Didn’t Poland’s borders extend as far territories incorporated in the 1920s back in the late 1600s? I was reading about Peter the Great and it sounds like Poland was fairly large back in the late 1600s. One could dispute the Polish claim to the lands but it seems that originally Russia did not possess the territories either and only gradually expanded into them over time.
Did someone mention Ukraine here? Do you mean that place known more correctly as the Ukraine, the Ukraine, that part of the old Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth inhabited by Rusyns or Ruthenians, the borderlands as they were known. This same place was invented as a country as a notion prior to the 1st world war. This same place ruled by the Vikings from Kijow and previously inhabited by Polans (those Poles again they get everywhere!). ah yes the same place ruled by the Russian Empire both Red and White and depopulated and repopulated by ethnic Russians.
Of course Pilsudski and Petlieura tried for the old federation but the RA certainly squashed the idea until the Red Horse Army was rolled upand over by the Poles in the south in 20’s. Did Stalin ever forgive them as he was political Commissar down there where the defeat happened. I doubt it!
As regards the Curzon line what on earth had that to do with ethnicity? I doubt Stalin ever heard of it before Churchill put it on the table. After all we must never forget Britains imperial past as in 1918 they were unlike the Americans not in the forefront of natuional identity. The Foreign Office simply went for the obvious without a Russian Empire put the border back to the last partition of Poland - keep things stable and in good imperial order.
Complicated stuff the Ukraine and its role in 20th century politics in the East.
Hmmmn Vikings from Kijow…
Sounds new for me. This is your personal historical investigation? It was Kiev’s Rus as i knew before. The first ancient place where from Russian nation come. It can’t be populated by Russians , coz they initially appeared there…
Of course Pilsudski and Petlieura tried for the old federation but the RA certainly squashed the idea until the Red Horse Army was rolled upand over by the Poles in the south in 20’s. Did Stalin ever forgive them as he was political Commissar down there where the defeat happened. I doubt it!
Stalin had no actualy deal to the Red Army’s march to Germany of 1919. It was obcessed idea of Trockij- to help the GErman revolution.And Semen Petlieura was forced to join the Polish side, coz he stand on position of Independent Western Ukrainian Peoples Republic that was later fully betrayed and occuped by Poland.
As regards the Curzon line what on earth had that to do with ethnicity? I doubt Stalin ever heard of it before Churchill put it on the table. After all we must never forget Britains imperial past as in 1918 they were unlike the Americans not in the forefront of natuional identity. The Foreign Office simply went for the obvious without a Russian Empire put the border back to the last partition of Poland - keep things stable and in good imperial order.
It had endeed the direct deal to ethnicity. That’s why Churcill offered it in 1920. But poles wanted the territories populated by non-polish majority. That’s why the terrible Volun later happend.The Polish-Ukrainian border of 1945 looks much like the Curzon line , that proves that CHurcill was right couple decades back.Stalin just has realized it on practice.
The history of Ukraine goes back farther than World War I. In fact, the concept of a Ukrainian nation started much earlier, perhaps, if I’m guessing correctly, during the Cossack rising of 1648, although I’m not entirely sure if the Cossacks were nationalists in modern sense of the word.
This same place ruled by the Vikings from Kijow and previously inhabited by Polans
That appears in the Russian chronicles, written several centuries after the events they relate. The Vikings were most likely not “invited” to the region but after material objects and, perhaps, profitable trade routes for their merchants back home.
ah yes the same place ruled by the Russian Empire both Red and White and depopulated and repopulated by ethnic Russians.
Ukraine was never completely depopulated, but instead, subjugated and later partitioned by the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth and the Russian empire. Ukraine was divided into a left bank and a right bank, and then, after Poland was partitioned three times, into a third region; so, in other words, Ukraine was constantly controlled but never completely depopulated of ethnic Ukrainians!
I’m assuming that you’re mentioning the Curzon line for two reasons–correct me if I’m wrong on each of them. First, to state that Stalin didn’t know about the line until Churchill proposed that arrangement; second, to insinuate that the Paris conference leaders, particularly President Wilson, made a major gaffe; the Curzon line was less about the ethnicity issue and more about controlling chaotic military situation in the east.
