Where is Poland?

[Domen]

The "... szczyzna" suffix is quite common in the Polish language and it can be frightening for foreigners.

Włoszczyzna, for example, is a word for all vegetables which were popularized in Poland by queen Bona Sforza:

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

 

[warpus]

She also introduced tomatoes to Poland and lasagna I heard, which we turned into Łazanki, which are nothing like lasagna.

"Okay guys, let's take out the cheese, meat, and tomato sauce, and add cabbage. There we go, Polish lasagna"

 

[Domen]

About the origins of "kurwa" and other Polish vulgarisms (in Polish - sorry!):


Link to video.


Link to video.

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

About various national anthems:


Link to video.

 

[AdamCrock]

Poland is not self-absorbed - That's totally not true !

Speaking of which We need more threads about Poland - here's some ideas

"Where is Poland? (already exists)"
"How is Polnad ?"
"Poland - 1001 ways to drink vodka"
"Poland - How we single-handedly won World War 2"
"Poland - Pump-Dream" (true story about Polish plumber from Newcastle who invented Mario Bros and then sold the rights to Nintendo for a bottle of vodka)
"Danzig Ist Polnish !"
"Polish brilliant engineerig - How Poland invented screen door submarine"
"Poland - If it's not in Poland it does not exist!" (Philosophical-Existential debate)
"Where the hell is my car ?!" (Travel guide through Poland for tourists)
"Things You wanted to know about Poland but were affraid to ask"

"
-So we got a poland cake, poland sorbet, poland pudding, or strawberry tart..
-(eyes lighting up) Strawberry tart ?
-Well, it's got some poland in it....
-'Ow much?
-Three. A lot, really.
-Well, I'll have a slice without so much Poland in it."

 

[Domen]

"Polish brilliant engineerig - How Poland invented screen door submarine"

No it was glass hammer.


Link to video.

"Poland - How we single-handedly won World War 2"

We lost World War 2. This country won it because they were on the other side as the result:

 

[DroopyTofu]

"Poland - How we single-handedly won World War 2"

We lost World War 2. This country won it because they were on the other side as the result:

Poland won (or at least helped win) World War II. If the Poles had not graciously allowed themselves to be invaded, then Britain could not have entered the war and America would have remained neutral longer. Sure, the Poles could have defended the line, but to usher in the end of the Third Reich, they let the Germans in to spark the other events. Right?

 

[Phrossack]

"
-So we got a poland cake, poland sorbet, poland pudding, or strawberry tart..
-(eyes lighting up) Strawberry tart ?
-Well, it's got some poland in it....
-'Ow much?
-Three. A lot, really.
-Well, I'll have a slice without so much Poland in it."

"Mum, there's a dead bishop on the landing!"

"What's its diocese?"

"Looks a bit Poznan-ish to me."

 

[Domen]

Ha, ha, ha... Don't get this joke (maybe its language barrier).

 

[Domen]

Poland won (or at least helped win) World War II. If the Poles had not graciously allowed themselves to be invaded, then Britain could not have entered the war and America would have remained neutral longer. Sure, the Poles could have defended the line, but to usher in the end of the Third Reich, they let the Germans in to spark the other events. Right?

That was not my point.

My point that Poland lost WW2 is illustrated by this statement from a Polish article titled "Do we have reasons to celebrate the 9th of May?":

"(...) When the free world celebrated the end of WW2, in Poland concentration camps created by the NKVD were in full swing, often in exactly the same places where a few months earlier German camps existed (...)"

A switch from Nazi occupation to Communist occupation. I would not call this a victory.

Poland won WW2, but in 1989 - not in 1945.

 

[Traitorfish]

That isn't what "World War 2" means. It refers to a specific context occurring between 1939 and 1945. It doesn't just mean "bad things involving men in jackboots".

I mean, if that was how it worked, then Poland's war began in 1926.

 

[warpus]

He's got a point though, even though it wasn't worded very well. The end of WW2 might have put an end to a lot of the violence, though not all of it.. But us Poles, we value freedom.. I mean, obviously, but it is something we put an emphasis on as much as the Americans. The end of WW2 saw the replacement of one occupying power with another one, so while Hitler was defeated, it wasn't really anything to celebrate.

In the public eye, officials were celebrating.. but the populace just wanted to be free. We didn't gain that freedom until communism fell.

