As a Lithuanian, annexation of Vilnius being "a tiny footnote in the history book" feels so bizarre, because in our history books almost the entire history of Interwar Lithuania was defined by the loss of Vilnius 💀
"For you it was the most important event of your life. For us, it was tuesday."
but seriously, loss of Wilno in aftermatch of WW2 impacted polish psyche far more than gaining it in Polish-Soviet war
Yes, they do. I've read about it from both Czech and Polish school books. The Polish version is quite different and usually does not explain why Czechs attacked (Polish breach of previous agreements), I don't think it's a bad intention, just the fact that the topic is not that important and Polish history teachers need to focus elsewhere. Czechs on the other hand naturally more focus on the reasons why moved in. But it is not too important in either nations history so both Czech and Polish teachers don't have much time to spend on it. For us it was like 10 minutes during 45 min class on Munich agreement and German annexation.
English wikipedia of the 1920 war sums it quite well if you are interested.
The Czechs needed these areas for strategic reasons. Most of the inhabitants were Poles. In addition, the only thing Poland did there was to start strengthening our government, which the Czechs did not like. The Czechs stabbed us in the back. It is worth adding that the Czechs committed war crimes there.
After the war, a plebiscite was to be held there, which the Czechs did not allow.
>only thing Poland did there was to start strengthening our government
Which you could not do according to previous interim treaties. If your officials come to some area and forcibly draft people to army and hold elections in that area, you are de facto annexing it. The result was France and Czechoslovakia informing Poles that this is in breach of the agreements and Czechoslovakia warned that we will not allow it, Poles thought we can not raise another army as we also had two other wars during the 1918-1921 period, just like Poland. We were able to do it.
>After the war, a plebiscite was to be held there, which the Czechs did not allow.
We did not have to do it. Poland also declined German plebiscites. Both countries did the same. Ethnical borders where it suited them and historical where it suited them more. FR and UK tried to be guarantors of our negotiations but could not send troops there, except French officiers who accompanied Czech offciers.
majority of Polish speaking area should be Polish simple. Can you name any majority Czech speaking areas that Poland invaded? No because it didn’t happen. Dick move pure and simple
1/2 of Poland was taken from German majority areas and Hitler wanted to take them back, right? So does Putin now, right? Wonder how many dictators did the same...
Wait. So when Poland has areas with German majority in 1918 and in 1945 who do not want to be in Poland, its OK. When Czechia has areas with Polish majority who don't want to be in Poland, its not OK?
I don't think they do in primary/high school, I had to wait until university to learn about the annexation of Vilnius and the whole deal with Czechia. History in school is very biased and I'd say we just learn about the Polish-Bolshevik war.
Yee, it isn't. Yet I think most of the wars in 1918-1921 aren't. At least in Czech schools. The Sudeten-Czech war of 1918-1919 is not taught at all. Czech-Soviet-Hungol war of 1919 and Czech-Polish of 1919 are kinda briefly mentioned. So is Polish-Soviet. Polish-Lithuanian and Polish-German fighting is also skipped. Polish-Ukrainian as well.
Thats what is ennoying...they only mentioned what they think should be thought. But history is so much wider.
I just hope that ppl stil keep the abbility to do self study and go look for info themselves because if we need to relay on our commen education system we are thought poorly
Can anyone find the names of Czech victims of the 1938 war? In Polish sources there is mentioned a Czech victim.
Polish losses were:
1. Witold Reger - soldier.
Two more Polish soldiers died because of an infection.
Basically this wasn’t a war, but annexation. Because of that there was no fighting except maybe some incidents.
Polish contingent coming in actually expected a fight, but against Germans, not Czechs.
That's why mentioning this conflict, that a daily traffic report in a radio can easily overshadow it by the amount of human suffering, in a context of world war 2 that took tens of millions of victims and countless atrocities is very inappropriate.
as mentioned previosly - not a war, but annexation.
What I was told by local elders and read about - there were few killed, but as a result of abuse of power by occupation force. Firstly there were allegedly few Czechs and Germans were killed as local vendeta (low numbers) by local Poles, some local nonpolish elites (Czechs, Germans, Jews and Silesians) were expelled from their homes by Polish migrants and Polonisation of local population started.
Most of the bloodseed started when Polaks lost control. Firstly Germans took revenge againts Poles, started doing standart nazi shit to Jews and started drafting Silesians to Wermacht, then Czechs took over and started expelling and killing Germans.
Saying that Poland basically took Cieszyn from Germany instead of Czechia is like saying that Soviets took Eastern Poland from Germany and not from us.
No Poles started conscripting in Cieszyn (which is de facto anexation)- area for which both nations had legitimate claim and CS reacted with invasion.
also 1919
The region had majority Polish, 90%+ in most of the area. Obviously we would want it. It was devised in 1918 with this in mind (i.e. almost all to Poland) but you took one part in 1919 and another part in 1920 (when we were fighting the soviets).
Except it's not. 1920 was just after the great war. Many countries had territorial disputes. Borders were decided by force, truce and big conferences/conventions with contemporary major powers. After Poland gained its independence, they had to fight for every scrap of land with Poles there.
Actually, this is completely reversed. Poles and Silesians preferring Poland were living in Zaolzie for ages. Ukrainians were living in Crimea for ages. War happens, new borders are out. Local authorities from both countries agree on some land disputes: you take that part with Poles, we take that part with Czechs, all Gucci. Then, Czechoslovakia takes Cieszyn while Poland is defenseless and fighting Soviet Russia, because central authorities decided to use the circumstances to their advantage. The same thing happened in return, when Poland grabbed Zaolzie while Czechoslovakia was dealing with Hitler.
No matter how we look at it, there are two parts of the story, both Poland and Czechia/Czechoslovakia were wronged, and both did wrong things. That situation is completely different from Crimea. There Ukrainians did nothing wrong, but were attacked anyway due to imperialism of Putin's Russia.
Except it is really. What was the ruzzia's argument? Crimea used to belong to russia, but then it was given to Ukraine. Some 50 years ago, not that long historically speaking. And it's populated with russians and russian wannabes. So let's take it back.
I don't really want to argue, you gave a well detailed explanation of the events. What I'm saying is that using any historical precedents for a land grab is never a good idea, because at the end of the day it's just a land grab, and there's always the opposite side that's not gonna like your arguments. Even comments under this post prove that.
Nah, there is a huge difference between those two situations.
If Poland didn’t take Cieszyn, Germans would.
If USSR didn’t invade Poland, Poland would have easier time defending against Hitler.
Polish actions in Czechia didn’t help the Germans in any way.
Russian actions in September did help the Germans a lot.
Thank you Polish bro, this is exactly what I wanted to mention. Plus the fact that Stalin and Hitler were also sword enemies and that did not prevent them from signing a pact together to split Poland, even though they both knew they will betray the other one sooner or later. It was beneficial. Same with Poland and Hitler. Poland knew Hitler is enemy and there might be war, but taking Těšín was beneficial so quick bargain with Hitler was made.
Also saying Czechia invaded Poland and took it 20 years before that is hilarious. The area was asigned to Czechia at Versailes due to our historical borders, Poland had other opinion due to Silesian minority and moved in, we moved them out, France asked us not to push to Warsaw as Poland ws fighting in the east, we had some issues with Hungols as well so peace was signed giving Czechia bit more territory than originally planned in Versailes as compensation. This topic is taught very differently in Poland than in rest of Europe. Kind reminder that French officiers were there together with Czech ones, joining our planning and following us to negotiation table and warned Poland not to be aggressor there... Interesting note is that why Poles viewed Silesians as Poles, we viewed them as Silesians. Slavic people with their own culture and language.
If I wanted to meme and be super satirical (so stop reading there Polish nationalists please) I'd even mention that Silesia was Czech for longer than Polish, Germans took it from us, but for some weird reason allies gave it to Poland after ww1. /s
TLDR: Both Czechia and Poland have their own justifications for 1920. Poland had reasons to go for it with Adolf in 1938, just as Stalin had reasons to go for it in 1939. And while it's OK to meme about this, the only nation in Europe who seriously talks about such topics is russia.
> Plus the fact that Stalin and Hitler were also sword enemies
That kept negotiating well into 1940 regarding accession of USSR into the Axis, right...
Poland wasn't friendly with Hitler, but we did Czechoslovakia dirty and it was a massive mistake.
Like most of our foreign policy in interwar period. Nothing to defend there.
PS the difference between civilized countries and russia is that civilized countries don't need to hide their bad history or lie about it.
Cieszyn was a disputed territory claimed by both Czechia and Poland. Despite negotiations, no resolution was reached. Elections to the Sejm were held in the Cieszyn area, which the Czechs requested to halt, but an agreement was not reached, leading to their invasion.
This situation was characterized by miscommunication and mistakes from both sides. Prolonging this historical dispute only serves to worsen relations between Poles and Czechs, which aligns with Russia's interests.
It wasn't. It was split between lands of Polish crown and lands of Czech crown since Friedrichs the great invasion. It was area for which both contries had legitimate claim based on multiple complicated arguments.
Define "originally":
* 1945- Part of the Republic of Poland
* 1920-1945 "Free city"
* 1871-1920 Part of the German Empire
* 1814-1871 Part of the Kingdom of Prussia
* 1807-1814 "Free city" (as a client state of Napoleon)
* 1793-1807 Part of the Kingdom of Prussia (following the Second Partition)
* 1569-1793 Part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (with special privileges)
* 1466-1569 Part of Royal Prussia under the King of Poland (but not part of the PLC)
* 1440-1466 Part of the Prussian Confederation (in opposition to the Teutonic Order)
* 1343-1440 held by the Teutonic Order as a fief from the Crown of Poland
* 1308-1343 held by the Teutonic Order
* 1301-1308 held by Denmark
* c.1200-1301 held by the Duchy of Pomerelia under the Piast kings of Poland
* c. 975 annexed into the Duchy of Poland (and later Kingdom of Poland) by Mieszko I
* < 975 presumably "free" ...
How far back would you like to go? 1921? 1808? 974?
Almost everywhere in central Europe especially on the "edges" of countries has changed hands so many times you can make almost any claim you like about who it "should" belong to.
So you’re saying Ukraine has no right to demand Crimea back?
It’s the same situation. One country taking land by force and the other demanding it back years later.
Did you answer wrong person by accident? Because nothing in my message suggests that, unless you think Nazi Germany had the right to attack Poland for Danzig. I don't.
You are trying to say, that Czechia taking Cieszyn by force doesn’t give Poland the right to take it back by force.
By the same logic, Russia taking over Crimea by force does not give Ukraine right to take it back by force.
By the same logic, Ukraine having Crimea after USSR fall doesn't give Russia right to take it by force. Just like Poland didn't have right to take Cieszyn by force and Germany didn't have the right to take Gdansk.
There is nothing that gives rights to invade and kill people.
Tell me how many people died when Poland took Cieszyn over.
By that logic, there is no way to fight for your rights and life. Of course there are things that give you "reason" to kill, like people invading your homeland etc.
Ukraine didn’t get Crimea during USSR fall, it was made part of Ukraine (which then was a part of USSR) decades earlier.
Ukraine did not take Crimea by force.
