Poland: on the ruins of three empires. Russian answer to the Polish question. 2 part

Expel the three despots (do not hesitate a day longer!)
A. Mitskevich, “Pan Tadeusz”

In Krakow, the Germans were dancing in the hall ...
Pole mustache moved - all run away ...
Polish folk

“From the German point of view, it was impossible to resolve the Polish question well: there could only be a more or less bad solution” (1). With these words of the German Chancellor T. Betman-Golvega it is quite possible to characterize the attitude towards Poland and the Poles not only in Germany, but also in Austria and Russia. In the Russian and Austrian empires, the powers that be, not worse than the Germans, understood that a cardinal solution of the Polish question would hardly endow them with a new ally — they would simply get a new headache on the border instead of an internal political problem.

Theobald von Betman-Golweg

Let us give the word to another “retired” Chancellor - Prussian, Bernhard von Bülow: “We have artificially created and raised a mortal enemy on our eastern border, who has taken away vast and rich areas that have been German for more than a century, robbing and raping Germans and, as a mercenary of France, ready to strangle us ”(2).

Yes, von Bülow wrote this after the war and after the creation of the puppet Polish Kingdom - about the Polish "searchlights" of the 1916 model of the year, the author of which was T. Betman-Golweg. However, his words fully reflect the positions of the Prussian, as well as Russian and Austrian conservative circles in the Polish question.

Poland: on the ruins of three empires. Russian answer to the Polish question. 2 part
Bernhard von Bülow

It was Poland, with all its human and material losses, became one of the winners of world war. She won the main thing - independence. Although the Poles themselves, if the speech goes “beyond Resignation”, they will rather recall the “miracle on the Vistula” - a victory in the fight against Red Russia than an unexpected political combination according to the results of a four-year confrontation between the great powers.

And they are unlikely to clarify that it was not least realized at the suggestion of the President of the North American States (USA) Woodrow Wilson, who was fascinated by the ideas of “national self-determination”. In the presentation of this outstanding politician, they were inextricably linked with such concepts as “trust in each other, the universality of law”, capable of becoming the pillar of the world order (3).

Of course, Wilson was by no means the first to say that the Poles, more than other “young” European nations, were entitled to consider themselves to be a nation, but it was with his submission that Entente diplomats actually brought the “Polish question” to the international level. Impressed by the extreme bitterness of the war, the head of the White House was ready to destroy both despotic empires and create new democratic powers.

However, even with such a romanticism, Wilson — above all, a pragmatist, and an American pragmatist — he looked at Europe like the Russian grand dukes in Germany — it’s better to keep it fragmented, and let the local monarchs continue to play their toy kingdoms.

As you can see, it is not by chance that the epigraph to the archive of Colonel E.M. Khauz, who exhaustively reveals the behind-the-scenes mechanisms of the American politics of that era, chose such a characteristic confession: “If any of the old diplomats heard us, he would faint” (4).

US President Woodrow Wilson and his closest aide Colonel E.M. House

The United States, of course, is not France, and they have no direct need to drive a "Polish" wedge between Russia and Germany. But why not weaken, in the long run, of course, the two potentially powerful European powers? By the way, the grand-ducal appeal, by which the Russians actually initiated the present resolution of the Polish question, became a sensation not only in Europe, but also in the States. But at that time, to ordinary Americans, European affairs were generally frankly indifferent.

On the eve of the European war, the maximum that the boldest Polish politicians could count on was relative autonomy, and for each of the three parts, and some territorial increments. Of course, only one Poland “from sea to sea” could arrange the radicals, but even the violent Yuzef Pilsudski was not ready to demand “everything at once”.

[i] Józef Pilsudski and his legionaries in the Austrian trenches on the Russian front

The creators of his legend gladly quote the leader of the Social Revolutionaries, Viktor Chernov, according to whom Pilsudski predicted defeat in a world war, first the Russian and then the German Empire (5). Pilsudski really counted on such a sequence in the outcome of the war, soberly assessing the economic and political resource of the opponents.

However, there was no shortage of the most paradoxical forecasts on the eve of the world massacre. And let's not forget that the author of the memoirs, as well as the author of the forecast, is a great master of political bluff, moreover, when Chernov wrote his memoirs, he was almost “one hundred percent,” if not financially, dependent on head of the Polish state ".

Of course, an honest revolutionary such as Chernov can in no way be accused of trying to rewrite memoirs in complimentary tones in relation to the former political opponent. And yet, the main thing is that the leader of the Polish radicals made his prediction for the sole purpose of actually calling the Poles under the banner of the Habsburgs and the Hohenzollerns to fight the Russian empire, that is, the opponent whom he considered the main thing for the independent Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

However, during all four years of the war, the majority of Poles had to fight not for Poland, but only for the interests of those powers, which they rightfully considered as their enslavers. It is not by chance that the Polish soldiers displayed true patriotism and much more heroism in the national armed forces that were forming closer to the end of the war in France than in the armies of the three empires.

Even the call of the Poles both to the Russian and the Austrian armies was conducted according to “reduced quotas”, which, by the way, ensured the success of the first call, so surprised the mobilization commissions. In Germany, the initial call in the Polish lands also passed without complications, but, starting from the summer of 1915, they tried not to send Poles to the western front, knowing full well about their sympathies for the French.

