Polish - Soviet war 1919-1921

[silver 2039]

Kijów is not a Polish city and AFAIK never was. This offensive didn't aimed to include Kiev into Poland... it was to create Ukraine independent from Russia. Ukrainians fought together with Poles against Russians, so it was not an aggression - we had common enemy, Ukrainians were securing their own lands from being included into Soviet Union.

How intreasting you ignore all the Ukranians that fought with the Russians against Poland. Your view of history is one sided and revisionist and heavily biased.

 

[TheLastOne36]

This war is one of examples of common practice "Take the land from neighbor while it's weak". Almost all countries used it and Poland is no exception.

Like poland was no weaker. Poland just became a country out of the shreds of WW1. If Russia was even weaker then poland at the time, then russia was incredibaly weak that if Estonia attacked russia, it would've won! I seriosuly don't think Russia was so weak that it was weaker then Poland.

Perhaps but certainly not a majority.

Yes a majority maybe not in ukraine but in Bellurus and Lithuania i'm pretty sure it was.

 

[red_elk]

I didn't say Poland was strong. My point is, in 1919 was a good moment to attack, because later, after restoration of Russia (in any form), Poland would have no chances to win. Moreover, the war was quite successful for Poland, it managed to get some territory. I think it wasn't so weak as you said.

 

[Wolfhart]

Like poland was no weaker. Poland just became a country out of the shreds of WW1. If Russia was even weaker then poland at the time, then russia was incredibaly weak that if Estonia attacked russia, it would've won! I seriosuly don't think Russia was so weak that it was weaker then Poland.

Hey, Estonia did attack Russia in May 1919 and the Estonians under General Laidoner did win. They were so successful that the White Russians could raise an army in the Estonian-occupied Russian area and push on towards Petrograd while the Estonians fell back to the Estonian border. The Bolsheviks broke the Whites in 1920, but couldn't penetrate the Estonian border and were forced to accept the Peace Treaty of Tartu Feb 2 1920 that made Estonia an independent nation.

 

[General_CFR]

Hi, LDeska, nice to meet you on CFC Perhaps, here we'll try to continue our discussion as for the historycal roots of all the Polish-Russian-Lithuanian-Ukarainian conflicts.

For example, as for Vilnius, Wikipedia says:

Some historians identify the city with Voruta, a legendary capital of Mindaugas who was crowned in 1253 as King of Lithuania.
...
The city was first mentioned in written sources in 1323, in letters of Grand Duke Gediminas that were sent to German cities and invited Germans and members of the Jewish community to settle in the capital city. In 1387, the city was granted city rights by Jogaila, one of Gediminas' successors.

All of them: Mindaugas, Gediminas, Jogaila, were Lithuanians, not Poles.

 

[TheLastOne36]

and all the lithuanians were part of the commonwealth. your point?

 

[General_CFR]

Yes, I agree, but Vilnius had been founded long before Lithuania entered the Commonwealth. As well as Lithuania had its own statehood before the marriage between Jogaila and Jadwiga

 

[LDeska]

@silver 2039 - I'm not ignoring Ukrainians who fought on opposite side: I wrote that they were fighting on both sides and that I'm sad that Ukraine lost most in this war. Your opinion about my point of view is your problem. My opinion is (on my own opinion ) different.

@General_CFR hi as for Wilno - Vilnius - I think that you're right that it was founded by Lithuanians (I'm not a historian, but I think that it is highly probable). It's not changing the fact that in 1920 it was inhabitatet by more Poles than Lithuanians and Piłsudski secured it (for those Poles it should be better to write 'liberated it'). What would happened if he wouldn't? Soviets would seize it and both Poles and Lithuanians living there would be occupied.

 

[silver 2039]

The Soviets gave it back to Lithuania after Poland stole it from them, and then the Poles took it again and ethnically cleansed it.

During World War I, Vilnius — as with the rest of Lithuania — was occupied by the German Empire from 1915 until 1918. The Act of the Restoration of Independence of Lithuania was proclaimed in the city on February 16, 1918. After the withdrawal of German forces, Lithuanian forces were made to retreat by the advancing Russian occupation forces. Vilnius changed hands many times: for a while it was controlled by Polish self-defence units, who didn't want the city to be occupied by Russian-Bolshevik forces. Then the Polish Army regained control, then Soviet forces again. Shortly after its defeat in the Battle of Warsaw (1920), the retreating Red Army ceded the city back to Lithuania by signing a peace treaty on July 12, 1920. Poland also recognized Vilnius and the Vilnius region as a part of Lithuania with the Treaty of Suwalki signed on October 7, 1920.[1] However, on October 9 of the same year, the Polish Army under General Lucjan Żeligowski broke the treaty and seized Vilnius after a staged coup. The city and its surroundings were proclaimed a separate state of Central Lithuania (Vidurio Lietuvos Respublika). On February 20, 1922, the whole area was made a part of Poland, with Vilnius as the capital of the Wilno Voivodship (Wilno being the name of Vilnius in Polish). Ethnic Lithunians were being forced to leave the city and the use Lithuanian language was banned in public, therefore gradually Poles and Jews made up a majority of the population of the city, with a small Lithuanian minority of only 0.8%.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilnius

Whether you can accept it or not everyone can see you are heavily biased and one-sided so when you spout that jignostic propaganda expect people to call you on it for what it is.

 

[Wolfhart]

It's not changing the fact that in 1920 it was inhabitatet by more Poles than Lithuanians and Piłsudski secured it (for those Poles it should be better to write 'liberated it').

Must be the very central city core then, since the census of 1909 by the Polish researcher Eduard Czyński found the population of the Vilnius region to be 46.1% Belorussians, 23% Lithuanians and 10% Poles [Eduard Czyński, "Etnograficzno-statystyczny zarys liczebnosci rossiedlenia ludnosci polskiej. Warsawa, 1909"].

The Polish occupation of Vilnius was a dodgy affair where the Poles staged a fake rebellion by Polish army units under the command of general Lucjan Żeligowski in the Vilnius area in order to avoid a full-out conflict and international condemnation for breaking the cease fire agreement of October 7 1920.