In regards to Stalin, I must say that he knew a great deal about the Curzon line, much more than most people would expect. He was commissar of the Southwestern front, a job that included sending reinforcements and supplies to the Red Army. Stalin’s job became more complicated when the Red Army started to retreat from Warsaw, and the Polish army started to advance quickly past the Curzon line and into the contested kresy. In fact, as the Red Army retreated, the Poles advanced more than 100 miles past the Curzon line, swept into Belarus in the east, and cut off the Lithuanian army’s access to Vilna in the north. Stalin was there, he would have seen all of this with his own eyes. Stalin was also greatly angered and humiliated when he learned of Lenin’s decision after the Red Army retreat. Lenin’s decision, of course, was simple and wise: abandon the operation and cut a deal with the Poles. Stalin,however, knew that he must reverse Lenin’s decision by first regaining the Kresy by military force, and then using the Curzon line to justify his military conquest.
Lenin’s decision was definitelly wise in that period but Poles tryed to catch the pie they can’t east- the big part of Ukraine , Belorussia and Litva.the British delegation in Ruga has tryed to covinve the Poles to follow the Curzon line in territorial demands to defeated soviet Russia.The Ukraine also had own view at the territorial borders, different of Polish. Without Stalin’s dreams , the Poland got a serious ethnic troubles , inviding the territories, populated by non-polish majorities.
Also because it wasn’t profitable to do so. The weapon factories that built the equipment the Poles needed to hold off the Germans were concentrated heavily on the western frontier, the contentious border Poland shared with Germany. Also, the Poles were expecting the Germans to invade in the west, so naturally, every scrap of manpower and weaponry the Poles could muster together were thrown at the Germans on the western front. (Interestingly, some army groups weren’t even mobilized until last minute, probably the result of British and French warnings against the practice.)
Which warnings do you mean? Britain forbid to mobilaze fully the Polish army?
Bull’s-eye! 
He-he. Russians sure didn’t owned the territoies of contemporary Russia centures ago:)
Just like the USA, Britain, Poland and rest of the world…Even finn come to contemporary Finland 10 000 years back from…Syberia.
As fo Ukraine. it’s actually doesn’t matter who owned its territories in past. The one of the basic democratic rule - is the right of nation for self-determination. if Ukrainan people want to be independent - no one external force, whatever part of Russian Impare or imposed “Eastern Poland” has no right to determine their fate. As i said , for national ukrainian leaders( at least for the their reasonable-thinking part of them) neither Soviet nor Polish occupation wasn’t legitime.
I apologize for the delayed response, Chevan. I didn’t even realize that this thread was still alive and active; but regardless of what I may think, I agree wholeheartedly, Chevan, Poland wanted to reinforce the lost territories of the old Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth and didn’t take notice of the increasingly nationalist Ukrainian population in the right bank. Belorussia is a completely different concept, as this ethnic group assimilated much faster than the Ukrainian, Jewish and German minorities, who showed little to no sympathy for the new Polish state because of state-wide discrimination (Jewish and Ukrainian population), ethnic differences (German population), and police violence (Ukrainian population.)
But after the 1921 war, Poland’s borders became internationally recognized despite Ukrainian resistance. So, therefore, any attempts to alter by force the borders established at Riga and recognized by the Entente, violates international law.
Which warnings do you mean? Britain forbid to mobilaze fully the Polish army?
Poland was only partly mobilized until the very last day–August 30, 1939–when it was certain that Germany would indeed invade. Britain and France, France in particular, told the Poles that they would withhold military assistance if mobilization were declared, which amounts to an open declaration of war. This is why the Poles secretly mobilized their forces in the summer of 1939, to avoid allied pressure.
Well this is new for me.This is though probably had a sense coz the total mobilization means a declaration of war.And as we know Poland was not going to fight with GErmany alone. The allied assistence was promiced within two weeks.So the probably the total mobilisation were seen by the western allies as unnecessary. However keeping in mind the fact the west did nothing to help - the demand not to mobilize the polish army might be considered as a provocation of Germany.
Well, lets look at one historical even from THIS point.
American war of independece.
Were the American revolution violation of international law? Definitelly yes, if we take into consideration the fact it was the British Colony with officially internationaly reconnized borders and internationaly signed treaties.But from american point- the British dominantion was just the Violation of rights of native americans.
So who care now about International law?
As for Riga threaty , well , one can say it was sort of Colonian war betwen Poland and Russia and it was direct violation of law and rights of entires peoples who lived on territories , curved by those monsters. Why we shall ignore the oppinion of peoples?And which true is actual?
We may to undesratand the Western recognition of Treaty as a forced/temporary mean to stop a bloody war- still it was better then continie violence.However western powers , Britain namely, persisted on Curzon Line as a border.But Poland, aiming on restoration their retarded empire pressed the hopeless bolshevics to leave the territories much further to the east.