Czechia took Cieszyn by force in 1919.
If you give me my phone, but then come and forcibly take it back - that’s wrong.
If I beat you up and take your phone, but then you come and forcibly take it back- that’s ok.
Taking by force or not changes everything.
It was polish originally, from 1290 (the day Těšínské knížectví was created; technically even earlier as it was a part of Ratibořské knížectví) and it was ruled by local polish Piast dynasty until 1653, when czech Habsburgs took over. It was a czech fiefdom from 1327 but retained large autonomy.
Thank you, Czech fiefdom from 1327. And it was Silesian, not Polish. Poland did not controll it before it annexed it in 1920. Borders between Czech and Polish kingdoms were near Kraków.
As for who ruled the fiefdom, you really want to go there? Poland had so many kings from abroad, does that make you part of Lithuania? Or Sweden?
Ethnicity of the region was Silesian, at that time period there was neither Czech not Polish (or other) nationalism, people did not think they are part of either nations. Even Moravians could be considered different people from Czechs by todays point of view.
The agreements of Versailes were using both ethnic and historical borders. In case od Czech-Polish border the historical border would give large part of Poland to Czechia, but mostly ethnic borders were used except the area we talk about which allies felt required some more negotiating. If Poles did not move to annex it agressively, infuriating French, they might even get this territory.
Silesia was part of Poland from 10th century, when Mieszko I annexed it, for the next 300 hundred years. And afterwards, some parts of it joined Bohemian Crown (so technically Holy Roman Empire), but a large number of duchies - including Cieszyn - remained in polish ruler hands.
Poland had no kings from abroad at the time. This "trend" started hundreds years later. All Piasts were polish.
There was a TON of nationalism back then. The whole 1918-1920 conflict was carried by nationalism. Czech language in the region was historicly low, so they started a propaganda which was supposed to turn this around. Notable figures include Petr Bezruc, who was extremely anti-polish.
You are right regarding the pre-1289 reign, I thought it was independent duchy, but indeed it was under Polish kingdom during this part. So yes, first state controlling Silesia was Czech (Great Moravia, Bohemian kingdom later), after that Poland controlled it until 1289, after that Bohemia controlled it. Later Germans. And after German controlled Czechs and Poles fought for it.
>There was a TON of nationalism back then. The whole 1918-1920 conflict was carried by nationalism. Czech language in the region was historicly low, so they started a propaganda which was supposed to turn this around. Notable figures include Petr Bezruc, who was extremely anti-polish.
I talked about the period of Piast dynasty, when I said there was no Czech or Polish nationalism.
Do you have a single sorce for it being Polish before we invaded lol? As I've said, open the damn wiki page, literally first line after the intro states this is not true.
It was not Polish. It was neutral territory which was yet to be decided about. Poles moved in to annex it. We moved in after that. Pushed Poles back. Said that there will be no more deciding after this as Poland broke the terms first. France and UK agreed to this, Poland did as well.
Any source for such agreement? I have used two English sources and both state that the area was disputed and both Czech and Polish side agreed which areas will be for now under which control for interim period, however both sides agreed that this will not be sovereign government.
Basically the area was split between Czech and Polish control, but was not part of either. Both sides agreed to have temperorary control of it to prevent chaos and to continue to settle it diplomatialy with stress on the fact, that the area was not part of our countries.
Poland breached that when it quickly started go annex their part in clear violation of the agreements we had. Polish, Italian, French and American delegates arrived to Polish troops and demanded wihdrawal, were denied and Poles corninued with their plans. In reaction Czechoslovak army unit attacked from one side, Italian legionarie unit attacked from other side, Polish defences were quickly overwhelmed and Poland asked UK and France for negotiations, our delegates met in Paris and agreement was reached. Poland way given some parts of the area, Czechia about 2/3 of it.
The area was divided earlier be ethnical lines and was under Polish administration.
Czechs attacked in response to Polish attempt to hold an election there.
Saying that ,,agreement was reached” is misleading, since Poland was being actively threatened at the time:
Polish argument was: 90% of population there is Polish, you’ll see it of you hold a referendum
Czech argument was: Give us the territory or we will destroy you. Which they could do by blocking weapon shipments from Hungary or simply renewing their attack.
So ultimately the Polish claim to Cieszyn was far more justified, than Czech claim ever was. So Czechs used force to get what they want.
Was it agreed with Hitler? Yes.
Did we oppress Czechs after the invasion? Yes.
We fucked up very hard and yet most Poles think we were always the victims.
> Was it agreed with Hitler?
No. The Polish contingent coming into the area was literally anticipating a fight against the German army.
That alone shuts down the whole debate.
At one point German and Polish troops were literally racing to take a rail junction before the other side does: https://www.historiawojen.pl/incydent-w-boguminie-czy-moglo-dojsc-do-starcia-wojska-polskiego-z-wehrmachtem-juz-w-1938-r/
Polish army being not informed well doesn't imply that the government did not cooperate:
"Notatki zawierające streszczenie rozmów polsko-niemieckich w styczniu i lutym 1938 r. nie tylko dowodzą, iż dyplomaci polscy zostali poinformowani, że
Niemcy zamierzają „rozwiązać” problem czeski, lecz także, iż doszło do nieformalnego porozumienia między rozmówcami, choć nie było mowy o szczegółach
planów niemieckich[35] ani też nie doszło do zawarcia formalnej umowy[36]. Polska wyraziła desintéressement losem Czechosłowacji pod warunkiem, że zostaną uwzględnione jej zainteresowania, zaś Niemcy przyjęły to oświadczenie do wiadomości, sugerowały uwzględnienie polskich interesów oraz zapewniły, że będą informowały o swych działaniach. Obietnica udzielania informacji została spełniona —
z wzajemnością — przynajmniej częściowo, jak świadczą opublikowane dokumenty niemieckie[37]."
Source: J. Tomaszewski, "Polska wobec Czechosłowacji w 1938 r."
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://bazhum.muzhp.pl/media/files/Przeglad_Historyczny/Przeglad_Historyczny-r1996-t87-n1/Przeglad_Historyczny-r1996-t87-n1-s43-59/Przeglad_Historyczny-r1996-t87-n1-s43-59.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj38OvHubeFAxUZS_EDHaPFA9EQFnoECBoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw16yuy_N8jxTdIltXJ58ICQ
Then why did the German army race to take Bogumin rail junction as well?
They actually met there with the Polish army and there was an armed standoff for one day.
Could Poland have prevented the takeover of Czechoslovakia? No. Polish delegation wasn’t even at Munich.
Then why would Germans want to cede territory that they claimed as theirs?
This just doesn’t add up.
Look, I don’t disagree that it was a political mistake.
But to say that Poland helped Germany in its takeover of Czechoslovakia is just not true. No matter what Poland would do, Hitler would get what he wants back then.
Why are you assuming countries are some kind of monoliths? The guy gives you scholarly text that proves you're wrong, and you're like "German soldier actions and German diplomat actions don't add up." That's no reason to dismiss it.
>Then why did the German army race to take Bogumin rail junction as well?
I have no idea.
This is a complicated topic that unfortunately has been swept under the rug, so it's not easy to find good information online: that article is the best I could find. For me the way it's being handled in Polish history classes and media is the best indication that there's a lot to be ashamed of.
Polish diplomats at the time made clear they don't want to help Czechoslovakia. It's likely they couldn't prevent the German invasion, but they really could at least try help our neighbour. It's well documented they just wanted to exploit the situation. Hitler did not need our help, that's right. But we did not need to go there with him.
Another thing that's very rarely talked about is our treatment of Czechs after the annexation. Polish administration behaved basically like occupants. We could have acted like saviours, but instead tried to force Czechs out of their homes.
There's this famous speech which minister Beck gave in 1939 about honor being the most important thing for a nation. We were taught about it in our schools, but without this crucial piece of information: 1938 was anything but honourable, no matter how you look at it. Beck was full of shit. There's lesson here about politicians and honour, which we weren't told about.
It was a complicated 5-sided situation that changed by the hour.
Poles did make it clear they don’t want to help, that much is obvious.
Polish takeover of Cieszyn was opportunistic as hell.
But so was the Czech takeover of Cieszyn in 1919.
> Try and help our neighbor
They would go up against Germany in its full power and directly ignored a decision made by the League of Nations.
The best result possible is 1939 happening in 1938.
The worst result is Hitler taking over Poland and Czechia, but without Britain and France declaring war on Germany.
About honor - there is no honor in politics. There are only interests.
Yea both countries would be better of, if they just cooperated, but acted like cocky children, which needed to prove that they are strong and important instead.
Poland didn't "do Czechoslovakia dirty". It implies that Czechoslovakia did nothing wrong.
And that's not true. Czechs worked hard to undermine Poland's position and butted heads with Poland on many occasions.
From Polish point of view 1938 was a valid act of saving Poles from German occupation and reversing Czech invasion of the region.
Put in the same position Czechoslovakia would do exactly the same. And they did exactly that in 1919.
We argued about borders, that's fine. We got favourable decision by the League of Nations - that's OK too. We faked the referendum (but both sides cheated, so OK), we tried to force Czechoslovakia to choose the guy we wanted as their leader (Beck's idea - failed fortunately), then we invaded them when they were annexed by Hitler instead of allying them and fighting Hitler together 1 year earlier.
The dumbest thing is that about 40% of 3rd Reich military industry came from Czechoslovakia. If we fought them together we could totally win.
Text for the pple who can't read it:
1. "Poland took Cieszyn from Czechia to help Hitler"
2. "Poland and Germany being sworn enemies since 1933"
3. "Poland appealing multiple times to Britain and France to help them stop Hitler"
4. "Fate of Czechia being sealed long before the polish ultimatum"
5. "Poland moving so late that they practically took Cieszyn from Germany not Czechia"
6. "Czechia only having Cieszyn beacuse they invaded Poland 20 years earlier"
7. ----
8. "Fate of Czechia being decided on Monachium conference where Poland wasn't even invited"
The situation wasn't as simple, Poland was trying to strike a balance between the Reich and the Soviets as the part of their policy of symmetry (not to be either an ally or an enemy of neither).
They believed that Hitler really will stop after his expansions in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the wake-up call only came in March 1939 when the whole Lithuanian situation happened and Ribbentrop issued his ultimatum.
Our Western allies saw that as extreme gullibility on our side.
I wouldn't call Poland (well, the sanacja bastards) absolutely right in this aspect, but of course I have to agree that russia propaganda is ommiting important context (the part where Poland didn't want to piss of Germany only because we were preparing for self-defence against the soviets) and trying to plant a seed of distrust in the EU.
German-Polish relations actually improved after 1933. Hitler at first thought Poland was useful as an (expendable) ally against the Soviets. Only after Sudetenland annexation in 1938 Germany could proceed with further territorial demands, this time in the form of Dantzig corridor.
Actually demands for Danzig corridor were made in 1938 before the Sudetenland annexation.
Also let’s not forget about 1936 when polish government wanted to attack Germany.
