand, mother tongue (primary language) is equivalent to ethnicity. And it is objective. Also religion of a person is something objective.

This is why we can objectively say, that ethnic Polish-speakers were the largest group among population of Poland's Kresy in the 1930s.

So denying the existence of Poles, Polish language, or Polish culture in Kresy, is a sign of outrageous Russian national chauvinism.

On the other hand - "counting Polish patriots / nationalists" - is pointless. We can counter this with counting Russian patriots.

For example - how many Russian patriots / nationalists were among poor Russian-speaking peasants in the 1900s ???

How many citizens of the Soviet Union were citizens of the Soviet Union as the result of their free will or self-determination ??? How many "Soviet patriots" - willing to die for "Mother Russia" - were among Russian-speaking soldiers of the Red Army, who massively surrendered in 1941, as Mark Soloni writes ???

Only later - after Soviet soldiers saw terrible crimes commited by Germans in their homeland - patriotic feelings and morale of the Red Army increased.

In 1941 they could hold Moscow only thanks to NKVD troops placed behind their trenches, ready to shoot anyone who would start escaping.

.

 

[Angst]

I used "modern" understanding of nation quite loosely there I'll admit. Since Danish "modern" understanding of nation is different than Polish "modern" understanding of nation. Your "modern" understanding of nation is still similar to Danish "romantic" understanding of nation, even though you have grown to assemble retorts to the dissemblages of practically all anthropology. While it is comfortable you have realized it is a construct, you still seem to insistently apply a narrative of Herderlian nonsense.

I don't know what your point is with a 20th century census being about language, noting that language is not about nation, and then go to blabber about language being a lot about nation.

 

[Domen]

Since Danish "modern" understanding of nation is different than Polish "modern" understanding of nation.

You are expressing your anti-Eastern European (or anti-Central European) prejudice and stereotypes here.

To check the modern official Polish definition of nation, I suggest you look into the text of the Polish Constitution from 1997.

.

 

[Angst]

Yes because Eastern Europe is all I care about. I only talk of Eastern Europe when I criticize nationalism. I should stop talking about nationalism because Eastern Europe is everything to me.

 

[Domen]

Yes because Eastern Europe is all I care about. I only talk of Eastern Europe when I criticize nationalism.

So you should talk about Balkans (Southern Europe) when you do this.

There nationalism is much stronger than in Eastern Europe.

Also in Spain and France (for example: Catalans, Basque people) there are strong separatist national movements.

Not to mention the Irish people (British Isles = Western Europe) and to some extent the Scottish people.

.

 

[Angst]

I was sarcastic.

 

[Domen]

I don't know what your point is with a 20th century census being about language, noting that language is not about nation, and then go to blabber about language being a lot about nation.

And what is your point of critizing my posts from page 8 ???

Saying that Poles should shut up because Russia is bigger and stronger, or what ???

I am not talking nationalistic crap - I am merely talking about ethno-linguistic and cultural aspects. Neither do I say, that Kresy should return to Poland (they should not - let the Ukrainians and the Belarussians keep them, they also lived there for centuries, just like Poles) - all I want is to show its history in real light, without ommiting the importance of Poland and Polish people for the development and history of that region - which is the goal of Russian nationalists.

It is Russian nationalists, who claim that "come on, there was no Kresy", trying to erase this part of Polish history from textbooks.

Russian nationalists also claim that Ukrainians and Belarussians = Russians. I personally know one Belarussian guy, and he doesn't share this view.

Actually modern Ukrainians start to appreciate the Polish heritage of Kresy and the importance of Poland in the history of development of this region, rather than believing in old Soviet Communist propaganda about "foreign evil Polish lords and Church not doing anything, only oppressing native peasants".

If Russia is whinning that Poland was oppressive towards peasants, let me remind them how Tsars and Boyars oppressed Russian peasants...

Every European state was oppressing peasants.

Later Western Europe became more liberal - but Germany (including Brandenburg-Prussia) and Austria oppressed peasants no less than Poland. And Russia oppressed peasants more than anyone. England, the Netherlands and France were the only countries which stopped oppressing peasants before others did.

French peasants were oppressed all the way until the Revolution. But in Austria and Prussia this continued well into the 19th century.

.

 

[Angst]

The bickering seemed more like "this was Polish nation" contra "this was Russian nation" as a historical debate than.. Well, a politological historical debate. (Is that a term?)

 

[Domen]

The bickering seemed more like "this was Polish nation" contra "this was Russian nation" as a historical debate than.

Sorry if it seemed like this.

And this land (so called Kresy) was indeed also part of Russian history - but only during the 1800s.

Of course we can consider all of Kievan Rus (a huge Early Medieval state / federation of Eastern Slavic peoples) as part Russian history - but in such case we could as well say that all of Western Slavic peoples (including Polabian Slavs, Lusatian Sorbs, Czechs, Moravians, etc.) are part of Polish history...

Both statements are equally false.

 

[Angst]

Yes I'm sorry I misread it too man:

 

[Domen]

But coming back to the original theme of this thread (see the interview on page 1):

You gotta be a lvl 99 wishful thinker to belive otherwise, that Reich would peacefully coexist with free and prosperous Rzechpospolita.

This is what author of this article (in Polish) also claims:

http://www.historiasztuki.com.pl/strony/101-01-03-POLSKA-Ribbentrop-Beck.html

So it is not like all Poles share the views of Piotr Zychowicz (see page 1).

======================================

The article above (which disputes with Zychowicz's alternative history proposition of Pact Ribbentrop-Beck in 1939) shows the following situation after hypothethical victory of German-Polish-rest of Axis states alliance against the Soviet Union (a victory that would still be very unlikely, actually):



So Poland would be surrounded and trapped by victorious Nazi Germany from all sides.

As Veles wrote above - not very good prospects for Poland's future.

 

[red_elk]

The bickering seemed more like "this was Polish nation" contra "this was Russian nation"

The funny part is appealing to ethnicity or language of inhabitants as an argument. Whereas "Russian nation" consists of more than hundred different ethnic groups with different languages. Back in XIX century, included also many Poles and Finns.

 

[Cheezy the Wiz]

This has to be the most hilarious image I've ever seen on the internet (the most hilarious ever being a local government campaign ad by the road that read "Shoot Talibans, Cut Taxes."). "Nah, they would go around Poland, never through it. Just like they did Belgium!