I will try to answer your points one-by-one, Chevan, if you will be patient with some of my answers.
The American revolution, if we are looking at the protocols and sources of international law, was not a violation of international law, despite American perceptions of British cruelty. The American revolt against tough, stringent British policies and cruel, beastial British authorities was a violation of British law, as the colonies were part of the British commonwealth, not a nation in its own right. I will give you a modern example in order to justify my argument. If the governor of South Carolina and the residents of South Carolina decided to secede from the nation and form its own government, military and trade unions, is that action a violation of international or national law? If Washington D.C. decided to invade Maine, is that action a violation of international or national law? What prevents states from seceding the United States? If there is a provision, is that provision international or national law?
After the 30 years war, delegates, kings and princes from at least seven different nations and regions met in Munster, Germany to conclude the peace of Westphalia, which established the rule of sovereignty over established lands and regions. International law became the law of nations, and internal conflicts the sovereignty of the princes and kings of their own respective region. The treaty is still good law today.
Why we shall ignore the oppinion of peoples?
Chevan, no one will insist that we should. Unfortunately, Pilsudski and his military advisors, if he had any, did not. That is reality, and unfortunately, the Polish nation must learn to accept this inconvenient truth for its own good. The Ukrainians and Belorussians were ignored to fit our appetite for expansion, but that should not lessen the atrocities and injustice this caused.
I do not mean to offend your sensibilities, Chevan, but Russia does not have clean hands–no nation does. We must learn to accept and learn from our past arrogance, and look towards a brighter future, one of cooperation and peace. We must learn to accept the role we each played in the war and postwar era, no matter how much discomfort and distress that may cause us.
Britain namely, persisted on Curzon Line as a border.But Poland, aiming on restoration their retarded empire pressed the hopeless bolshevics to leave the territories much further to the east.
The allies, at the time, namely Britain, were reluctant to give the territories beyond the Curzon line to Poland, but instead insisted that Poland be given occupational rights for 25 years, in which case a plescibite would be held to determine whether or not the population wanted to stay in Poland. The Polish, however, did not accept the line nor the Allied offer, and decided to press on with its claims in the borderlands, pushing the Soviet and Ukrainian forces towards an unhappy agreement, one that satisfied Poland but upset the populations who felt betrayed by the Allied Commission, who after all, wasn’t even clear on its own policy towards Poland’s eastern claims. France wanted a strong Poland, and therefore, wanted her to have all of her claimed territories; but she did that in order to counterbalance Germany and the Soviet Union to the east; the British and Americans wanted a strong Poland, yes, but did not want to see another dominant force emerging on the continent: they wanted to play the offshore balancer role in eastern European affairs, managing conflicts from a convienent distance. Also, the British didn’t want to interfere with Russian interests in the area, probably because the British themselves were interested in the oilfields of Galicia and knew that incorporation was a strong possibility.
So, therefore, the allies failed to stop Pilsudski because they didn’t have a viable settlement solution that satisfied Poland or Ukraine, didn’t have the willpower nor the authority to force Poland to accept the line, and didn’t have a method to solve border disputes, mostly because the commission was divided and weak. The League of Nations accepted the Riga treaty in order to satisfy Poland and the Soviet Union, so, therefore, the treaty became internationally recognized.
There are different interpretations on varies legalities. But it should be noted that the American Revolution did not begin as a “revolution” initially, and was more an armed insurrection as protest against what were perceived to be lawless actions of the British gov’t. The initial militias were fighting for their “rights as Englishmen,” not Americans…
Whay then the “original englishmens” did sent then the regular royal army in America?;)Seems they didn’t see the american “englishmens” like a juridical counterpart of themslef.
OK, its always interesting to hear the another arguments from a member who probably know more then me.
The American revolution, if we are looking at the protocols and sources of international law, was not a violation of international law, despite American perceptions of British cruelty. The American revolt against tough, stringent British policies and cruel, beastial British authorities was a violation of British law, as the colonies were part of the British commonwealth, not a nation in its own right.
Well,it sounds like the American revolt has been directed against the British colonian administration in America. Kinda the British Parliament and King didn’t guess about violations of right in its’ American colonies. All the “englishmens” seems were the equal all aroud the Commonwealth , right?
And BRitish colonian autorities , seems , violated the British Stamp Act of 1765, when realized it on practice in British america?