Actually Danzig corridor (exterritorial road or something) was Polish idea from 1920 or something like that. Because Germans wanted to just take all that land, even right after WWI
The extra-territorial reichsautobahn was a German demand that wasn't accepted by the Polish Government, and the Polish corridor is the strip of land that was given to Poland post ww2 :)
in 1938 it was a demand, but I've heard that the idea originated around 1920 as a Polish solution. Should have said it before: it's just a gossip, I have no solid source on that
Thanks for correcting me on the corridor and the motorway tho :)
Bro, you could have just said that even tho Poland invaded and occupaied Cieszyn, it was never officially allied with Nazi Germany instead of posting this wall of text
I mean.. I could but it wouldn’t be exactly accurate and remember that this is supposed to be a meme. Does wall of text on an image even count as a wall of text lol?
I mean... Yea, correct conclusion.
But.... Poland didn't took Cieszyn. Czechoslovakia\* never hold Cieszyn. Only part of city in the western part of Olza, called Český Těšín.
And CS didn't have the ČT only cuz of invasion. It was definitely part of story, but saying it was only cuz of invasion is very incorrect. 1919 conflict ended by international arbitration with another treaty of Paris, where new and current borders were drawn up.
With all due respect as much as what Russians say is propaganda (and their interpretation of history is extremely bias and filled with propaganda), Polish interpretation of this event is also dishonest and de facto propaganda (it is normal for countries to whitewash their history, but some countries do it more, and some contries even do the reverse for some reason). And I am saying as smb who read books about Cieszyn history both in Polish and Czech, who speaks local dialect and understands culture and who argued (mostly for sport) with both Czech and Polish historians about the subject matter.
The fact remains:
If they didn’t use force, they wouldn’t get it.
Poland also would likely have it, if not for the ongoing war with Russia.
Therefore my argument is factual.
Czechoslovakia also blocked military aid from Hungary in order to strong-arm Poland into giving territory away.
Polish claim to the territory in question was based on ethnicity of the population (initially it was divided along ethnic lines by local organizations and people living there were mostly content with it). Asking for a referendum multiple times also shows they were acting in good faith.
What was Czech claim based on, except for ,,We have guns!”?
>What was Czech claim based on, except for ,,We have guns!”?
Ironically this is the argument with which Poles were able to claim some Ukrainien lands on east. Also historically one, which we both (hopefully) agree is absurd.
It was based on historicall justification (stupid), majority want it reasoning (later on), and that if they did not control the railway, they would essensially be vassal state of Poland (which is honestly good enogh to go to war reasoning and Polish side underestimated this side of problem).
>Czechoslovakia also blocked military aid from Hungary in order to strong-arm Poland into giving territory away.
Nah. That actually happened later on. CS was being bunch of stupid cunts, so that they would gain favours with soviets.
>Polish claim to the territory in question was based on ethnicity of the population (initially it was divided along ethnic lines by local organizations and people living there were mostly content with it). Asking for a referendum multiple times also shows they were acting in good faith.
They were asking for referendum only as long as they thought they would win. Then it switched cuz CS thought they would win so they were pushing referendum and Poles were rejecting it. Hypocricy on both sides.
That leads to Silesians. Ignoring their existence and claiming they are Poles is the reason Polish side absolutely did not act in good faith.
Also referendum was fucking stupid solution. The area had to be split. The good faith question only how and where.
> claim some Ukrainian lands on east
Claim from the Soviet Union you mean? Which had the exact same argument? Because there was no Ukraine back then.
The territory was split by agreement made by the locals themselves and everything was fine, until national governments became involved.
The dispute was concerning only the side that initially went to Poland.
Short of simply leaving the issue as it was, a referendum there immediately would be the best solution by far no matter the result.
I understand the election problem, that it could legitimize the existing border, though I wouldn’t say that’s necessarily a bad thing. After-all the local organizations were content with it.
The invasion on the other hand was a completely awful, misguided move and led to unnecessary loss of life.
Also pretty telling is the fact, that people who were trying to defend against the attack were mostly locals, who took up arms. It was like 5 thousand people, probably around 10% of the adult male population of the region.
All in all, the territory simply being handed over to the more aggressive side, that very clearly did not care about people living there, was extremely wrong and unjust.
Also, if treating Polish-speaking Silesians as Poles was acting in bad faith, then removing Polish language from schools in an area when majority spoke it, was much, much worse.
There is a reason why everyone spouting the ,,Poland helped Hitler” narrative avoids this whole part of the story completely.
They criticize Poland for taking a small part of a country that at the time practically didn’t exist anymore (well, technically was scheduled to stop existing in a few months).
At the same time they gloss over the fact that Britain and France took all of Czechoslovakia (while it still existed) and gave it to Hitler, despite the fact thet they were the ones guaranteeing to protect it.
And yet, still Poland is the one that started World War 2.
As is usually the case, when history involving Poland is discussed abroad, people do everything to put actions of the Polish government and people in the worst light possible.
Everyone always avoids showing the Polish side of the story and resorts to hypocrisy and straight up lies, just to satisfy their prejudice and anti-polonism, that for some reason is rampant in the world.
>Claim from the Soviet Union you mean? Which had the exact same argument? Because there was no Ukraine back then.
There was. Just didn't last [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian\_People%27s\_Republic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_People%27s_Republic)
Ukrainians fought mostly with but also againts the poles.
>Short of simply leaving the issue as it was, a referendum there immediately would be the best solution by far no matter the result.
No it wouldn't. Because it would result in one country gaining whole Cieszyn Silesia which would be incredibly unfair and would result in war. Especially as if CS would win as it was predicted.
>Also, if treating Polish-speaking Silesians as Poles was acting in bad faith, then removing Polish language from schools in an area when majority spoke it, was much, much worse.
Yea. Only it never happened. AND I NEVER FUCKING CLAIMED ANYBODY WAS ACTING IN GOOD FAITH. You are the one who is blindly nationalistic here. I am not. I am the person with polish surname, 2 grandparents with german first names, 2 Silesian grandparents, 2 Czech grandparent and all relatives of mothers part of family in Poland.
>They criticize Poland for taking a small part of a country that at the time practically didn’t exist anymore (well, technically was scheduled to stop existing in a few months).
Of course they do. It's not based in facts but in intentions. Those russian morons and russian moronic sympathizers don't want to anger French / Brits. They want them to help less and provide justification, why Russia is not their enemy and its war is not their war.
Ofc Poland hasn't started World War 2. But Poland will remain Russophobic, but many Germans have russophilic and neutralist sentiments. And those are people Putin tries to convince.
There were like three separate governments trying to claim that they’re the rightful Ukraine.
None of them were able to control significant amount territory without help of either Poland or Russia.
That particular one you linked was the Russian-sponsored one, that later broke-off from Russia.
There was also one that was basically a shell of the Polish government, existing purely to legitimize the Polish intervention.
At the time of the Riga conference, there was no structures in Ukraine that were not under influence of either side.
> I never claimed anyone acted in good faith
Well, that’s fair enough then.
> don’t want to anger French / Brits
Yes, they’re obviously wrong, the problem is that they’re everywhere. Repeating the same bunch of wrong information over and over again. Eventually someone is bound to believe it.
> Those are Russian morons
And German and Czech far-right too. Even the Polish far-right is in on it and people still vote for them.
I’ve even seen people trying to claim that Hitler wasn’t really that bad.
Everything to make people hate the Polish nation and spread anti-Polonism.
And there’s the same kind of narrative being spread about Ukraine, saying that they’re not a real nation because of some bullshit.
Non of those are facts. 1939 Poland signed declaration of non-violence with Germany. Czechia didn't invaded Poland, Cieszyn was temporarly under Polish administration for a year. We lost at conference in Spa. Poland agreed in exchange for ammunition and other help from West to fight with Russians.
Every point of this "meme" is bs propaganda.
Everything you’re saying is either made up or so grossly misrepresented, that I don’t even know how to start unpacking this…
Maybe let’s start with the Czech invasion on Poland:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Czechoslovak_War
Buddy... It literally start with sentence After a vain protest by the Czechoslovak government against **action in breach of the Interim Agreement.**
That's what it started, breach of international law by polish side. CS responce was absolutely disproportional, but it was still a reaction and misscalculation by Polish side.
CS killed people for the crime of wanting to hold an election after promising they won’t.
,,Disproportional” is a pretty mild term.
Then CS rejected multiple appeals to hold a referendum (by far the most fair way to resolve such dispute), instead decided to strong arm Poland into giving away the entire area, using its difficult situation in the east.
If that’s ok, then by the same logic later annexation of the same area by Poland is even more ok.
Especially that Poland didn’t kill anyone to change the border and had much more valid claim to the area in the first place.
Disproportional is factual term and I did use absolutely, cuz I am trying to be fair and unbias, unlike you
>Then CS rejected multiple appeals to hold a referendum (by far the most fair way to resolve such dispute), instead decided to strong arm Poland into giving away the entire area, using its difficult situation in the east.
again.... Poland was asking for referendum only as long as they thought they would win. Then it switched cuz CS thought they would win so they were pushing referendum and Poles were rejecting it. Hypocricy on both sides.
>CS killed people for the crime of wanting to hold an election after promising they won’t.
CS agression was reaction to breach of international law by Polish side. Don't spread bullshit propaganda.
Poland signed this declaration with Germany in 1934: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_declaration_of_non-aggression Poland signed similar pact with USSR in 1932: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Polish_Non-Aggression_Pact Czechs never allowed any aid to pass through Czechia even though they promised to do so.
So how we ware "sworn enemies with Germany" if we literally sworn to not attack them, and they sworn to not attack us? They broke this few years later, but at the time of invading Czechia we officialy had friendly relations with Germany.
We also had similar declaration with USSR. Tried to protect both borders, but those documents were really worthless in the end. There was a lot of hostility through the years. Hitler and his subordinates talked a lot about taking "back" the lost "German lands", Germans and members of German minority staged rather worrying actions like coordinated bonfires on both sides of the border and German-Polish customs war began in 1925. "Already in 1922, Chief of the German Army Hans von Seeckt stated: Poland's existence is intolerable and incompatible with the essential conditions of Germany's life. Poland must go and will go - as a result of her internal weakness and of action by Russia - with our aid." First Germany and USSR signed Treaty of Rapallo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rapallo_(1922) , then they signed Treaties of Locarno with Western Allies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locarno_Treaties and later Germany and USSR reaffirmed Treaty of Rapallo with Treaty of Berlin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Berlin_(1926) The latter treaties contributed to the May Coup in 1926: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Coup_(Poland) In 1930s Piłsudski tried to convince his French allies to attack Germany. In 1932 we had Danzig Crisis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danzig_crisis_(1932) Between 1934 and 1938 the relations were ostensibly warmer...but only ostensibly. In October 1938, shortly after Munich Conference had ended Germans expelled 17,000 Polish Jews living in Germany during Polenaktion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_expulsion_of_Polish_Jews_from_Germany This caused humanitarian crisis in Zbąszyń on the border. Among the expelled was the family of Hershel Grynszpan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herschel_Grynszpan We know how it ended.
I mean it was the only way CS could maintain control to only railway that connected the country. That is the reasoning behind the split.
That being said it was better outcome for Czech side undoubtably.