 

[Traitorfish]

Ordinary people having a lose-lose experience of an imperialist war isn't exactly unique, though. Certainly not enough so to justify silly poetics about how "our war didn't end".

 

[Domen]

then Poland's war began in 1926.

In 1926 there was a 4-days-long civil strife in Poland that caused about 215 KIA soldiers.

And why in 1926 ??? If you claim things like this then you can as well say that war in Poland never ended but lasted between 1914 and 1945 with two ceasefires between 19.03.1921 and 11.05.1926 and between 16.05.1926 and 31.08.1939 ???

By the way - Polish partisans fought against Comunists also after the end of WW2:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communist_resistance_in_Poland_(1944–1946)

There was no declaration of war when Soviet soldiers entered Poland in 1944 (yet there was anti-Soviet resistance in Poland even in 1946 and later).

But there was also no declaration of war when Soviet soldiers entered Poland on 17 September 1939.

What is the difference between both invasions? Also both invasions were "liberations" according to Soviet propaganda.

silly poetics about how "our war didn't end".

But I didn't say that it did not end.

I said that it ended in 1945 and Poland lost it.

The "win situation" (similar to that before 1939) was achieved in 1989.

 

[Traitorfish]

In 1926 there was a 4-days-long civil strife in Poland that caused about 215 KIA soldiers.

And why in 1926 ??? If you claim things like this then you can as well say that war in Poland never ended but lasted between 1914 and 1945 with two ceasefires between 19.03.1921 and 11.05.1926 and between 16.05.1926 and 31.08.1939 ???

1926 is when Pilsudski's coup instituted a military-dominated regime, which represented the effective suspension of democratic government in Poland. Poland was not a free or democratic country in 1939, so to speak of some great loss of freedom is a bit ridiculous.

By the way - Polish partisans fought against Comunists also after the end of WW2:

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-communist_resistance_in_Poland_(1944–1946)

There was no declaration of war when Soviet soldiers entered Poland in 1944 (yet there was anti-Soviet resistance in Poland even in 1946 and later).

But there was also no declaration of war when Soviet soldiers entered Poland on 17 September 1939.

What is the difference between both invasions? Also both invasions were "liberations" according to Soviet propaganda.

I have no opinion on this, and wasn't aware of giving the impression that I had.

But I didn't say that it did not end.

I said that it ended in 1945 and Poland lost it.

The "win situation" (similar to that before 1939) was achieved in 1989.

I'm not pretending there's much of an internal logic to your poetics.

 

[Domen]

1926 is when Pilsudski's coup instituted a military-dominated regime, which represented the effective suspension of democratic government in Poland.

And most Poles were happy when that happened, because that democratic government was a parody of government.

Only my grandfather was unhappy, because due to Pilsduski's coup his military service was prolonged...

Poland was not a free country when the German tanks rolled over the border.

Are you saying that all not fully democratic countries are not free countries ??? Nice poetics.

You should note that Poland after the coup of 1926 was still more democratic than Russia is today in 2013.

Pilsudski's dictatorship was not a foreign occupation - the Lublin Government of 1944, on the other hand, was Joseph Stalin's puppet show.

 

[Traitorfish]

And most Poles were happy when that happened, because that democratic government was a parody of government.

Only my grandfather was unhappy, because due to Pilsduski's coup his military service was prolonged...

Freedom isn't a matter of content majorities.

Are you saying that all not fully democratic countries are not free countries ??? Nice poetics.

I'm saying that countries governed by military strongmen are not free countries. I was not aware this was contentious.

You should note that Poland after the coup of 1926 was still more democratic than Russia is today in 2013.

That is possible. However, it's also irrelevant. I would not regard the Russian Federation as a free or democratic country either.

Pilsudski's dictatorship was not a foreign occupation - the Lublin Government of 1944, on the other hand, was Joseph Stalin's puppet show.

That has no bearing on whether or not Poland 1926-39 was a free or democratic country.

 

[Domen]

so to speak of some great loss of freedom is a bit ridiculous.

Your claims are more than a bit ridiculous.

A sovereign country is still not the same as a foreign-occupied country, even if this sovereign country is not fully democratic. Also Pilsudski had great support among the Polish society - while Hitler had no support, Stalin also had minimal support (and these two guys were not Polish, but foreigners).