I think not. The British parliament( not the local administration) was fully responsible for “anti-american lawless”.
I fully admit that the American revolt was start as the fight for right of “englismens”, but the problem was that the “original British” englismens didn’t recognized them like at the same englishmens. And since event, when former colonies has declared Independence 4 jule , the problem could not lie any more time in plain of inner Commonwealth juridical system. it was getting matter of international affairs.Illegal from point of British parliament BTW( otherwise why had they send the Royal army , instead to sent parlamentaries )
I will give you a modern example in order to justify my argument. If the governor of South Carolina and the residents of South Carolina decided to secede from the nation and form its own government, military and trade unions, is that action a violation of international or national law?
Formaly no, unless the newly born govenment of Carolina would not admit the laws that VIOLATES the right of the Americans from another states who lives or arrives carrently in Carolina( that is hardly possible in practise endeed- i meant to separate the civils and not violate the right of others). Also it the new authorities would NOT provoke the ethnical, race, religious conflicts that may case the war or ethnical crimes. Or to publich a laws that violates the Economical or juridical rights of the others americans, who out of Carolina. ( what exactly happend with British American colonies two centures back) Othervise the another states of USA may declare the war against the Carolina ( and thus it getting the international law subject).
However in practice all the great nation has a buch of special means (ether juridical or political) against separatism. I remember few years ago the mass media PRed the scandal with American Indians Lakota whose leaders declared independence from USA.
Their claims BTW , were based on legal basis -the 6-article of American constitution. Why , on your mind , they didn’t get independence finally?
becouse NO ONE nation will tolerate such a ethnic separatism.Nor Britain in Ireland, nor Spain( basks) not even the Russia in caucaus.
If Washington D.C. decided to invade Maine, is that action a violation of international or national law? What prevents states from seceding the United States? If there is a provision, is that provision international or national law?
Yes in some circumstances , if the D.C. will launch say the military invasion into the any other american state- it would inevitably bring to the violation of rights and very likely to crimes , that is BTW the matter of Intarnational Court in Huge for instance.Say the killing of OWN civils by troops is definitelly a MATTER of international investigation.
After the 30 years war, delegates, kings and princes from at least seven different nations and regions met in Munster, Germany to conclude the peace of Westphalia, which established the rule of sovereignty over established lands and regions. International law became the law of nations, and internal conflicts the sovereignty of the princes and kings of their own respective region. The treaty is still good law today.
It’s true and it works. But unfortinutelly not all the time:)
Chevan, no one will insist that we should. Unfortunately, Pilsudski and his military advisors, if he had any, did not. That is reality, and unfortunately, the Polish nation must learn to accept this inconvenient truth for its own good. The Ukrainians and Belorussians were ignored to fit our appetite for expansion, but that should not lessen the atrocities and injustice this caused.
The Poland actualy has not ignored the UPR;)
Why do you think the Poles officially recognized the UPR in 1920 in Warsaw treaty,just through the year succefully forgot about Ukranian nation?
As i understand the International Law works constantly and for all the nations.
I do not mean to offend your sensibilities, Chevan, but Russia does not have clean hands–no nation does. We must learn to accept and learn from our past arrogance, and look towards a brighter future, one of cooperation and peace. We must learn to accept the role we each played in the war and postwar era, no matter how much discomfort and distress that may cause us.
Fully agree. And i never claimed the Russia is a innocent. We had absorbed a lot of nations endeed for a long time period of expansions. Same did the Poland BTW.
The allies, at the time, namely Britain, were reluctant to give the territories beyond the Curzon line to Poland, but instead insisted that Poland be given occupational rights for 25 years, in which case a plescibite would be held to determine whether or not the population wanted to stay in Poland. The Polish, however, did not accept the line nor the Allied offer, and decided to press on with its claims in the borderlands, pushing the Soviet and Ukrainian forces towards an unhappy agreement, one that satisfied Poland but upset the populations who felt betrayed by the Allied Commission, who after all, wasn’t even clear on its own policy towards Poland’s eastern claims. France wanted a strong Poland, and therefore, wanted her to have all of her claimed territories; but she did that in order to counterbalance Germany and the Soviet Union to the east; the British and Americans wanted a strong Poland, yes, but did not want to see another dominant force emerging on the continent: they wanted to play the offshore balancer role in eastern European affairs, managing conflicts from a convienent distance. Also, the British didn’t want to interfere with Russian interests in the area, probably because the British themselves were interested in the oilfields of Galicia and knew that incorporation was a strong possibility.