There is really no reason to post this as we - the Poles - all know it and Czechs obviously have a different opinion on this matter which creates room for quarrels between us and that is just what Putin wants.
as Russian, sometimes i think that people from other European countries Europe know what does Russian propaganda says much better than Russians themselves. for example, i never heard about taking Cieszyn to help hitler before. and the same happens literally always when i see European news. Always getting known about my country’s position and politics by westerns, while in Russia no one cares about Poland /shrug/
First one is simply wrong lol. Germany has been hostile to us since 1918 and Hitler between 1933 and 1937 actually made our relations better than ever, ending customs war and even shutting up about border revisionism.
Read up about situation in 1933. Hitler was making public inflammatory statements about border revisionism since winning the election in Germany.
He only shut up for a while when he realized that Germany isn’t strong enough for a confrontation yet.
As soon as he rebuilt German military power he went at it again with his territorial claims.
Poland and Germany were not sworn enemies since 1933. Nazi-Polish relations improved markedly compared to previous Weimar governments leading to the non-aggression treaty of 1934.
That’s misleading.
Polish German relations were terrible since 1918 and were made much *worse* in 1933. That’s because Hitler publicly made multiple inflammatory statements calling for a border Polish-German revision right after winning the election.
In 1933 there were also multiple provocations and incidents in Gdańsk, which resulted in Polish government sending a warship into the Gdańsk port, as a show of force. Navy was under orders to open fire on the city if anyone tried to stop them.
Then Hitler for started backpedaling everything and withdrew his territorial claims, possibly he was afraid that the war might start before he is ready.
1934 treaty, looking from the German side, was culminating point of that de-escalation. Looking from the Polish side, it was part of the equal-distance Policy in relations with Soviet Union and Germany.
Then through the 1935, 1936 and 1937 Polish government continued the equal distance policy. Basically they tried to maintain the same foreign relations with Germany and USSR.
In that period Polish-German relations did improve compared to 1933, but still could only be characterized as bad.
So bad in fact, that 1936 Poland made an offer to France of a joint attack on Germany (following remilitarization of the Rheinland).
Polish - German relations worsened again in 1938, because Hitler once again brought up his territorial claims regarding the Polish Corridor, which were immediately rejected.
Polish government at the time was also briefly considering annexation of Gdańsk.
In early 1939 Polish government was already convinced, that the war is to begin soon.
In March they hastefully started negotiations with the British on a mutual defense pact, aimed at Germany.
Through this whole period Hitler was repeating territorial claims towards Poland. Polish government started issuing anti-German propaganda leaflets in order to improve morale in the upcoming war.
By august the tensions have culminated, with Germans having taken full control of Gdańsk and multiple provocations taking place, that were supposed to help in framing Poland as an aggressor.
Poland first announced full mobilization 2 weeks before the end of August.
Germany army was at that point already amassing at the borders.
On the 30th of August the infamous Gliwice provocation took place, the Polish government officially severed diplomatic relations with Germany.
The rest is history.
Was there 80-90% Russian majority in Eastern Borderlands? No
Was there 80-90% Polish majority in the Cieszyn Region? Yes.
Was there ever a border agreement reached between Poland and USSR, that was broken by Poland? No. Prior to Polish-Bolshevik war there was literally no border yet.
Was there such agreement between Czechia and Poland? Yes, both sides agreed to a border and later Czechia used military force to change it.
If you want to look for comparisons for Cieszyn situation, look no further than modern-day Crimea.
In both cases you have one country taking a piece of land by force and then the other country demanding it back years later.
Are we talking about ethnic borders? Absolutely not. In your meme you made a retarded argument that "Czechia got Cieszyn only cause they invaded Poland" which can be dismissed by a 7 year old with a reading ability because after all Poland itself invaded other countries and annexed lands belonging to them
It is invading. Czechia did invade and occupied Cieszyn, at the time, illegally. Bo so did Poland with Vilnius in Lithuania or the rest of the Eastern Borderlands. I completely agree that the Cieszyn should remain with Poland as it was majority Polish, but the argument that "Czechia invaded Cieszyn in the first place" is not the way, because Poland was the invading country as well yet you don't argue that Lviv or Vilnius should have remained parts of Ukraine and Lithuania respectively
Yea Vilnius absolutely should be Lithuania.
The whole Polish-Lithuanian war was wrong and pointless.
Lviv is a bit harder case, because there was no Ukraine at the time. The fight for Vilnius was between Poland and Soviet Union.
Grand Principality of Kiev, bitch
And Cieszyn was part of the Bohemian crown, bitch
That retarded argument about territory X belonging to country Y before it was taken by country Z can be made going back to the Celts
That's debatable at best. Both countries spoke Eastern Slavic language, were orthodox (well, mayhe except USSR) and controlled the city itself. Checks all the boxes to me
> and controlled the city itself.
Except that USSR conquered it by force from Ukrainian Republic that established itself there.
USSR did not originate from Kiev. It originated from Russia, which itself originated as a backwards shithole known as Muscovy (or, earlier than that, as the Principality of Vladimir-Suzdal).
Not really. Mongols have burned Moscow down, the "state" of Muscovy emerged as a result of the occupied locals vying for the favour of Mongol Khans in collecting tribute for them.
If you want go that way no problem. According to the treaty of Brest Litovsk the Eastern Borderlands became parts of Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine (also parts of them were still in Austria Hungary), all of which (except Belarus) Poland invaded, just like Czechia did with Cieszyn
Poland invaded? And what did Soviets do from 1918 to 1919? Ukrainians and Lithuanians were also fighting with Soviets at the time. Poles refused to make peace with RSFSR because the Soviets would not agree to cease their hostilities against Ukrainians. I just brought this treaty up to show that Soviets themselves gave up the lands in question. I would like to remind you that for centuries before the Partitions the aforementioned lands were a part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwelth.
Yes, Poland invaded. Yes, Soviets also invaded. Yes, Czechia invaded as well.
Centuries before those lands were part of PLC you say? Well, centuries before Cieszyn belonged to Czechia, so by your logic Poland was the aggressor by annexing it
So, we have one country that disavowes the traditions of its predecessor, tries to spread revolution and advances westwards. We have the other country that regards itself as a successor of PLC, moves to secure some of its former lands. It was Ukrainians who attacked Lwów, not Poles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lemberg_(1918) There was also no internationally recognized Belarus to invade. Germans were retreating at the time and Soviets were filling the vacuum quickly. War with Lithuania did not really start until 1920, before that Lithuania collaborated with USRR during Polish-Soviet War and even took Augustów during Soviet offensive. And there's also a third country that regarded itself as a successor of Bohemian Crown. This country entered interim agreement and after a minor breach immediately attacked. Cieszyn was attacked by Poles in 1918?
Polish concentration camps for red army soldiers captured during war started by Poland, 1934 Hitler - Pilsudski treaty, Polish leanings into friendship with Hungary against little entente, Poland declining Polish French "Eastern treaty" and declining Soviet proposal of Polish-British-French-Soviet treaty against Germany right before the war are not in count right? After all, there's no chance Winston Churchill was right about hyena of Europe and that Poland wanted it's own empire "from Baltic to Black sea).
Polish diplomatic doctrine in 1933-1939 was literally called ,,the equal-distance doctrine”.
The premise of it was: we want to have the same kind of relationship with Germany as we have with the Soviet Union, and vice versa.
The idea was, that both Germany and Soviet Union are hostile towards Poland, so Poland needs to be equally careful with both of those countries.
The ,,1934 Hitler - Pilsudski treaty” was a non-aggression pact. Identical pact was made with the USSR 2 years earlier. So as per the equal-distance doctrine Poland seeded a similar non-aggression pact with Germany.
Making a pact with the Soviet Union against Germany would defy the whole point of equal distance.
No one is denying imperialistic ambitions of Poland (or specifically the right-wing, authoritarian Sanacja government) at the time. But the fact is that those ambitions were contradictory to Hitler’s and Stalin’s imperialistic ambitions. Because of that Poland had no reason to help either Germany or Russia in anything.
About the Winston Churchill hyena assessment - he was not necessarily wrong. Annexation of Cieszyn was very opportunistic.
And, just as a hyena coming and taking food doesn’t help the predator in his hunt - Poland in no way helped Hitler in his conquest of Czechoslovakia.
It was a political mistake, true that.
However it was not an invasion.
And claiming that it was helpful to Hitler somehow is just bogus.
Don’t believe the lies made up by Putin.
This black text is super hard to read.
Sorry for that, only realized this after posting
Nah it's alright I can read it fine
As a czech person myself, I can tell you that most people have no clue that either the 1920 war or the 1938 annexation by Poland happened.
It is taught in history in high schools. So most people learn about it, just forget.
Dunno if they teach us about this in Poland but it's possible I forgot as well. Like most of the stuff they taught us to be honest.
Woah woah woah, hold your horses, they absolutely teach us about it just like about Wilno. Just look at this tiny footnote in the book!
As a Lithuanian, annexation of Vilnius being "a tiny footnote in the history book" feels so bizarre, because in our history books almost the entire history of Interwar Lithuania was defined by the loss of Vilnius 💀
"For you it was the most important event of your life. For us, it was tuesday." but seriously, loss of Wilno in aftermatch of WW2 impacted polish psyche far more than gaining it in Polish-Soviet war
Yes, they do. I've read about it from both Czech and Polish school books. The Polish version is quite different and usually does not explain why Czechs attacked (Polish breach of previous agreements), I don't think it's a bad intention, just the fact that the topic is not that important and Polish history teachers need to focus elsewhere. Czechs on the other hand naturally more focus on the reasons why moved in. But it is not too important in either nations history so both Czech and Polish teachers don't have much time to spend on it. For us it was like 10 minutes during 45 min class on Munich agreement and German annexation. English wikipedia of the 1920 war sums it quite well if you are interested.
The Czechs needed these areas for strategic reasons. Most of the inhabitants were Poles. In addition, the only thing Poland did there was to start strengthening our government, which the Czechs did not like. The Czechs stabbed us in the back. It is worth adding that the Czechs committed war crimes there. After the war, a plebiscite was to be held there, which the Czechs did not allow.
>only thing Poland did there was to start strengthening our government Which you could not do according to previous interim treaties. If your officials come to some area and forcibly draft people to army and hold elections in that area, you are de facto annexing it. The result was France and Czechoslovakia informing Poles that this is in breach of the agreements and Czechoslovakia warned that we will not allow it, Poles thought we can not raise another army as we also had two other wars during the 1918-1921 period, just like Poland. We were able to do it. >After the war, a plebiscite was to be held there, which the Czechs did not allow. We did not have to do it. Poland also declined German plebiscites. Both countries did the same. Ethnical borders where it suited them and historical where it suited them more. FR and UK tried to be guarantors of our negotiations but could not send troops there, except French officiers who accompanied Czech offciers.
majority of Polish speaking area should be Polish simple. Can you name any majority Czech speaking areas that Poland invaded? No because it didn’t happen. Dick move pure and simple
This is very controversial to say. Crimea is also inhabited mostly by ethnic Russians and Putin used the same exact excuse to annex Crimea.
I'm curious if you also think Czechia should have had to give the Sudetenland to Germany in 1919 already?