The League of Nations judged in Lithuania's favour and asked the Poles to withdraw from Vilnius, but the Poles refused. The League of Nations could have asked the French and the Brits to enforce this, but the French couldn't be bothered to act against a possible future ally against Germany and the Brits didn't want to go alone, so little Lithuania was sacrificed.

This occupation of Vilnius brought nothing but shame and dishonour on Poland, and was the final nail in the coffin of Pilsudski's dream of resurrecting the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

 

[LDeska]

Hmmm Red Army didn't ceded Wilno to Lithuania as long as they were winning, they just said they will. When their forces were destroyed by Polish Army and was constantly withdrawing, then knowing that they will have no chance to keep those lands, they ceded it to Lithuania.

Red Army didn't get used to give away lands they once took. In each part of Europe where they put their feet there was a communistic revolution and the country evolved into a Soviet satellite state. It was like this with Lithuania and Belarus, where a Soviet Republic was already created at that time.

I don't agree with you data of ethnicity of Wilno inhabitants. According to German census of 1916 it was:

City of Wilna
1916
Poles (50.2%)
Jews (43.5%)
Lithuanians (2.6%)
Russians (1.5%)
Other (2.2%)
Total 140,800


Occupied Lithuania
1916
Poles (58.0%)
Lithuanians (18.5%)
Jews (14.7%)
Belarusians (6.4%)
Russians (1.2%)
Other (1.2%)

Then after 6 years - Polish census 1923:

Administrative Area of Wilno
1923
Poles (57.9%)
Belarusians (25.7%)
Others (8.3%)
Jews (8.1%)

and after another 8 years - Polish census 1931:

City of Wilno
1931
Poles 128,600 (65.9%)
Jews 54,600 (28.0%)
Russians 7,400 (3.8%)
Belarusians 1,700 (0.9%)
Lithuanians 1,579 (0.8%)
Germans 600 (0.3%)
Ukrainians 200 (0.1%)
Others 400 (0.2%)
Total 195,100

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_composition_of_Central_Lithuania

So you are trying to say that diminishing of population of Lituanians from 2.6% of 140,800 = 3660 citizens in 1916 to 1579 citizens in 1931 - it is in total 2,081 citizens during 15 years should be called ethnic cleansing ???

Secondly explain to me why Poles should leave those over 70k of their countrymen, who made up over 50% of Wilno inhabitants behind? Is it 'stealing' of a city or 'occupation' of a city, when majority of this city was Polish and only 2.6% of citizens were Lithuanians? For me your point of view is ridiculous.

Of course it doesn't mean that we see Wilno today as Polish city - it is capital of Lithuania and I hope that it will be forever.

 

[Wolfhart]

Hmmm Red Army didn't ceded Wilno to Lithuania as long as they were winning, they just said they will. When their forces were destroyed by Polish Army and was constantly withdrawing, then knowing that they will have no chance to keep those lands, they ceded it to Lithuania.

Red Army didn't get used to give away lands they once took. In each part of Europe where they put their feet there was a communistic revolution and the country evolved into a Soviet satellite state. It was like this with Lithuania and Belarus, where a Soviet Republic was already created at that time..

So? Whatever the Bolshevik intention was, this doesn't change the fact that Vilnius historically AND de jure was a Lithuanian city which had never been Polish (not even during the time of the Commonwealth).

I don't agree with you data of ethnicity of Wilno inhabitants. According to German census of 1916 it was:

Then after 6 years - Polish census 1923:

and after another 8 years - Polish census 1931:

Of course you don't.
First: I do not contest that the Poles were the largest ethnic group of the city of Vilnius. I question if this is true regarding the whole Vilnius region occupied by Poland. Let's be clear that the city of Vilnius is a separate geographical entity that's constitutes only one part of the Vilnius region.

Second; there are also great differences between on one hand the Polish-occupied Vilnius region in question, and on the other hand the German-occupied Lithuania or the Polish puppet-state Central Lithuania or the Wilno Voivodship which all three included parts of Poland proper. The censuses from those are therefore not really comparable, and then I haven't even mentioned anything about biases yet! Every statistician knows that you get the answers you ask for, and speaking a certain language or belonging to a certain religion are not necessarily the same as nationality. Lithuanians that spoke Polish as a second language were counted as Poles, and Lithuanian Jews were counted separately.

So you are trying to say that diminishing of population of Lituanians from 2.6% of 140,800 = 3660 citizens in 1916 to 1579 citizens in 1931 - it is in total 2,081 citizens during 15 years should be called ethnic cleansing ???

I believe 'ethnic cleansing' might be too strong a term here, but it is a fact that Poland imposed sanctions against Lithuanian cultural organizations and schools. Almost all higher Lithuanian schools during occupation were closed, and Lithuanian libraries were also closed (sometimes torched), even private libraries! All in all, being Lithuanian in Poland was strongly discouraged by Poland.

Secondly explain to me why Poles should leave those over 70k of their countrymen, who made up over 50% of Wilno inhabitants behind? Is it 'stealing' of a city or 'occupation' of a city, when majority of this city was Polish and only 2.6% of citizens were Lithuanians?

Yes, it is a shameful and dishonourable theft when it is done by staging a fake rebellion, a coup, in violation of international recognition and the treaty Poland had just signed.
Yes, it is an occupation when it is of an area and a city that's never been part of Poland before.
And the Lithuanians were not alone in their opposition of the occupation: the majority of the Jews and the Belorussians in the Vilnius region also protested against the Polish occupation by boycotting the 'elections' held by Poland.

For me your point of view is ridiculous.

To me your point of view is the same as the one of Nazi Germany when they occupied Bohemia and Moravia with the Sudetendeutsch as the excuse. Your point of view caused World War 2, and a Pole of all peoples should know better. Thankfully many Poles do.

And you're not even consistent in your point of view: you see no wrong in occupying large parts of Belorussia and Ukraine where the Poles were a minority, and in the west occupying lesser parts of Germany with German majority (read the whole census of 1931!). If Poland could be a multi-ethnic state with a third of its citizens being non-Polish, why couldn't Lithuania?