However, it's also irrelevant. I would not regard the Russian Federation as a free or democratic country either.

I would not either. But Putin is surprisingly quite popular among large part of the Russian society.

Freedom isn't a matter of content majorities.

By comparing Poland after 1926 with Poland under Nazi occupation, you are offending all victims of Nazi and later Communist occupation.

Between 1926 and 1938 not a single member of my family was persecuted or killed, while in period 1939 - 1988 many of them were.

That is exactly what I am saying, yes.

So before modern democracy was invented, nobody was free ???

Freedom isn't a matter of content majorities.

Is it a matter of content minorities then?

In such case oligarchy is more free than democracy.

 

[Domen]

Such a joke to summ up our strange discussion in the last few posts:

Q: Where is Poland? (or maybe: Where was Poland?)
A: Between the hammer and the anvil.

 

[Traitorfish]

Your claims are more than a bit ridiculous.

A sovereign country is still not the same as a foreign-occupied country, even if this sovereign country is not fully democratic.

Sovereignty is a polite fiction. States are autonomous to the extent they can act independent of the wishes of other states, and heteronomous to the extent they cannot. No state is fully autonomous, and no state is fully heteronomous.

Also Pilsudski had great support among the Polish society - while Hitler had no support, Stalin also had minimal support (and these two guys were not Polish, but foreigners).

Again, freedom is not a matter of content majorities. A majority of Germans may have thought that Hitler was the dog's bollocks, it would not make Nazi Germany a free country.

I would not either. But Putin is surprisingly quite popular among large part of the Russian society.

A lot of Russians feel the need for a strongman. It's what happens when you have a weak civil society, a faulty and incomplete democratisation, and widespread economic instability.

By comparing Poland after 1926 with Poland under Nazi occupation, you are offending all victims of Nazi and later Communist occupation.

Between 1926 and 1938 not a single member of family was persecuted or killed, while in period 1939 - 1988 many of them were.

You're probably right that I appeared to conflate the military regime with the undeniably harsher Nazi and Soviet regimes, and for that I apologise. However, the point stands that 1939 does not represent for a Poland a transition from freedom to unfreedom, but from one unfreedom to another, albeit greater, unfreedom.

So before democracy was invented, nobody was free ???

Democracy was never "invented", it's just how people organise themselves in the absence of political authority. (And I'm not simply claiming that people will "naturally" adopt democracy, but that organisation outside of authority is by definition democratic.) Undemocratic systems, which are premised on significant asymmetries of power, are those which must be "invented".

 

[Domen]

Again, freedom is not a matter of content majorities.

No state is fully autonomous, and no state is fully heteronomous.

Freedom is also not an absolute thing. There are various degrees of freedom - not just full freedom and complete lack of freedom.

No state is fully democratic / free.

Democracy was never "invented", it's just how people organise themselves in the absence of political authority. (And I'm not simply claiming that people will "naturally" adopt democracy, but that organisation outside of authority is by definition democratic.)

So the Bushmen in Africa have democracy ??? Original / interesting theory...

The Bushmen have complete absence of any political authroity. Yet I never saw anyone describing their society as democratic...

A lot of Russians feel the need for a strongman. It's what happens when you have a weak civil society, a faulty and incomplete democratisation, and widespread economic instability.

And probably there is also some nostalgy for Russian Empire among many Russians.

They want to be citizens of an Empire and Putin gives them this false impression that they are part of it.

You're probably right that I appeared to conflate the military regime with the undeniably harsher Nazi and Soviet regimes, and for that I apologise. However, the point stands that 1939 does not represent for a Poland a transition from freedom to unfreedom, but from one unfreedom to another, albeit greater, unfreedom.

Ok, here I agree.

But let's add that the 1926 - 1939 unfreedom (or maybe lack of full freedom - but some degree of freedom was present) was not opposed by majority of the Polish society. Majority of the Polish society was quite content.

We should also distinguish between two periods - first one between 1926 and 1935 and second one between 1935 and 1939.

In 1935 died Pilsudski and Pilsudskite political camp broke into two camps, of which only one - Smigly's camp - won power.

After Pilsudski's death the degree of "unfreedom" became larger than before his death and the extent of freedom decreased.

A majority of Germans may have thought that Hitler was the dog's bollocks, it would not make Nazi Germany a free country.

Yes here you are right as well.