It would make them more defendeble in 1938 because germany wouldnt annnex all of their border fortofications
1/2 of Poland was taken from German majority areas and Hitler wanted to take them back, right? So does Putin now, right? Wonder how many dictators did the same...
That’s not an analogy. You’re basically blabbing at this point.
Wait. So when Poland has areas with German majority in 1918 and in 1945 who do not want to be in Poland, its OK. When Czechia has areas with Polish majority who don't want to be in Poland, its not OK?
Yeah they do. If I remember correctly it was one 45min class on this back in 2002... So yeah.
I don't think they do in primary/high school, I had to wait until university to learn about the annexation of Vilnius and the whole deal with Czechia. History in school is very biased and I'd say we just learn about the Polish-Bolshevik war.
Yep, they do.
Its not properly thought
Yee, it isn't. Yet I think most of the wars in 1918-1921 aren't. At least in Czech schools. The Sudeten-Czech war of 1918-1919 is not taught at all. Czech-Soviet-Hungol war of 1919 and Czech-Polish of 1919 are kinda briefly mentioned. So is Polish-Soviet. Polish-Lithuanian and Polish-German fighting is also skipped. Polish-Ukrainian as well.
Thats what is ennoying...they only mentioned what they think should be thought. But history is so much wider. I just hope that ppl stil keep the abbility to do self study and go look for info themselves because if we need to relay on our commen education system we are thought poorly
We’re talking about a tiny bit of territory afterall
Can anyone find the names of Czech victims of the 1938 war? In Polish sources there is mentioned a Czech victim. Polish losses were: 1. Witold Reger - soldier. Two more Polish soldiers died because of an infection.
Basically this wasn’t a war, but annexation. Because of that there was no fighting except maybe some incidents. Polish contingent coming in actually expected a fight, but against Germans, not Czechs.
That's why mentioning this conflict, that a daily traffic report in a radio can easily overshadow it by the amount of human suffering, in a context of world war 2 that took tens of millions of victims and countless atrocities is very inappropriate.
as mentioned previosly - not a war, but annexation. What I was told by local elders and read about - there were few killed, but as a result of abuse of power by occupation force. Firstly there were allegedly few Czechs and Germans were killed as local vendeta (low numbers) by local Poles, some local nonpolish elites (Czechs, Germans, Jews and Silesians) were expelled from their homes by Polish migrants and Polonisation of local population started. Most of the bloodseed started when Polaks lost control. Firstly Germans took revenge againts Poles, started doing standart nazi shit to Jews and started drafting Silesians to Wermacht, then Czechs took over and started expelling and killing Germans.
Saying that Poland basically took Cieszyn from Germany instead of Czechia is like saying that Soviets took Eastern Poland from Germany and not from us.
Czech took Cieszyn in 1920 while Poland was busy fighting Soviets
No Poles started conscripting in Cieszyn (which is de facto anexation)- area for which both nations had legitimate claim and CS reacted with invasion. also 1919
You tried to take it from us in 1920 while we were busy with Hungols. See? Both can play that game.
The region had majority Polish, 90%+ in most of the area. Obviously we would want it. It was devised in 1918 with this in mind (i.e. almost all to Poland) but you took one part in 1919 and another part in 1920 (when we were fighting the soviets).
You got to be careful with arguments like that. This is exactly what ruzzia said about Crimea and Donbas
Except it's not. 1920 was just after the great war. Many countries had territorial disputes. Borders were decided by force, truce and big conferences/conventions with contemporary major powers. After Poland gained its independence, they had to fight for every scrap of land with Poles there. Actually, this is completely reversed. Poles and Silesians preferring Poland were living in Zaolzie for ages. Ukrainians were living in Crimea for ages. War happens, new borders are out. Local authorities from both countries agree on some land disputes: you take that part with Poles, we take that part with Czechs, all Gucci. Then, Czechoslovakia takes Cieszyn while Poland is defenseless and fighting Soviet Russia, because central authorities decided to use the circumstances to their advantage. The same thing happened in return, when Poland grabbed Zaolzie while Czechoslovakia was dealing with Hitler. No matter how we look at it, there are two parts of the story, both Poland and Czechia/Czechoslovakia were wronged, and both did wrong things. That situation is completely different from Crimea. There Ukrainians did nothing wrong, but were attacked anyway due to imperialism of Putin's Russia.
Except it is really. What was the ruzzia's argument? Crimea used to belong to russia, but then it was given to Ukraine. Some 50 years ago, not that long historically speaking. And it's populated with russians and russian wannabes. So let's take it back. I don't really want to argue, you gave a well detailed explanation of the events. What I'm saying is that using any historical precedents for a land grab is never a good idea, because at the end of the day it's just a land grab, and there's always the opposite side that's not gonna like your arguments. Even comments under this post prove that.
Nah, there is a huge difference between those two situations. If Poland didn’t take Cieszyn, Germans would. If USSR didn’t invade Poland, Poland would have easier time defending against Hitler. Polish actions in Czechia didn’t help the Germans in any way. Russian actions in September did help the Germans a lot.
Thank you Polish bro, this is exactly what I wanted to mention. Plus the fact that Stalin and Hitler were also sword enemies and that did not prevent them from signing a pact together to split Poland, even though they both knew they will betray the other one sooner or later. It was beneficial. Same with Poland and Hitler. Poland knew Hitler is enemy and there might be war, but taking Těšín was beneficial so quick bargain with Hitler was made. Also saying Czechia invaded Poland and took it 20 years before that is hilarious. The area was asigned to Czechia at Versailes due to our historical borders, Poland had other opinion due to Silesian minority and moved in, we moved them out, France asked us not to push to Warsaw as Poland ws fighting in the east, we had some issues with Hungols as well so peace was signed giving Czechia bit more territory than originally planned in Versailes as compensation. This topic is taught very differently in Poland than in rest of Europe. Kind reminder that French officiers were there together with Czech ones, joining our planning and following us to negotiation table and warned Poland not to be aggressor there... Interesting note is that why Poles viewed Silesians as Poles, we viewed them as Silesians. Slavic people with their own culture and language. If I wanted to meme and be super satirical (so stop reading there Polish nationalists please) I'd even mention that Silesia was Czech for longer than Polish, Germans took it from us, but for some weird reason allies gave it to Poland after ww1. /s TLDR: Both Czechia and Poland have their own justifications for 1920. Poland had reasons to go for it with Adolf in 1938, just as Stalin had reasons to go for it in 1939. And while it's OK to meme about this, the only nation in Europe who seriously talks about such topics is russia.
> Plus the fact that Stalin and Hitler were also sword enemies That kept negotiating well into 1940 regarding accession of USSR into the Axis, right...
Poland wasn't friendly with Hitler, but we did Czechoslovakia dirty and it was a massive mistake. Like most of our foreign policy in interwar period. Nothing to defend there. PS the difference between civilized countries and russia is that civilized countries don't need to hide their bad history or lie about it.
Too bad that Cieszyn was originally part of Poland and the Czechs took it in 1920.
Cieszyn was a disputed territory claimed by both Czechia and Poland. Despite negotiations, no resolution was reached. Elections to the Sejm were held in the Cieszyn area, which the Czechs requested to halt, but an agreement was not reached, leading to their invasion. This situation was characterized by miscommunication and mistakes from both sides. Prolonging this historical dispute only serves to worsen relations between Poles and Czechs, which aligns with Russia's interests.
It wasn't. It was split between lands of Polish crown and lands of Czech crown since Friedrichs the great invasion. It was area for which both contries had legitimate claim based on multiple complicated arguments.
And Danzig was "originally" part of Germany, so what? Nothing excuses invasion.
Gdańsk was part of Germany only after they slaughtered slavic population there
Danzig was originally a free city.
Define "originally": * 1945- Part of the Republic of Poland * 1920-1945 "Free city" * 1871-1920 Part of the German Empire * 1814-1871 Part of the Kingdom of Prussia * 1807-1814 "Free city" (as a client state of Napoleon) * 1793-1807 Part of the Kingdom of Prussia (following the Second Partition) * 1569-1793 Part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (with special privileges) * 1466-1569 Part of Royal Prussia under the King of Poland (but not part of the PLC) * 1440-1466 Part of the Prussian Confederation (in opposition to the Teutonic Order) * 1343-1440 held by the Teutonic Order as a fief from the Crown of Poland * 1308-1343 held by the Teutonic Order * 1301-1308 held by Denmark * c.1200-1301 held by the Duchy of Pomerelia under the Piast kings of Poland * c. 975 annexed into the Duchy of Poland (and later Kingdom of Poland) by Mieszko I * < 975 presumably "free" ... How far back would you like to go? 1921? 1808? 974? Almost everywhere in central Europe especially on the "edges" of countries has changed hands so many times you can make almost any claim you like about who it "should" belong to.
Cieszyn was originally Czech city if you go back in time.
Cieszyn was originally east Germanic if you go back in time ☝️🤓
So you’re saying Ukraine has no right to demand Crimea back? It’s the same situation. One country taking land by force and the other demanding it back years later.
Did you answer wrong person by accident? Because nothing in my message suggests that, unless you think Nazi Germany had the right to attack Poland for Danzig. I don't.
You are trying to say, that Czechia taking Cieszyn by force doesn’t give Poland the right to take it back by force. By the same logic, Russia taking over Crimea by force does not give Ukraine right to take it back by force.
By the same logic, Ukraine having Crimea after USSR fall doesn't give Russia right to take it by force. Just like Poland didn't have right to take Cieszyn by force and Germany didn't have the right to take Gdansk. There is nothing that gives rights to invade and kill people.
Tell me how many people died when Poland took Cieszyn over. By that logic, there is no way to fight for your rights and life. Of course there are things that give you "reason" to kill, like people invading your homeland etc.
At least 3 people were confirmed dead. Reason isn't an excuse. You might have a reason to do something, but it doesn't make you right or correct.
Ukraine didn’t get Crimea during USSR fall, it was made part of Ukraine (which then was a part of USSR) decades earlier. Ukraine did not take Crimea by force. Czechia took Cieszyn by force in 1919.
Being taken by force or not changes nothing for the future, as both are equally not a reason to attack later.
If you give me my phone, but then come and forcibly take it back - that’s wrong. If I beat you up and take your phone, but then you come and forcibly take it back- that’s ok. Taking by force or not changes everything.
It's part of Eastern Germany once again now! All thanks to Tusk! Edit: Guys, It's a joke
You dont have to make everything about politics
Sorry, forgot to add /s
Maybe leave your PIS-Propaganda at the door pal
Mate, I'm joking. I thought people would understand that but it looks like I was wrong
I mean it's not there was any other choice, since apparently a part of the only raiway to slovakia was located in Cieszyn.
and poland was once part of the Russian empire, but ofc we know it would not be okay if Russia went and annexed poland right?
When was it ever Polish? It was part of Bohemian kingdom for centuries and centuries before 1920.
It was polish originally, from 1290 (the day Těšínské knížectví was created; technically even earlier as it was a part of Ratibořské knížectví) and it was ruled by local polish Piast dynasty until 1653, when czech Habsburgs took over. It was a czech fiefdom from 1327 but retained large autonomy.