Of course it doesn't mean that we see Wilno today as Polish city - it is capital of Lithuania and I hope that it will be forever.

Then the Lithuanians may now sleep peacefully at night

 

[LDeska]

So? Whatever the Bolshevik intention was, this doesn't change the fact that Vilnius historically AND de jure was a Lithuanian city which had never been Polish (not even during the time of the Commonwealth).

What do you mean by 'Lithuanian city'? Isn't the people that make city belonging to some nation? How can you think that 2 percent of city population should rule the city where over 50% of citizens were Poles?

First: I do not contest that the Poles were the largest ethnic group of the city of Vilnius. I question if this is true regarding the whole Vilnius region occupied by Poland. Let's be clear that the city of Vilnius is a separate geographical entity that's constitutes only one part of the Vilnius region.

So we at least agree that Poles were the largest ethnic group of Wilno in 1920?
I do not think that whole region was populated mostly by Poles - I agree that outside of Wilno, the villages were populated by Lithuanians (also let's not forget about really significant Jewish minority). But I see no reason why those people living outside of Wilno should be more important than those living inside of city? Poles inside of Wilno wanted to be part of Poland...

Second; there are also great differences between on one hand the Polish-occupied Vilnius region in question, and on the other hand the German-occupied Lithuania or the Polish puppet-state Central Lithuania or the Wilno Voivodship which all three included parts of Poland proper. The censuses from those are therefore not really comparable, and then I haven't even mentioned anything about biases yet! Every statistician knows that you get the answers you ask for, and speaking a certain language or belonging to a certain religion are not necessarily the same as nationality. Lithuanians that spoke Polish as a second language were counted as Poles, and Lithuanian Jews were counted separately.

I've studied IT, so I had lessons on statistics I know how important is the way poll is done, how questions and answers are chosen etc. etc. I know that data I've provided are hard to compare, but the problem is that we do not have better data (at least I don't). If you merge those data with current official data from Lithuanian Statistical Office, it should give you some image of the situation. In my opinion those data shows that in 1920 Wilno was populated mostly by Poles and it is the reason why Wilno was part of Poland between wars.

I believe 'ethnic cleansing' might be too strong a term here

"might be"? Is it so hard to write down "is"... ?

, but it is a fact that Poland imposed sanctions against Lithuanian cultural organizations and schools. Almost all higher Lithuanian schools during occupation were closed, and Lithuanian libraries were also closed (sometimes torched), even private libraries! All in all, being Lithuanian in Poland was strongly discouraged by Poland.

I don't know about it, but I'm not saying it's not true. After 1926 Poland had an authoritarian presidential democracy and civic freedom was limited. However remember that it was almost century ago. Remember how looked like other countries in the same time - especially our neighbours that were thinking only about how to invade together Poland (Ribbentrop-Molotov pact) and was not treating their minorities too good (crystal night in Germany, massive expulsions to Siberia in Russia). If you take this into consideration, then you will have to admit that beside of our sins we were a safe haven for minorities. This is a reason why Poland was so ethnically and religiously diversified state (before WW2).

Yes, it is a shameful and dishonourable theft when it is done by staging a fake rebellion, a coup, in violation of international recognition and the treaty Poland had just signed.
Yes, it is an occupation when it is of an area and a city that's never been part of Poland before.
And the Lithuanians were not alone in their opposition of the occupation: the majority of the Jews and the Belorussians in the Vilnius region also protested against the Polish occupation by boycotting the 'elections' held by Poland.

A theft of what? You're saying that 2,6% of Lithuanians had right to this city and over half of citizens stole this city from them? Sorry, it seems pathetic to me.

To me your point of view is the same as the one of Nazi Germany when they occupied Bohemia and Moravia with the Sudetendeutsch as the excuse. Your point of view caused World War 2, and a Pole of all peoples should know better. Thankfully many Poles do.

Now you offend me. Nazis main goal was to occupy whole Europe (or even more), Poland struggled to shape it's borders after 123 years of non-existence as a political entity. Borders were not shaped yet, Poles fought to restore their country in a shape that would include as many Poles inside as possible. Tensions were high as in those times people were so mixed that it was almost impossible to find a way out.
During Versailles Conference (ending WW1) Ferdinand Foch proposed a line (Foch Line) that would split that region between Lithuania and Poland - Wilno was on Polish side. So as you can see it was not only citizens of Wilno that had this idea:

Spoiler :

http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linia_Focha

And you're not even consistent in your point of view: you see no wrong in occupying large parts of Belorussia and Ukraine where the Poles were a minority, and in the west occupying lesser parts of Germany with German majority (read the whole census of 1931!). If Poland could be a multi-ethnic state with a third of its citizens being non-Polish, why couldn't Lithuania?

Where have you found such statement of mine? I know that remote eastern parts of Second Republic had minority of Poles, but I never wrote that I see nothing wrong in that. Lithuania could be multi-ethnic state as well, but again, 2% of Lithuanians in Wilno really are not a good start to say that it was Lithuanian city in 1920...

Then the Lithuanians may now sleep peacefully at night

I sense some irony here.

The thing is that I really like Lithuanians - our common history was a history of success as long as we were cooperating. It's quite normal - you may achieve most when you cooperate, not when you fight with each other.

 

[General_CFR]

I wonder, what events in Vilnius's history turned this originally Lithuanian city into Polish- and Jewish-inhabited. I don't know the answer, but this question has interested me.

And as we began discussing the other nations' point of view as for the borders of Poland, I can't help mentioning the Curzon Line.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curzon_Line

The Curzon Line was a demarcation line proposed in 1920 by British Foreign Secretary Lord Curzon of Kedleston as a possible armistice line between Poland to the west and the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic (Russian SFSR) to the east during the Polish-Soviet War of 1919–20.

This line separates Vilnius from Poland. It seems to me, that British Foreign Secretary was more competent in the ethnic quiestions, than French Commander-in-Chief, as well as Fosh was more competent than Curson in military affairs.

 

[Wolfhart]

What do you mean by 'Lithuanian city'? Isn't the people that make city belonging to some nation? How can you think that 2 percent of city population should rule the city where over 50% of citizens were Poles?