So, therefore, the allies failed to stop Pilsudski because they didn’t have a viable settlement solution that satisfied Poland or Ukraine, didn’t have the willpower nor the authority to force Poland to accept the line, and didn’t have a method to solve border disputes, mostly because the commission was divided and weak. The League of Nations accepted the Riga treaty in order to satisfy Poland and the Soviet Union, so, therefore, the treaty became internationally recognized.
Well all this point i agree. We know how often the fate of nations became the puppet in political games of the great nations. I beleive the both France and Britain want Poland to be the strong their allies. However why they didn’t not even considered the UPR as the another equal allies in the East? I guess coz they more trusted to poles. Or didn’t believed to ukrainians. Anyway we saw just a tupical political trade in this case. Well, let go back to an Rigas treaty, which you claim to be recognized.
It was signed between the Polish gov in face of Pilsudski and Boslevic gov. Who were the Bolshevics in 1921?
They didn’t so much send an army as they reinforced it. I’m no expert on the American Revolution/War of Independence. But I think one of the key British complaints was that the Americas were expensive to defend and the four French-Indian Wars, where colonial militias and the British Army fought the French and their native allies and where most of the American officers such as Gen. Washington gained their experience, were extremely costly and revenue had to come from somewhere. But there always had been a British garrison in what is the present day United States and Canada. And yes, they didn’t see Americans as equal Englishmen, consequently the war became one of Independence rather than a rebellion, and also a bit of a bitter civil war between American Patriots and the Torys (Loyalists to the Crown)…
The right to be represented in parliament since they were being taxed and told what they could and could not do but had no say in any of it.
In other words:
The interpretation of a situation where the balance between economic influence and political influence is lost.
And this goes for about every uprising. From the Ancient Roman transition from kingdom to republic, to the French revolution, over American Revolution, (even the Belgian one), and the American Civil War.
I do apologize for the delayed response, Chevan. I have been very ill lately, and I have not had time to respond. I will answer your questions to the best of my ability because I am not American, but I have only recently studied the history of this great country. Our concept of international law has changed so much over the span of 200 years that it is difficult to talk about the law with any certainty.
The Poland actualy has not ignored the UPR
Why do you think the Poles officially recognized the UPR in 1920 in Warsaw treaty,just through the year succefully forgot about Ukranian nation?
As i understand the International Law works constantly and for all the nations.
It is quite simple: Poland has always considered the Right Bank an integral part of the Polish nation, which is why Pilsudski was eager to renege on his promise to the Ukrainians after he defeated the Soviets. The point that I was trying to make in my earlier post was that Poland ignored Ukraine’s desire to form a separate nation. The Poles have never considered Ukrainians a separate identity, but have always tried to convert them. In the 1600s, the Polish Catholics deliberately denied several rights to the remaining non-Polonized Ukrainians in the Right Bank; they banned Ukrainians from living in the cities (most Ukrainians were serfs or peasants, so this was not an issue until the reforms of 1848), they banned Orthodox priests from preaching, and even denied Ukrainians the right to marry whomever they choose. This mentality did disappear with the Great War, and as a result, the Poles ignored the Ukrainians’ desires for separation. It is tragic.
However why they didn’t not even considered the UPR as the another equal allies in the East?
My guess is that the allies did not think very much of an independent Ukraine. You also have to consider the time frame of the Versailles Treaty. The treaty was written after the war, and the allies did not want another war on the continent, so they were willing to sign over Ukraine to satisfy Poland and stop the war in the east. Unfortunately, Ukraine was not consulted.
Yes in some circumstances , if the D.C. will launch say the military invasion into the any other american state- it would inevitably bring to the violation of rights and very likely to crimes , that is BTW the matter of Intarnational Court in Huge for instance.Say the killing of OWN civils by troops is definitelly a MATTER of international investigation.
Was this an international violation before the League of Nations? I, myself, do not know, but I will most certainly check.
Simply reestablishing Poland’s borders to what they were before the country was dissolved and absorbed by its neighbors seems reasonable. If people had attempted to expand the borders of Poland far beyond what it was historically then one could make a better argument that what was being done was unjust. The absorption of Poland by neighboring countries in the 1700s seems more unjust than the attempt to reestablsih Poland.
As far as ethnicity, I don’t think it is always important in determining where a countries borders should lie. Catherine the Great was able to rule Russia despite not being Russian and as far as I can tell Russians didn’t see a contradiction in being ruled by someone who was German.