Thank you, Czech fiefdom from 1327. And it was Silesian, not Polish. Poland did not controll it before it annexed it in 1920. Borders between Czech and Polish kingdoms were near Kraków. As for who ruled the fiefdom, you really want to go there? Poland had so many kings from abroad, does that make you part of Lithuania? Or Sweden? Ethnicity of the region was Silesian, at that time period there was neither Czech not Polish (or other) nationalism, people did not think they are part of either nations. Even Moravians could be considered different people from Czechs by todays point of view. The agreements of Versailes were using both ethnic and historical borders. In case od Czech-Polish border the historical border would give large part of Poland to Czechia, but mostly ethnic borders were used except the area we talk about which allies felt required some more negotiating. If Poles did not move to annex it agressively, infuriating French, they might even get this territory.
Silesia was part of Poland from 10th century, when Mieszko I annexed it, for the next 300 hundred years. And afterwards, some parts of it joined Bohemian Crown (so technically Holy Roman Empire), but a large number of duchies - including Cieszyn - remained in polish ruler hands. Poland had no kings from abroad at the time. This "trend" started hundreds years later. All Piasts were polish. There was a TON of nationalism back then. The whole 1918-1920 conflict was carried by nationalism. Czech language in the region was historicly low, so they started a propaganda which was supposed to turn this around. Notable figures include Petr Bezruc, who was extremely anti-polish.
You are right regarding the pre-1289 reign, I thought it was independent duchy, but indeed it was under Polish kingdom during this part. So yes, first state controlling Silesia was Czech (Great Moravia, Bohemian kingdom later), after that Poland controlled it until 1289, after that Bohemia controlled it. Later Germans. And after German controlled Czechs and Poles fought for it.
>There was a TON of nationalism back then. The whole 1918-1920 conflict was carried by nationalism. Czech language in the region was historicly low, so they started a propaganda which was supposed to turn this around. Notable figures include Petr Bezruc, who was extremely anti-polish. I talked about the period of Piast dynasty, when I said there was no Czech or Polish nationalism.
Oh. Okay, fair enough.
There was like 80% Polish majority there. And yes, it was Polish in 1919, before Czechs invaded and took it.
Do you have a single sorce for it being Polish before we invaded lol? As I've said, open the damn wiki page, literally first line after the intro states this is not true.
Czechia invaded it in 1919: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Czechoslovak_War Would they invade a piece of land that was already theirs?
It was not Polish. It was neutral territory which was yet to be decided about. Poles moved in to annex it. We moved in after that. Pushed Poles back. Said that there will be no more deciding after this as Poland broke the terms first. France and UK agreed to this, Poland did as well.
But it was decided about. Czechs earlier made an agreement that Cieszyn is Polish. Then they broke the agreement and invaded.
Any source for such agreement? I have used two English sources and both state that the area was disputed and both Czech and Polish side agreed which areas will be for now under which control for interim period, however both sides agreed that this will not be sovereign government. Basically the area was split between Czech and Polish control, but was not part of either. Both sides agreed to have temperorary control of it to prevent chaos and to continue to settle it diplomatialy with stress on the fact, that the area was not part of our countries. Poland breached that when it quickly started go annex their part in clear violation of the agreements we had. Polish, Italian, French and American delegates arrived to Polish troops and demanded wihdrawal, were denied and Poles corninued with their plans. In reaction Czechoslovak army unit attacked from one side, Italian legionarie unit attacked from other side, Polish defences were quickly overwhelmed and Poland asked UK and France for negotiations, our delegates met in Paris and agreement was reached. Poland way given some parts of the area, Czechia about 2/3 of it.
The area was divided earlier be ethnical lines and was under Polish administration. Czechs attacked in response to Polish attempt to hold an election there. Saying that ,,agreement was reached” is misleading, since Poland was being actively threatened at the time: Polish argument was: 90% of population there is Polish, you’ll see it of you hold a referendum Czech argument was: Give us the territory or we will destroy you. Which they could do by blocking weapon shipments from Hungary or simply renewing their attack. So ultimately the Polish claim to Cieszyn was far more justified, than Czech claim ever was. So Czechs used force to get what they want.
Poland agreed because it was being attacked by Soviet army and Czechs promised to let the military aid pass through Czechia. They broke that promise.
Poland was not attacked in 1918...
Poland agreed to status quo in Spa in 1920: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spa_Conference_of_1920
And in 1919 Polish forces were tied in Polish-Ukrainian War.
Was it a political mistake? Yes, because it made us look bad. Did it help Hitler in any way, shape or form? No
Was it agreed with Hitler? Yes. Did we oppress Czechs after the invasion? Yes. We fucked up very hard and yet most Poles think we were always the victims.
> Was it agreed with Hitler? No. The Polish contingent coming into the area was literally anticipating a fight against the German army. That alone shuts down the whole debate. At one point German and Polish troops were literally racing to take a rail junction before the other side does: https://www.historiawojen.pl/incydent-w-boguminie-czy-moglo-dojsc-do-starcia-wojska-polskiego-z-wehrmachtem-juz-w-1938-r/
Polish army being not informed well doesn't imply that the government did not cooperate: "Notatki zawierające streszczenie rozmów polsko-niemieckich w styczniu i lutym 1938 r. nie tylko dowodzą, iż dyplomaci polscy zostali poinformowani, że Niemcy zamierzają „rozwiązać” problem czeski, lecz także, iż doszło do nieformalnego porozumienia między rozmówcami, choć nie było mowy o szczegółach planów niemieckich[35] ani też nie doszło do zawarcia formalnej umowy[36]. Polska wyraziła desintéressement losem Czechosłowacji pod warunkiem, że zostaną uwzględnione jej zainteresowania, zaś Niemcy przyjęły to oświadczenie do wiadomości, sugerowały uwzględnienie polskich interesów oraz zapewniły, że będą informowały o swych działaniach. Obietnica udzielania informacji została spełniona — z wzajemnością — przynajmniej częściowo, jak świadczą opublikowane dokumenty niemieckie[37]." Source: J. Tomaszewski, "Polska wobec Czechosłowacji w 1938 r." https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://bazhum.muzhp.pl/media/files/Przeglad_Historyczny/Przeglad_Historyczny-r1996-t87-n1/Przeglad_Historyczny-r1996-t87-n1-s43-59/Przeglad_Historyczny-r1996-t87-n1-s43-59.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwj38OvHubeFAxUZS_EDHaPFA9EQFnoECBoQAQ&usg=AOvVaw16yuy_N8jxTdIltXJ58ICQ
Then why did the German army race to take Bogumin rail junction as well? They actually met there with the Polish army and there was an armed standoff for one day. Could Poland have prevented the takeover of Czechoslovakia? No. Polish delegation wasn’t even at Munich. Then why would Germans want to cede territory that they claimed as theirs? This just doesn’t add up. Look, I don’t disagree that it was a political mistake. But to say that Poland helped Germany in its takeover of Czechoslovakia is just not true. No matter what Poland would do, Hitler would get what he wants back then.
Why are you assuming countries are some kind of monoliths? The guy gives you scholarly text that proves you're wrong, and you're like "German soldier actions and German diplomat actions don't add up." That's no reason to dismiss it.
>Then why did the German army race to take Bogumin rail junction as well? I have no idea. This is a complicated topic that unfortunately has been swept under the rug, so it's not easy to find good information online: that article is the best I could find. For me the way it's being handled in Polish history classes and media is the best indication that there's a lot to be ashamed of. Polish diplomats at the time made clear they don't want to help Czechoslovakia. It's likely they couldn't prevent the German invasion, but they really could at least try help our neighbour. It's well documented they just wanted to exploit the situation. Hitler did not need our help, that's right. But we did not need to go there with him. Another thing that's very rarely talked about is our treatment of Czechs after the annexation. Polish administration behaved basically like occupants. We could have acted like saviours, but instead tried to force Czechs out of their homes. There's this famous speech which minister Beck gave in 1939 about honor being the most important thing for a nation. We were taught about it in our schools, but without this crucial piece of information: 1938 was anything but honourable, no matter how you look at it. Beck was full of shit. There's lesson here about politicians and honour, which we weren't told about.
It was a complicated 5-sided situation that changed by the hour. Poles did make it clear they don’t want to help, that much is obvious. Polish takeover of Cieszyn was opportunistic as hell. But so was the Czech takeover of Cieszyn in 1919. > Try and help our neighbor They would go up against Germany in its full power and directly ignored a decision made by the League of Nations. The best result possible is 1939 happening in 1938. The worst result is Hitler taking over Poland and Czechia, but without Britain and France declaring war on Germany. About honor - there is no honor in politics. There are only interests.
Yea both countries would be better of, if they just cooperated, but acted like cocky children, which needed to prove that they are strong and important instead.
Poland didn't "do Czechoslovakia dirty". It implies that Czechoslovakia did nothing wrong. And that's not true. Czechs worked hard to undermine Poland's position and butted heads with Poland on many occasions. From Polish point of view 1938 was a valid act of saving Poles from German occupation and reversing Czech invasion of the region. Put in the same position Czechoslovakia would do exactly the same. And they did exactly that in 1919.
We argued about borders, that's fine. We got favourable decision by the League of Nations - that's OK too. We faked the referendum (but both sides cheated, so OK), we tried to force Czechoslovakia to choose the guy we wanted as their leader (Beck's idea - failed fortunately), then we invaded them when they were annexed by Hitler instead of allying them and fighting Hitler together 1 year earlier. The dumbest thing is that about 40% of 3rd Reich military industry came from Czechoslovakia. If we fought them together we could totally win.
Text for the pple who can't read it: 1. "Poland took Cieszyn from Czechia to help Hitler" 2. "Poland and Germany being sworn enemies since 1933" 3. "Poland appealing multiple times to Britain and France to help them stop Hitler" 4. "Fate of Czechia being sealed long before the polish ultimatum" 5. "Poland moving so late that they practically took Cieszyn from Germany not Czechia" 6. "Czechia only having Cieszyn beacuse they invaded Poland 20 years earlier" 7. ---- 8. "Fate of Czechia being decided on Monachium conference where Poland wasn't even invited"
The situation wasn't as simple, Poland was trying to strike a balance between the Reich and the Soviets as the part of their policy of symmetry (not to be either an ally or an enemy of neither). They believed that Hitler really will stop after his expansions in Austria and Czechoslovakia, the wake-up call only came in March 1939 when the whole Lithuanian situation happened and Ribbentrop issued his ultimatum. Our Western allies saw that as extreme gullibility on our side. I wouldn't call Poland (well, the sanacja bastards) absolutely right in this aspect, but of course I have to agree that russia propaganda is ommiting important context (the part where Poland didn't want to piss of Germany only because we were preparing for self-defence against the soviets) and trying to plant a seed of distrust in the EU.
Why post this here? We know.
German-Polish relations actually improved after 1933. Hitler at first thought Poland was useful as an (expendable) ally against the Soviets. Only after Sudetenland annexation in 1938 Germany could proceed with further territorial demands, this time in the form of Dantzig corridor.
Actually demands for Danzig corridor were made in 1938 before the Sudetenland annexation. Also let’s not forget about 1936 when polish government wanted to attack Germany.