I believe you only pretend not to understand what I wrote, but I'll humour you and type it again: Vilnius was historically AND de jure a Lithuanian city.
Historically because it was founded by Lithuanians, and it was the capital of Lithuania as long as the Lithuanian nation existed, except during the Polish occupation 1920-39. It was also inhabited by a majority of Lithuanians from the start and into the 16-19th century (depending on which historian you believe), after which russification and polonization campaigns depleted the Lithuanian citizenry.
De jure because Vilnius was internationally recognized as a Lithuanian city, was ceded by Russia to the newly independent Lithuanian republic, and had never in any time before been part of Poland.

And what makes you think that the over 50% Poles wouldn't get any influence in a Lithuanian capital Vilnius? The Lithuanians wasn't bent on driving them out, at least not before the Poles attacked them. Lithuania would probably have treated the Vilnius Poles better than Poland treated the Wilno Lithuanians...

Finally; if the ethnic majority of the city citizens should decide what nation the city should belong to, shouldn't the Latvian capital Riga be Russian today? In a near future: shouldn't Los Angeles be Mexican?

So we at least agree that Poles were the largest ethnic group of Wilno in 1920?

We agree that Poles were the largest ethnic group of the city of Vilnius during the first half of the 20th century, and I never wrote the opposite.

I do not think that whole region was populated mostly by Poles - I agree that outside of Wilno, the villages were populated by Lithuanians (also let's not forget about really significant Jewish minority). But I see no reason why those people living outside of Wilno should be more important than those living inside of city? Poles inside of Wilno wanted to be part of Poland...

In what way are the city folks more important than the rural population? How are the Poles of Vilnius more important than the Lithuanians living around Vilnius, or any nationality living inside or outside the city of Vilnius? Remember: the Jews and the Belorussians also opposed the Polish occupation. In a democracy all citizens are of equal worth. Only in a fascist state are some nationalities considered to be worth more than others.

I've studied IT, so I had lessons on statistics

So did I

I know how important is the way poll is done, how questions and answers are chosen etc. etc. I know that data I've provided are hard to compare, but the problem is that we do not have better data (at least I don't). If you merge those data with current official data from Lithuanian Statistical Office, it should give you some image of the situation. In my opinion those data shows that in 1920 Wilno was populated mostly by Poles .

Those data showed me what Germany and Poland wanted me to see. A Lithuanian or a Russian census would most probably show different figures, equally biased.
I do honestly believe that the census of 1909 I referred to in my earlier post is much less biased and therefore more reliable than any you presented, simply because it's made by a Pole during a time when there was no independent Lithuania or Poland.

and it is the reason why Wilno was part of Poland between wars.

A bad reason, the twin of the Nazi reason to occupy parts of Czechoslovakia and call it Greater Germany.

"might be"? Is it so hard to write down "is"... ?

You mistake me for Silver 2039; he called it ethnic cleansing, not me.
And anyway, I have no proof either way; it might as well have been small scale ethnic cleansing for the little I know of how Poland tried to polonize Vilnius and its surroundings.

I don't know about it, but I'm not saying it's not true. After 1926 Poland had an authoritarian presidential democracy and civic freedom was limited. However remember that it was almost century ago. Remember how looked like other countries in the same time - especially our neighbours that were thinking only about how to invade together Poland (Ribbentrop-Molotov pact) and was not treating their minorities too good (crystal night in Germany, massive expulsions to Siberia in Russia). If you take this into consideration, then you will have to admit that beside of our sins we were a safe haven for minorities. This is a reason why Poland was so ethnically and religiously diversified state (before WW2).

Yes, in comparison with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, Poland was very tolerant to its minorities.

A theft of what? You're saying that 2,6% of Lithuanians had right to this city and over half of citizens stole this city from them? Sorry, it seems pathetic to me.

A theft is when you take something that does not belong to you in the first place. Vilnius didn't belong to Poland historically or de jure, and just because Poles were a majority there didn't change this. See my first answer in this post. There's no internationally recognized legal right in the claim that only Poland should rule Poles, like there wasn't in the Nazi claim that only the Third Reich should rule Germans. That's why Pilsudski felt it necessary to stage that coup because he knew Poland couldn't claim Vilnius in any internationally recognized way. That's why the League of Nations told Poland to bugger off from Vilnius.

Now you offend me.

You shamed yourself and offended your compatriots by making a similar claim about Poles that Nazis made about Germans. I only brought it to your attention by making an accurate comparison between the reason you cited for Polish occupation of Vilnius and the reason cited by Adolf Hitler for German occupation of Bohemia and Moravia.

Nazis main goal was to occupy whole Europe (or even more), Poland struggled to shape it's borders after 123 years of non-existence as a political entity. Borders were not shaped yet, Poles fought to restore their country in a shape that would include as many Poles inside as possible. Tensions were high as in those times people were so mixed that it was almost impossible to find a way out.
During Versailles Conference (ending WW1) Ferdinand Foch proposed a line (Foch Line) that would split that region between Lithuania and Poland - Wilno was on Polish side. So as you can see it was not only citizens of Wilno that had this idea:

General_CFR wrote a good answer to this that I agree with.
And hear this: I do sympathize with the cruel fate of the Polish people, a brave nation that was raped by its land-hungry neighbours. But what on earth makes you think I could possibly sympathize with a Poland that does the same to a much smaller neighbour, and not any neighbour: the closest friends you've had in history! Lithuania refused the Nazi German offer of Vilnius in exchange for Lithuanian participation in the Nazi-Soviet attack on Poland 1939, and Lithuania tried to refuse the Soviet gift of Vilnius in 1940 until Stalin forced them into it. Compare this to the deceitful Polish behaviour of 1920; THAT was the Polish dishonour, that's what Poland should be ashamed of.

Where have you found such statement of mine? I know that remote eastern parts of Second Republic had minority of Poles, but I never wrote that I see nothing wrong in that.

You're right, my bad. I mistook the opinions of TheLastOne36 to be yours. That's early dementia on my part...

Lithuania could be multi-ethnic state as well, but again, 2% of Lithuanians in Wilno really are not a good start to say that it was Lithuanian city in 1920...