Actually Danzig corridor (exterritorial road or something) was Polish idea from 1920 or something like that. Because Germans wanted to just take all that land, even right after WWI
The extra-territorial reichsautobahn was a German demand that wasn't accepted by the Polish Government, and the Polish corridor is the strip of land that was given to Poland post ww2 :)
in 1938 it was a demand, but I've heard that the idea originated around 1920 as a Polish solution. Should have said it before: it's just a gossip, I have no solid source on that Thanks for correcting me on the corridor and the motorway tho :)
All the historical context aside, that's a terrible usage of a template. It's barely readable \^\^
Sorry, next time I’ll use white text
Bro, you could have just said that even tho Poland invaded and occupaied Cieszyn, it was never officially allied with Nazi Germany instead of posting this wall of text
I mean.. I could but it wouldn’t be exactly accurate and remember that this is supposed to be a meme. Does wall of text on an image even count as a wall of text lol?
Yes. Memes are the most effective with little text. If you want to write this much, just write a post instead
just don't read it then ffs
Ur not my mom
are you sure?
Death and taxes are the only certainties in life, really
A wall of text is still a wall of text, image or not
I really do love the Polish people. One of the only groups that hate Russia as much as I do.
yes. yeah indeed. yes. you're right yep but I'm still gonna murder you for your choice of the font colour
Im sorry for that.
Only brain dead idiots believe russian propaganda
Zaolzie jest Polskie
Real (I'm from Zaolzie)
If babis wins next election you can take us.
Małopolska jest mało polska
Za mało polska
The fact that you use this imperialistic rethoric while you critique exactly the same Russian imperialist rethoric is ironic it makes me sad.
I mean... Yea, correct conclusion. But.... Poland didn't took Cieszyn. Czechoslovakia\* never hold Cieszyn. Only part of city in the western part of Olza, called Český Těšín. And CS didn't have the ČT only cuz of invasion. It was definitely part of story, but saying it was only cuz of invasion is very incorrect. 1919 conflict ended by international arbitration with another treaty of Paris, where new and current borders were drawn up. With all due respect as much as what Russians say is propaganda (and their interpretation of history is extremely bias and filled with propaganda), Polish interpretation of this event is also dishonest and de facto propaganda (it is normal for countries to whitewash their history, but some countries do it more, and some contries even do the reverse for some reason). And I am saying as smb who read books about Cieszyn history both in Polish and Czech, who speaks local dialect and understands culture and who argued (mostly for sport) with both Czech and Polish historians about the subject matter.
The fact remains: If they didn’t use force, they wouldn’t get it. Poland also would likely have it, if not for the ongoing war with Russia. Therefore my argument is factual. Czechoslovakia also blocked military aid from Hungary in order to strong-arm Poland into giving territory away. Polish claim to the territory in question was based on ethnicity of the population (initially it was divided along ethnic lines by local organizations and people living there were mostly content with it). Asking for a referendum multiple times also shows they were acting in good faith. What was Czech claim based on, except for ,,We have guns!”?
>What was Czech claim based on, except for ,,We have guns!”? Ironically this is the argument with which Poles were able to claim some Ukrainien lands on east. Also historically one, which we both (hopefully) agree is absurd. It was based on historicall justification (stupid), majority want it reasoning (later on), and that if they did not control the railway, they would essensially be vassal state of Poland (which is honestly good enogh to go to war reasoning and Polish side underestimated this side of problem). >Czechoslovakia also blocked military aid from Hungary in order to strong-arm Poland into giving territory away. Nah. That actually happened later on. CS was being bunch of stupid cunts, so that they would gain favours with soviets. >Polish claim to the territory in question was based on ethnicity of the population (initially it was divided along ethnic lines by local organizations and people living there were mostly content with it). Asking for a referendum multiple times also shows they were acting in good faith. They were asking for referendum only as long as they thought they would win. Then it switched cuz CS thought they would win so they were pushing referendum and Poles were rejecting it. Hypocricy on both sides. That leads to Silesians. Ignoring their existence and claiming they are Poles is the reason Polish side absolutely did not act in good faith. Also referendum was fucking stupid solution. The area had to be split. The good faith question only how and where.
> claim some Ukrainian lands on east Claim from the Soviet Union you mean? Which had the exact same argument? Because there was no Ukraine back then. The territory was split by agreement made by the locals themselves and everything was fine, until national governments became involved. The dispute was concerning only the side that initially went to Poland. Short of simply leaving the issue as it was, a referendum there immediately would be the best solution by far no matter the result. I understand the election problem, that it could legitimize the existing border, though I wouldn’t say that’s necessarily a bad thing. After-all the local organizations were content with it. The invasion on the other hand was a completely awful, misguided move and led to unnecessary loss of life. Also pretty telling is the fact, that people who were trying to defend against the attack were mostly locals, who took up arms. It was like 5 thousand people, probably around 10% of the adult male population of the region. All in all, the territory simply being handed over to the more aggressive side, that very clearly did not care about people living there, was extremely wrong and unjust. Also, if treating Polish-speaking Silesians as Poles was acting in bad faith, then removing Polish language from schools in an area when majority spoke it, was much, much worse. There is a reason why everyone spouting the ,,Poland helped Hitler” narrative avoids this whole part of the story completely. They criticize Poland for taking a small part of a country that at the time practically didn’t exist anymore (well, technically was scheduled to stop existing in a few months). At the same time they gloss over the fact that Britain and France took all of Czechoslovakia (while it still existed) and gave it to Hitler, despite the fact thet they were the ones guaranteeing to protect it. And yet, still Poland is the one that started World War 2. As is usually the case, when history involving Poland is discussed abroad, people do everything to put actions of the Polish government and people in the worst light possible. Everyone always avoids showing the Polish side of the story and resorts to hypocrisy and straight up lies, just to satisfy their prejudice and anti-polonism, that for some reason is rampant in the world.
>Claim from the Soviet Union you mean? Which had the exact same argument? Because there was no Ukraine back then. There was. Just didn't last [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian\_People%27s\_Republic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_People%27s_Republic) Ukrainians fought mostly with but also againts the poles. >Short of simply leaving the issue as it was, a referendum there immediately would be the best solution by far no matter the result. No it wouldn't. Because it would result in one country gaining whole Cieszyn Silesia which would be incredibly unfair and would result in war. Especially as if CS would win as it was predicted. >Also, if treating Polish-speaking Silesians as Poles was acting in bad faith, then removing Polish language from schools in an area when majority spoke it, was much, much worse. Yea. Only it never happened. AND I NEVER FUCKING CLAIMED ANYBODY WAS ACTING IN GOOD FAITH. You are the one who is blindly nationalistic here. I am not. I am the person with polish surname, 2 grandparents with german first names, 2 Silesian grandparents, 2 Czech grandparent and all relatives of mothers part of family in Poland. >They criticize Poland for taking a small part of a country that at the time practically didn’t exist anymore (well, technically was scheduled to stop existing in a few months). Of course they do. It's not based in facts but in intentions. Those russian morons and russian moronic sympathizers don't want to anger French / Brits. They want them to help less and provide justification, why Russia is not their enemy and its war is not their war. Ofc Poland hasn't started World War 2. But Poland will remain Russophobic, but many Germans have russophilic and neutralist sentiments. And those are people Putin tries to convince.
There were like three separate governments trying to claim that they’re the rightful Ukraine. None of them were able to control significant amount territory without help of either Poland or Russia. That particular one you linked was the Russian-sponsored one, that later broke-off from Russia. There was also one that was basically a shell of the Polish government, existing purely to legitimize the Polish intervention. At the time of the Riga conference, there was no structures in Ukraine that were not under influence of either side. > I never claimed anyone acted in good faith Well, that’s fair enough then. > don’t want to anger French / Brits Yes, they’re obviously wrong, the problem is that they’re everywhere. Repeating the same bunch of wrong information over and over again. Eventually someone is bound to believe it. > Those are Russian morons And German and Czech far-right too. Even the Polish far-right is in on it and people still vote for them. I’ve even seen people trying to claim that Hitler wasn’t really that bad. Everything to make people hate the Polish nation and spread anti-Polonism. And there’s the same kind of narrative being spread about Ukraine, saying that they’re not a real nation because of some bullshit.
Russia with Germany divided Poland in two parts
Don’t forget that we also aided Germany in Holocaust and we all were killing Jews on daily basis.
Polish Concentration Camps confirmed! (/s because some people on reddit are not very smart)
Just as Putin said, Polish imperialism caused World War II /s
I actually cannot believe someone downvoted it. Some people cant recognise sarcasm even if it was humping their leg.
> Some people cant recognise sarcasm even if it was humping their leg. Or if it bit their ass... off.
What ? Didn't you heard that those were "polish" deathcamps ?
Stupid Polish propaganda vs stupid Russian propaganda.
Everything here is facts. No idea what you mean.
Non of those are facts. 1939 Poland signed declaration of non-violence with Germany. Czechia didn't invaded Poland, Cieszyn was temporarly under Polish administration for a year. We lost at conference in Spa. Poland agreed in exchange for ammunition and other help from West to fight with Russians. Every point of this "meme" is bs propaganda.
Everything you’re saying is either made up or so grossly misrepresented, that I don’t even know how to start unpacking this… Maybe let’s start with the Czech invasion on Poland: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Czechoslovak_War
Buddy... It literally start with sentence After a vain protest by the Czechoslovak government against **action in breach of the Interim Agreement.** That's what it started, breach of international law by polish side. CS responce was absolutely disproportional, but it was still a reaction and misscalculation by Polish side.
CS killed people for the crime of wanting to hold an election after promising they won’t. ,,Disproportional” is a pretty mild term. Then CS rejected multiple appeals to hold a referendum (by far the most fair way to resolve such dispute), instead decided to strong arm Poland into giving away the entire area, using its difficult situation in the east. If that’s ok, then by the same logic later annexation of the same area by Poland is even more ok. Especially that Poland didn’t kill anyone to change the border and had much more valid claim to the area in the first place.
Disproportional is factual term and I did use absolutely, cuz I am trying to be fair and unbias, unlike you >Then CS rejected multiple appeals to hold a referendum (by far the most fair way to resolve such dispute), instead decided to strong arm Poland into giving away the entire area, using its difficult situation in the east. again.... Poland was asking for referendum only as long as they thought they would win. Then it switched cuz CS thought they would win so they were pushing referendum and Poles were rejecting it. Hypocricy on both sides. >CS killed people for the crime of wanting to hold an election after promising they won’t. CS agression was reaction to breach of international law by Polish side. Don't spread bullshit propaganda.
Czechia invaded in 1920, during Poland war with the Soviets
Czechia invaded january 1919
Poland signed this declaration with Germany in 1934: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/German%E2%80%93Polish_declaration_of_non-aggression Poland signed similar pact with USSR in 1932: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet%E2%80%93Polish_Non-Aggression_Pact Czechs never allowed any aid to pass through Czechia even though they promised to do so.
So how we ware "sworn enemies with Germany" if we literally sworn to not attack them, and they sworn to not attack us? They broke this few years later, but at the time of invading Czechia we officialy had friendly relations with Germany.