Once again I refer to my first answer in this post. Call me lazy, because that I am.

I sense some irony here.

The thing is that I really like Lithuanians - our common history was a history of success as long as we were cooperating. It's quite normal - you may achieve most when you cooperate, not when you fight with each other.

Yes, and old man Pilsudski learned this too... He must have felt his mistake keenly: when I visited his tomb in the Wawel Cathedral I noticed that on the gate to the tomb was the coat of arms of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, not the Polish Republic. It was beautiful to see the White Eagle of Poland and the Knight of Lithuania represented as equals on the way in to Pilsudski's crypt, the testimony of his lost vision.

 

[LDeska]

I believe you only pretend not to understand what I wrote, but I'll humour you and type it again: Vilnius was historically AND de jure a Lithuanian city. [...]

And you pretend you can't read my arguments... so - what does it make a city belonging to some country/state? History or people living there, maybe something else? Write your opinion.

And what makes you think that the over 50% Poles wouldn't get any influence in a Lithuanian capital Vilnius?

So in your opinion it would be better if 2% of Lithuanian would rule Wilno and influence over 50% of Poles... strange logic. I do not agree with this.

The Lithuanians wasn't bent on driving them out, at least not before the Poles attacked them. Lithuania would probably have treated the Vilnius Poles better than Poland treated the Wilno Lithuanians...

Why? Is there any reason for which you think so? I'm not a historian, so I have no arguments in favour or against it - I'm simply curious what makes you think that Lithuanians would be better than Poles? Only because of their nationality?

Finally; if the ethnic majority of the city citizens should decide what nation the city should belong to, shouldn't the Latvian capital Riga be Russian today? In a near future: shouldn't Los Angeles be Mexican?

Is it the same percentage? 2% of Latvians against 56% of Russians? 2% of Americans against 56% of Mexicans? Anyway, this is totally different situation - those cities are inside of states taht have settled down borders and exist for long time. We're discussing situation when borders of states in dispute were not shaped. I wrote it before - it was just after WW1 and Poland was resurrecting after partitions. Borders were not settled down - look at propositions of Curzon and Foch - how totally different those propositions are.

We agree that Poles were the largest ethnic group of the city of Vilnius during the first half of the 20th century, and I never wrote the opposite.

Great. We're starting to find common opinions, maybe soon our discussion will lead to some common outcome.

In what way are the city folks more important than the rural population? How are the Poles of Vilnius more important than the Lithuanians living around Vilnius, or any nationality living inside or outside the city of Vilnius? Remember: the Jews and the Belorussians also opposed the Polish occupation. In a democracy all citizens are of equal worth. Only in a fascist state are some nationalities considered to be worth more than others.

I haven't wrote that Poles are more important. I asked you why are more important the people from rural areas. I think that the most fair would be if Poland would keep Wilno because of the Poles living there, but ceded rural areas to Lithuania - something like the Foch's line I presented before.
The reason why it didn't happened is unknown to me. I read some time ago that the reason was that USSR would took those areas and Piłsudski wanted to secure it from USSR. Even if it's true, it was still not OK to do so. Those remote areas of Second Republic were hardly populated by Poles at all.

So did I Those data showed me what Germany and Poland wanted me to see. A Lithuanian or a Russian census would most probably show different figures, equally biased.
I do honestly believe that the census of 1909 I referred to in my earlier post is much less biased and therefore more reliable than any you presented, simply because it's made by a Pole during a time when there was no independent Lithuania or Poland.

I really don't know why you think that German census was biased in favour of Poles. I understand that Polish census could be, but German one? Why? Germans didn't liked Poles, so they probably didn't biased the census to incluide more Poles. Anyway, we already settled down that Wilno in 1920 was populated mostly by Poles so we may leave this issue.

A bad reason, the twin of the Nazi reason to occupy parts of Czechoslovakia and call it Greater Germany.

Maybe I'm touchy on that issue, but really this is offending me. Comparing Poland to Germany is unjust. Germans had a state policy to exterminate all ethnic minorities inside and outside of their state. There was never such thing in Poland. Greater Germany was a pretext to exercise this policy - you can't say so about 1920 war

You mistake me for Silver 2039; he called it ethnic cleansing, not me.
And anyway, I have no proof either way; it might as well have been small scale ethnic cleansing for the little I know of how Poland tried to polonize Vilnius and its surroundings.

So if you have no proof either way, why you suggest now that such thing even existed? Is it fair?

Yes, in comparison with Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, Poland was very tolerant to its minorities.

Agreed Now next step - it was a safe haven for Jews and other minorities for centuries (ethnic and religious). This was the reason why pre-WW2 Poland was so ethnically diversified and why most of Nazis crimes against humanity was done in occupied Poland - simply most of Jews killed in WW2 lived in Poland.
We had also many different Christian minorities (orthodox, protestant) and though "main stream" was and is catholic, there was never burning stakes in Poland, as it happened in Western Europe.

A theft is when you take something that does not belong to you in the first place. Vilnius didn't belong to Poland historically or de jure, and just because Poles were a majority there didn't change this. See my first answer in this post. There's no internationally recognized legal right in the claim that only Poland should rule Poles, like there wasn't in the Nazi claim that only the Third Reich should rule Germans. That's why Pilsudski felt it necessary to stage that coup because he knew Poland couldn't claim Vilnius in any internationally recognized way. That's why the League of Nations told Poland to bugger off from Vilnius.

Again you compare to Germany - you have problems with that? Have you ever seen a state that doesn't want to rule it's own people? It would be strange state for me. You are still thinking that those 2,6% of citizens should be more important that 56% and you want to call it democracy? When I say that those 56% had right to decide in which state they want to live (I repeat that borders were not shaped yet) you call it un-democratic...
Even in Civilization4 cities flip to other state if there is a majority of citizens that 'long for they motherland'

You shamed yourself and offended your compatriots by making a similar claim about Poles that Nazis made about Germans. I only brought it to your attention by making an accurate comparison between the reason you cited for Polish occupation of Vilnius and the reason cited by Adolf Hitler for German occupation of Bohemia and Moravia. General_CFR wrote a good answer to this that I agree with.