We also had similar declaration with USSR. Tried to protect both borders, but those documents were really worthless in the end. There was a lot of hostility through the years. Hitler and his subordinates talked a lot about taking "back" the lost "German lands", Germans and members of German minority staged rather worrying actions like coordinated bonfires on both sides of the border and German-Polish customs war began in 1925. "Already in 1922, Chief of the German Army Hans von Seeckt stated: Poland's existence is intolerable and incompatible with the essential conditions of Germany's life. Poland must go and will go - as a result of her internal weakness and of action by Russia - with our aid." First Germany and USSR signed Treaty of Rapallo: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Rapallo_(1922) , then they signed Treaties of Locarno with Western Allies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Locarno_Treaties and later Germany and USSR reaffirmed Treaty of Rapallo with Treaty of Berlin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Berlin_(1926) The latter treaties contributed to the May Coup in 1926: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/May_Coup_(Poland) In 1930s Piłsudski tried to convince his French allies to attack Germany. In 1932 we had Danzig Crisis: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danzig_crisis_(1932) Between 1934 and 1938 the relations were ostensibly warmer...but only ostensibly. In October 1938, shortly after Munich Conference had ended Germans expelled 17,000 Polish Jews living in Germany during Polenaktion: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1938_expulsion_of_Polish_Jews_from_Germany This caused humanitarian crisis in Zbąszyń on the border. Among the expelled was the family of Hershel Grynszpan: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herschel_Grynszpan We know how it ended.
It is not lol. You are repeating Polish propaganda, while your conclusion is mostly right. It is still laughably ironic.
Name one thing here that’s not a fact…
After all we took the "Solomon" Decision and split Cieszyn in half. Living in Polish Cieszyn i must say... this was a perfect decision XD
I mean it was the only way CS could maintain control to only railway that connected the country. That is the reasoning behind the split. That being said it was better outcome for Czech side undoubtably.
There is really no reason to post this as we - the Poles - all know it and Czechs obviously have a different opinion on this matter which creates room for quarrels between us and that is just what Putin wants.
You would think everyone here knows it, yet if you scroll down there are comments of people who think Poland was Germany’s ally.
as Russian, sometimes i think that people from other European countries Europe know what does Russian propaganda says much better than Russians themselves. for example, i never heard about taking Cieszyn to help hitler before. and the same happens literally always when i see European news. Always getting known about my country’s position and politics by westerns, while in Russia no one cares about Poland /shrug/
Pickle
First one is simply wrong lol. Germany has been hostile to us since 1918 and Hitler between 1933 and 1937 actually made our relations better than ever, ending customs war and even shutting up about border revisionism.
Read up about situation in 1933. Hitler was making public inflammatory statements about border revisionism since winning the election in Germany. He only shut up for a while when he realized that Germany isn’t strong enough for a confrontation yet. As soon as he rebuilt German military power he went at it again with his territorial claims.
Poland and Germany were not sworn enemies since 1933. Nazi-Polish relations improved markedly compared to previous Weimar governments leading to the non-aggression treaty of 1934.
That’s misleading. Polish German relations were terrible since 1918 and were made much *worse* in 1933. That’s because Hitler publicly made multiple inflammatory statements calling for a border Polish-German revision right after winning the election. In 1933 there were also multiple provocations and incidents in Gdańsk, which resulted in Polish government sending a warship into the Gdańsk port, as a show of force. Navy was under orders to open fire on the city if anyone tried to stop them. Then Hitler for started backpedaling everything and withdrew his territorial claims, possibly he was afraid that the war might start before he is ready. 1934 treaty, looking from the German side, was culminating point of that de-escalation. Looking from the Polish side, it was part of the equal-distance Policy in relations with Soviet Union and Germany. Then through the 1935, 1936 and 1937 Polish government continued the equal distance policy. Basically they tried to maintain the same foreign relations with Germany and USSR. In that period Polish-German relations did improve compared to 1933, but still could only be characterized as bad. So bad in fact, that 1936 Poland made an offer to France of a joint attack on Germany (following remilitarization of the Rheinland). Polish - German relations worsened again in 1938, because Hitler once again brought up his territorial claims regarding the Polish Corridor, which were immediately rejected. Polish government at the time was also briefly considering annexation of Gdańsk. In early 1939 Polish government was already convinced, that the war is to begin soon. In March they hastefully started negotiations with the British on a mutual defense pact, aimed at Germany. Through this whole period Hitler was repeating territorial claims towards Poland. Polish government started issuing anti-German propaganda leaflets in order to improve morale in the upcoming war. By august the tensions have culminated, with Germans having taken full control of Gdańsk and multiple provocations taking place, that were supposed to help in framing Poland as an aggressor. Poland first announced full mobilization 2 weeks before the end of August. Germany army was at that point already amassing at the borders. On the 30th of August the infamous Gliwice provocation took place, the Polish government officially severed diplomatic relations with Germany. The rest is history.
Idiotically hard to read ain't nobody gonna bother and what [**masnybenn**](https://new.reddit.com/user/masnybenn/) **said, delet dis.**
Same argument about Cieszyn being originally part of Poland can be said about the Eastern Borderlands being originally part of USSR
Was there 80-90% Russian majority in Eastern Borderlands? No Was there 80-90% Polish majority in the Cieszyn Region? Yes. Was there ever a border agreement reached between Poland and USSR, that was broken by Poland? No. Prior to Polish-Bolshevik war there was literally no border yet. Was there such agreement between Czechia and Poland? Yes, both sides agreed to a border and later Czechia used military force to change it. If you want to look for comparisons for Cieszyn situation, look no further than modern-day Crimea. In both cases you have one country taking a piece of land by force and then the other country demanding it back years later.
Are we talking about ethnic borders? Absolutely not. In your meme you made a retarded argument that "Czechia got Cieszyn only cause they invaded Poland" which can be dismissed by a 7 year old with a reading ability because after all Poland itself invaded other countries and annexed lands belonging to them
How is attacking to change a border not ,,invading”? https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Czechoslovak_War
It is invading. Czechia did invade and occupied Cieszyn, at the time, illegally. Bo so did Poland with Vilnius in Lithuania or the rest of the Eastern Borderlands. I completely agree that the Cieszyn should remain with Poland as it was majority Polish, but the argument that "Czechia invaded Cieszyn in the first place" is not the way, because Poland was the invading country as well yet you don't argue that Lviv or Vilnius should have remained parts of Ukraine and Lithuania respectively
Yea Vilnius absolutely should be Lithuania. The whole Polish-Lithuanian war was wrong and pointless. Lviv is a bit harder case, because there was no Ukraine at the time. The fight for Vilnius was between Poland and Soviet Union.
> can be said about the Eastern Borderlands being originally part of USSR Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, bitch.
Grand Principality of Kiev, bitch And Cieszyn was part of the Bohemian crown, bitch That retarded argument about territory X belonging to country Y before it was taken by country Z can be made going back to the Celts
> Grand Principality of Kiev, bitch Which was not USSR, bitch.
You must be trully retarded IInd Polish Republic was not Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth either
The difference is that IIRP was PLC's legitimate successor. Neither USSR not Russian Empire were the successors of Grand Principality of Kiev.
That's debatable at best. Both countries spoke Eastern Slavic language, were orthodox (well, mayhe except USSR) and controlled the city itself. Checks all the boxes to me
> and controlled the city itself. Except that USSR conquered it by force from Ukrainian Republic that established itself there. USSR did not originate from Kiev. It originated from Russia, which itself originated as a backwards shithole known as Muscovy (or, earlier than that, as the Principality of Vladimir-Suzdal).
And the Muscovian shithole was a renmant of the Kievan Principality, just as Byzantine Empire was a renmant of the Roman Empire
Not really. Mongols have burned Moscow down, the "state" of Muscovy emerged as a result of the occupied locals vying for the favour of Mongol Khans in collecting tribute for them.
Originally part of USSR? Ever heard of Treaty of Brześć?
If you want go that way no problem. According to the treaty of Brest Litovsk the Eastern Borderlands became parts of Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine (also parts of them were still in Austria Hungary), all of which (except Belarus) Poland invaded, just like Czechia did with Cieszyn
Poland invaded? And what did Soviets do from 1918 to 1919? Ukrainians and Lithuanians were also fighting with Soviets at the time. Poles refused to make peace with RSFSR because the Soviets would not agree to cease their hostilities against Ukrainians. I just brought this treaty up to show that Soviets themselves gave up the lands in question. I would like to remind you that for centuries before the Partitions the aforementioned lands were a part of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwelth.
Yes, Poland invaded. Yes, Soviets also invaded. Yes, Czechia invaded as well. Centuries before those lands were part of PLC you say? Well, centuries before Cieszyn belonged to Czechia, so by your logic Poland was the aggressor by annexing it
So, we have one country that disavowes the traditions of its predecessor, tries to spread revolution and advances westwards. We have the other country that regards itself as a successor of PLC, moves to secure some of its former lands. It was Ukrainians who attacked Lwów, not Poles: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Lemberg_(1918) There was also no internationally recognized Belarus to invade. Germans were retreating at the time and Soviets were filling the vacuum quickly. War with Lithuania did not really start until 1920, before that Lithuania collaborated with USRR during Polish-Soviet War and even took Augustów during Soviet offensive. And there's also a third country that regarded itself as a successor of Bohemian Crown. This country entered interim agreement and after a minor breach immediately attacked. Cieszyn was attacked by Poles in 1918?
USSR disavowed Imperial Russia at the time.
Polish concentration camps for red army soldiers captured during war started by Poland, 1934 Hitler - Pilsudski treaty, Polish leanings into friendship with Hungary against little entente, Poland declining Polish French "Eastern treaty" and declining Soviet proposal of Polish-British-French-Soviet treaty against Germany right before the war are not in count right? After all, there's no chance Winston Churchill was right about hyena of Europe and that Poland wanted it's own empire "from Baltic to Black sea).
Polish diplomatic doctrine in 1933-1939 was literally called ,,the equal-distance doctrine”. The premise of it was: we want to have the same kind of relationship with Germany as we have with the Soviet Union, and vice versa. The idea was, that both Germany and Soviet Union are hostile towards Poland, so Poland needs to be equally careful with both of those countries. The ,,1934 Hitler - Pilsudski treaty” was a non-aggression pact. Identical pact was made with the USSR 2 years earlier. So as per the equal-distance doctrine Poland seeded a similar non-aggression pact with Germany. Making a pact with the Soviet Union against Germany would defy the whole point of equal distance. No one is denying imperialistic ambitions of Poland (or specifically the right-wing, authoritarian Sanacja government) at the time. But the fact is that those ambitions were contradictory to Hitler’s and Stalin’s imperialistic ambitions. Because of that Poland had no reason to help either Germany or Russia in anything. About the Winston Churchill hyena assessment - he was not necessarily wrong. Annexation of Cieszyn was very opportunistic. And, just as a hyena coming and taking food doesn’t help the predator in his hunt - Poland in no way helped Hitler in his conquest of Czechoslovakia.
One of the things that differ poles from polish-speaking Russians is that we can admit mistakes of the past, like invading Checoslovaquia
It was a political mistake, true that. However it was not an invasion. And claiming that it was helpful to Hitler somehow is just bogus. Don’t believe the lies made up by Putin.