Where exactly I made a similiar claim? You're saying right now that my opinion about Wilno - that there was around 20 times more Poles than Lithuanians in it and because of this it should be Polish in 1920 is a Nazi-like claim?
So what make a city belonging to some nation? Do you know that 2000 years ago whole Poland was populated by Celts? Does it mean that all Polish cities are still Celtic and should be given to Ireland, Scotland or Wales because they once lived here?

And hear this: I do sympathize with the cruel fate of the Polish people, a brave nation that was raped by its land-hungry neighbours. But what on earth makes you think I could possibly sympathize with a Poland that does the same to a much smaller neighbour, and not any neighbour: the closest friends you've had in history! Lithuania refused the Nazi German offer of Vilnius in exchange for Lithuanian participation in the Nazi-Soviet attack on Poland 1939, and Lithuania tried to refuse the Soviet gift of Vilnius in 1940 until Stalin forced them into it. Compare this to the deceitful Polish behaviour of 1920; THAT was the Polish dishonour, that's what Poland should be ashamed of.

Poland did the same - again you suggest that Poland did what Nazis and Soviets - right? They build death camps, sent people to Siberia or shot in head without a trial like Soviets did to tenths thousands of Polish Army officers in Katyń, Miednoje, Charków.

OK, so let's discuss it - give me examples of death camps that Poland run in 1918-1939 to polonize "occupied territories". If you can't do so, then stop comparing it to Nazis and Soviets.

Yes, and old man Pilsudski learned this too... He must have felt his mistake keenly: when I visited his tomb in the Wawel Cathedral I noticed that on the gate to the tomb was the coat of arms of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, not the Polish Republic. It was beautiful to see the White Eagle of Poland and the Knight of Lithuania represented as equals on the way in to Pilsudski's crypt, the testimony of his lost vision.

It's because Piłsudski was born very close to Wilno, I think that he recognized this region as part of Poland and Poland to be the successor of Commonwealth. It was really common thing then to think about Lithuania as a region Commonwealth (or even of Poland), just like about Mazowsze, Kaszuby, Śląsk. That's why Poles living in Wilno thought that it would be impossible to leave it outside of Poland.
For example - the most famous Polish writer of Romanticism period: Adam Mickiewicz started his best-known book "Pan Tadeusz" (Mr Taddheus or Sir Taddheus) like this:

Litwo! Ojczyzno moja!

what translates to "Lithuania! My Motherland"... does it mean that he was Lithuanian? No, he was Polish, wrote and spoke Polish but lived in part of Commonwealth that was called Lithuania.

 

[red_elk]

Agreed Now next step - it was a safe haven for Jews and other minorities for centuries (ethnic and religious).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisemitism_around_the_world
"Anti-Jewish sentiments continued to be present in Poland, even after the country regained its independence. One notable manifestation of these attitudes includes numerus clausus rules imposed, by almost all Polish universities in the 1937. William W. Hagen in his Before the "Final Solution": Toward a Comparative Analysis of Political Anti-Semitism in Interwar Germany and Poland article in Journal of Modern History (July, 1996): 1-31, details:

"In Poland, the semidictatorial government of Piłsudski and his successors, pressured by an increasingly vocal opposition on the radical and fascist right, implemented many anti-Semitic policies tending in a similar direction, while still others were on the official and semiofficial agenda when war descended in 1939.... In the 1930s the realm of official and semiofficial discrimination expanded to encompass limits on Jewish export firms... and, increasingly, on university admission itself. In 1921-22 some 25 percent of Polish university students were Jewish, but in 1938-39 their proportion had fallen to 8 percent."
While there are many examples of Polish support and help for the Jews during World War II and the Holocaust, there are also numerous examples of anti-Semitic incidents, and the Jewish population was certain of the indifference towards their fate from the Christian Poles. The Polish Institute for National Memory identified twenty-four pogroms against Jews during World War II, the most notable occurring at the village of Jedwabne in 1941"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massacre_in_Jedwabne

Poland did the same - again you suggest that Poland did what Nazis and Soviets - right? They build death camps, sent people to Siberia or shot in head without a trial like Soviets did to tenths thousands of Polish Army officers in Katyń, Miednoje, Charków.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camps_for_Russian_prisoners_and_internees_in_Poland_(1919-1924)

A bad reason, the twin of the Nazi reason to occupy parts of Czechoslovakia and call it Greater Germany.

BTW, Poland occupied Czechoslovakia together with Nazis, after Munich agreement.

Ldeska, I'm not anti-polish. But the way you are reviewing the history, makes me think either you don't know some "dark sides" of the Poland history, or you are trying to convince other people to think that Poland is good while its neighbours are pure evil. That's why I'm posting the facts and links, you are possibly know well.

 

[TheLastOne36]

damnit. if only i posted before the last few posts, i would've been in the quote war, well i guess i'm outta here.

 

[LDeska]

I realize that Poland is not a country of only good people - we have murderers and thieves among us just like all other nations. You're right that I'm not objective on my view of Poland, as it is my fatherland. I know that there were people who used anti-antisemitism in times between the wars to build their political image and distract people from other problems. It was not only Polish problem - we all know how it was used by Hitler but it was also used in other states like France. It was common in Europe of first half of XX century

I must say that 24 pogroms, where in total died probably several hundreds people is of course 24 too much. But compare to 3 millions Polish Jews that lost their life in WW2 to get proper image. I'm not justifying those pogroms - I'm ashamed that it happened, but talking about it might suggest that generally Jews in Poland had bad conditions, which is not true. Finally you have to admit that they chose to live here and were free to go, however they lived here for almost 1000 years and would live today if not WW2...

About camps for Russian prisoners - remember that Polish state and whole Europe were just after WW1, which devastated this region. So quote from your source should explain why conditions were so bad there:

The conditions in these camps were bad, as the newly recreated Polish state lacked many basic capabilities and had few resources to construct them.

It was not intention to kill those soldiers, only between 15-20% of them died, it's something really different from intentional killing by shot in head done by NKWD on our soldiers, policemen, priests and other so called 'inteligencja', which I recalled earlier.

Finally, Poland didn't occupied Czechoslovakia together with Nazis - this is totally biased opinion. Poland and Czechoslovakia haven't agreed on very small part of their border (around Cieszyn city). The situation was unresolved as both sides treated other as a temporary entity Poland haven't cooperated with Nazis, there was no agreement about this part of land. Simply when Germans seized Czechoslovakia, Poles took this (realy small) part of land (we call it "Zaolzie").
I agree that it was not right, however saying that taking this small disputed part of land was "occupation of Czechoslovakia" is a word-abuse (it's not important here, but seized land had Polish majority)

 

[Wolfhart]

And you pretend you can't read my arguments... so - what does it make a city belonging to some country/state? History or people living there, maybe something else? Write your opinion.

You actually made me laugh by this attempt to pretend that I haven't already answered your question. It's obvious for all who read this too, since you took pains to omit it from the quote in your post.
Once again, from my last post:

I believe you only pretend not to understand what I wrote, but I'll humour you and type it again: Vilnius was historically AND de jure a Lithuanian city.
Historically because it was founded by Lithuanians, and it was the capital of Lithuania as long as the Lithuanian nation existed, except during the Polish occupation 1920-39. It was also inhabited by a majority of Lithuanians from the start and into the 16-19th century (depending on which historian you believe), after which russification and polonization campaigns depleted the Lithuanian citizenry.
De jure because Vilnius was internationally recognized as a Lithuanian city, was ceded by Russia to the newly independent Lithuanian republic, and had never in any time before been part of Poland.

Vilnius didn't belong to Poland historically or de jure, and just because Poles were a majority there didn't change this.

There's no internationally recognized legal right in the claim that only Poland should rule Poles, like there wasn't in the Nazi claim that only the Third Reich should rule Germans. That's why Pilsudski felt it necessary to stage that coup because he knew Poland couldn't claim Vilnius in any internationally recognized way. That's why the League of Nations told Poland to bugger off from Vilnius.

To this I add that Pilsudski and Poland showed by their actions; the fake rebellion, creating a puppet-state, and so on, that they were well aware that they were in the wrong in the eyes of the world, but tried to work around it by creating a fait accompli, a de facto situation where the stronger European powers couldn’t be bothered to set things right again.

I realize you don’t want to accept this, so I can’t convince you whatever I say. But international law was on Lithuania’s side, and accepted by most of the world’s nations, and by ALL democracies, both then and today. That’s why the League of Nations in 1920 told Poland to get out of Vilnius. Putting your hands over your ears and screaming 'I can't hear you answer me!!!' won't change this.

So in your opinion it would be better if 2% of Lithuanian would rule Wilno and influence over 50% of Poles... strange logic. I do not agree with this.

This number game of yours actually reveals your thinking: you believe that one nationality, preferably the largest one, should rule over others. On the other hand, I am a democrat and as such I believe that in a democracy all nationalities are of equal worth, and a large group as the Poles in Vilnius has every opportunity to make themselves heard and to influence politics. Now Lithuania was a democracy then, up until the military coup of 1926, and in a world where Poland didn’t attack and Vilnius was Lithuanian most of the Poles would have a good life in a peaceful state. Hardcore nationalists wouldn't be pleased of course, they wouldn't be content with anything else than a Greater Poland.

You asked below what my reason was to believe that Lithuania would treat the Poles in Vilnius better than Poland treated the Lithuanians, and my answers are two: historically Lithuania treated their minorities at least as good as Poland did during the interwar years (WW2 was another matter), and politically Lithuania had a big and aggressive neighbour called Poland that could jump on any pretext to ‘liberate’ parts of Lithuania. Therefore the Poles in Vilnius would most probably be treated well.

Actually, if Poland hadn’t jumped its small neighbour the odds are that the military coup in Lithuania wouldn’t happen, since the single most important goal of the junta was to reclaim the Vilnius area.

Why? Is there any reason for which you think so? I'm not a historian, so I have no arguments in favour or against it - I'm simply curious what makes you think that Lithuanians would be better than Poles? Only because of their nationality?

I didn’t write that Lithuanians would be better than Poles, I wrote that Lithuania would probably treat the Vilnius Poles better than Poland treated the Wilno Lithuanians, but once again this reveals your thinking: that certain nationalities are better than other. For the reasons you asked for, see answer above.

Is it the same percentage? 2% of Latvians against 56% of Russians? 2% of Americans against 56% of Mexicans? Anyway, this is totally different situation - those cities are inside of states taht have settled down borders and exist for long time. We're discussing situation when borders of states in dispute were not shaped. I wrote it before - it was just after WW1 and Poland was resurrecting after partitions. Borders were not settled down - look at propositions of Curzon and Foch - how totally different those propositions are.

Latvia a state with settled down borders and that has existed for a long time? There was no Latvia before 1918!!! But Lithuania now, that’s a state that has existed since at the latest early 13th century, and the historical borders between Lithuania and Poland were known to all. That Poland decided to disregard them and that western politicians decided to placate a possible future ally on the expense of a politically insignificant minor state doesn’t mean Poland had any internationally recognized right to a town that had never been Polish before.

Great. We're starting to find common opinions, maybe soon our discussion will lead to some common outcome.

I doubt it, since our respective points of views are based on incompatible platforms: mine on internationally recognized laws and treaties, yours on nationalism.

I haven't wrote that Poles are more important. I asked you why are more important the people from rural areas. I think that the most fair would be if Poland would keep Wilno because of the Poles living there, but ceded rural areas to Lithuania - something like the Foch's line I presented before.

No, it would never be fair that Poland occupied the historical capital of Lithuania, a city that’s never been Polish before.

The reason why it didn't happened is unknown to me. I read some time ago that the reason was that USSR would took those areas and Piłsudski wanted to secure it from USSR. Even if it's true, it was still not OK to do so. Those remote areas of Second Republic were hardly populated by Poles at all.

Agreed, and I also concede that the Belorussians and the Ukrainians of these areas were better off in Poland than they would have been in the Soviet Union.

I really don't know why you think that German census was biased in favour of Poles. I understand that Polish census could be, but German one? Why? Germans didn't liked Poles, so they probably didn't biased the census to incluide more Poles. Anyway, we already settled down that Wilno in 1920 was populated mostly by Poles so we may leave this issue.

I merely wrote that the German census was biased, not that it was biased in favour of Poles. But it was done during WW1 and therefore would only mirror the ethnic composition during a time of crisis and refugees. Therefore I question both its validity and its reliability.

Maybe I'm touchy on that issue, but really this is offending me. Comparing Poland to Germany is unjust. Germans had a state policy to exterminate all ethnic minorities inside and outside of their state. There was never such thing in Poland. Greater Germany was a pretext to exercise this policy - you can't say so about 1920 war

I don’t compare the Polish Republic to the Third Reich directly, but I do point out the similarities between the reasoning for occupying Vilnius and the reasoning for occupying Bohemia and Moravia. Any other comparison is made by you, not me.

So if you have no proof either way, why you suggest now that such thing even existed? Is it fair?

Nothing was fair regarding the occupation of Vilnius. A common definition of the term ‘ethnic cleansing’ is various policies or practices aimed at the displacement of an ethnic group from a particular territory in order to create a supposedly ethnically "pure" society. Now closing all cultural institutions of a certain ethnic group could certainly be one such policy, and has been e.g. in ex-Yugoslavia. Personally I don’t believe this was the intention; I believe the intention was to polonize the remaining Lithuanians and Belorussians, but I can’t honestly rule out the possibility that there actually was ethnic cleansing of Lithuanians in Polish-occupied Vilnius.

Note that ethnic cleansing isn’t the same as genocide.

Agreed Now next step - it was a safe haven for Jews and other minorities for centuries (ethnic and religious). This was the reason why pre-WW2 Poland was so ethnically diversified and why most of Nazis crimes against humanity was done in occupied Poland - simply most of Jews killed in WW2 lived in Poland.
We had also many different Christian minorities (orthodox, protestant) and though "main stream" was and is catholic, there was never burning stakes in Poland, as it happened in Western Europe.

And Lithuania had the same qualities, so if your goal was to paint Poland as morally superior to its neighbours it’s only true regarding Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union, as I have already conceded.

Again you compare to Germany - you have problems with that? Have you ever seen a state that doesn't want to rule it's own people? It would be strange state for me.

I compared to German reasoning. My fatherland Sweden must be a strange state indeed for you, since we don’t think we have the right to rule the Swedes in Finland, and we didn’t think we had the right to rule the Swedes in Estonia, and not even those in Ukraine. We didn't and don't even want to: we trust in Finland’s ability to treat its citizens fairly and equally, as you should have trusted Lithuania.

You are still thinking that those 2,6% of citizens should be more important that 56% and you want to call it democracy? When I say that those 56% had right to decide in which state they want to live (I repeat that borders were not shaped yet) you call it un-democratic...

Once again the numbers game and the revelation of your belief that certain ethnic groups are more important than others, based on their size.

The Poles of Vilnius didn’t actually get to decide in which state they wanted to live, since both Poland and Lithuania on separate occasions refused to hold any plebiscite about this. Poland instead choose to use force against a much smaller neighbour.

The historical borders were well known and shaped, but Poland ignored them and just tried to grab everything they could get.

Even in Civilization4 cities flip to other state if there is a majority of citizens that 'long for they motherland'

You're comparing the sordid Polish-Lithuanian war to a game?! Anyway, Vilnius didn't 'flip': Polish military forces staged a fake rebellion and then occupied the city.

Where exactly I made a similiar claim? You're saying right now that my opinion about Wilno - that there was around 20 times more Poles than Lithuanians in it and because of this it should be Polish in 1920 is a Nazi-like claim?

Yes, because it’s the same claim Adolf and his cronies made about Sudetenland, and both your claims are in violation of international law and treaties.

So what make a city belonging to some nation? Do you know that 2000 years ago whole Poland was populated by Celts? Does it mean that all Polish cities are still Celtic and should be given to Ireland, Scotland or Wales because they once lived here?

Are any Polish city still inhabited by Celts within historical Celtic borders, has never been within Polish historical borders, is the historical cultural capital of a Celtic nation, and is internationally recognized as a Celtic city by international treaties, one of them being with a neighbour (let’s call them Vandals ) that ceded the city to the Celts in modern time?

Poland did the same - again you suggest that Poland did what Nazis and Soviets - right? They build death camps, sent people to Siberia or shot in head without a trial like Soviets did to tenths thousands of Polish Army officers in Katyń, Miednoje, Charków.

OK, so let's discuss it - give me examples of death camps that Poland run in 1918-1939 to polonize "occupied territories". If you can't do so, then stop comparing it to Nazis and Soviets.

I suggested that Poland did to Lithuania what Prussia, Russia and Austria (the “land-hungry neighbours”) did to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, but I should have wrote that out in the first place. On the other hand, now I got to be entertained by your pathetic attempt to imply that my comparison of the Polish and German reasoning for occupying foreign territories would be equal to accusing Poland of death camps.

It's because Piłsudski was born very close to Wilno, I think that he recognized this region as part of Poland and Poland to be the successor of Commonwealth. It was really common thing then to think about Lithuania as a region Commonwealth (or even of Poland), just like about Mazowsze, Kaszuby, Śląsk. That's why Poles living in Wilno thought that it would be impossible to leave it outside of Poland.
For example - the most famous Polish writer of Romanticism period: Adam Mickiewicz started his best-known book "Pan Tadeusz" (Mr Taddheus or Sir Taddheus) like this:

what translates to "Lithuania! My Motherland"... does it mean that he was Lithuanian? No, he was Polish, wrote and spoke Polish but lived in part of Commonwealth that was called Lithuania.

A part that wasn’t Poland, never had been and wasn’t going to be until the occupation of 1920-39. The Commonwealth was always a union between Poland and Lithuania, never just a Polish state even though the Poles came to dominate the Commonwealth so strongly that some Poles actually confused it with Poland. Nevertheless, this belief was wrong.

This 'quote war' (good name for it!) is making my posts ridiculously long and hard to read. I apologize to the other readers for hogging the space and giving them headaches trying to read this mess.