And at the end of 1916, the Austro-German draft of the additional draft in the occupied Polish lands failed miserably. The widely proclaimed proclamation of an independent kingdom in the territories that were part of the Russian Empire before the war did not save it - in our time it could be called virtual. Had the slightest opportunity been there, the 800 of thousands of Polish volunteers, on whom General Ludendorff had so much hoped, would have immediately fallen into the ranks of the Polish Army, especially since it was formed in France.

Erich von Ludendorff - a general who never became a field marshal

However, in the patriotic outburst of August 1914, Republican France also did not dare to demand a united Poland with the same ardor as it demanded the return of Alsace and Lorraine. To repeat, at first for Poland it was not even about broad autonomy, not like real independence.

In fact, the Polish question, as one of the sick issues of Europe, which is called "matured", even if only implicitly. And not only in Russia, but also in Germany, and in Austria-Hungary. Strangely enough, it was Russian diplomacy, which did not differ in special efficiency, and besides the tsarist bureaucracy, in the Polish question managed to play "ahead of the curve."

It was at the suggestion of the diplomats that the famous Grand Duke's Appeal to the Poles was issued. At the same time, the task was set at the expense of the propaganda effect to extract the maximum immediate benefit, of course, for the Russian army, and not for the Poles and not for Poland. With further had to deal later - after the victory. The reasons for the fact that dividends from the "Appeal" could not be obtained - only and exclusively in the unfortunate outcome of the war for Russia.

Poland, if we talk about all its three parts, in the 1914 year, in terms of economic development, political culture, and national identity, was no less than, for example, Romania, Serbia, or Bulgaria. But those were already independent, although, admittedly, they did not have any historical experience of their own statehood, such as Poland.

In addition, Poland had much more chances for international recognition even before the start of World War II than any other “new” state that could be formed on the “fragments of empires”.

We must not forget that on the eve of the war the Central Powers did not consider any projects to create new independent countries (even from Russian lands or in the Balkans), then in the Entente countries the large-scale European redivision was taken for granted if they won. In Russia, by the way, too, and Poland, with this redistribution, was given the place of some kind of Western Slavic outpost.

After the legendary “Rebellion” 1863, the Polish question on the territory of the empires - participants of the three sections, seemed to have been permanently frozen. But another cruel blow to national identity turned into a kind of stimulus for the Polish renaissance.

The great reforms in Russia, the transformations in the dual Danube empire, even if forced after the defeat in the 1866 war, the industrial growth in a united Germany, all these factors together simply could not but affect the situation of Poland. Recovery, and then the rise of the economy, logically accompany the cultural renaissance that surprised the world on the Polish lands of the three empires. The names of Henryk Senkevich, Boleslav Prus and Jan Ignacy Paderewski did not just know the whole world - he bowed to them.

At the beginning of the 20th century in St. Petersburg, Berlin and Vienna, both hypothetically and practically considered numerous combinations for a revived Poland. And at least three of them could be realized if the world war ended with the victory of the Central Powers, or Russia did not fall out of the Entente.

So, the Romanovs, for the sake of propriety, would have put some of the great princes on the Polish throne. Instead of two thrones, the Habsburgs simply tried to settle in on three at once, without experiencing any shortage of archdukes for this case. And the Prussian Hohenzollerns - they were ready to make happy the Polish subjects of one of the “younger” colleagues in the German Empire - the Bavarian Wittelsbach or Saxon Wettin.

A huge role in the fact that the position and perception of the divided into two countries and its people in the world changed rapidly played historical ties of Poland with France. The French interest in Poland, of course, was by no means disinterested, besides Paris was attracted by the prospect of creating a democratic (and how else?) Laying between the three empires.

Yes, at that time Russia was an ally of France, but the concept of a “buffer state”, albeit in a not so crude form as later, was already used by diplomats at the beginning of the 20th century. The Republican politicians of the Third Republic cannot but be given credit for the ability to maneuver between the “new monarchist ally” and the “old revolutionary friends”.

The rapid strengthening of the positions of the United States of North America was also in favor of restoring independent Poland. After the Americans split the nut under Spain and then sensibly mediated the reconciliation of Russia and Japan, they were tried to win over to their side both the Entente and the Central Powers. However, even in 1914, no sensible politician could have imagined that instead of coronation in Krakow or Warsaw of one of the European princes, it was the White House that would dictate the conditions for the re-establishment of Poland.

But the main incentive for Polish independence in the good European tradition was the revolution - in Russia, and then in Germany. The Russian “February bureaucracy” at least managed to save face, endowing the Polish brothers with autonomy, was not allowed to the Prussians, and they were simply presented with a “Poznan bill” at Versailles.

And at the same time, they “made a grip” in Gdansk of the originally free Danzig, and cut a small part of East Prussia to the new estate of Pan Pilsudski. After that, the appetite of the head of the Polish state immediately increased, and he went to war in Lithuania, Belarus and Red Russia. Even quiet Czechs with Slovaks got it, from whom the Poles wanted to take away Tyosha Silesia. But all this is already a completely different stage in European history.

1. T. Betman-Golweg, “Reflections on War”, Beachtungen zum Weltkriege, Bd. II, S.91
2. B.fon Bulow, Memoirs, M., 1935 g., P.488
3. Quoted by Clements K. The Presidency of Woodrow Wilson, Kansas, 1992, p.73
4. Ibid., P.28
5. V.M. Chernov, Before the storm. Memories, memoirs. Minsk, 2004, p. 294-295.
41 comment
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must sign in.
  1. +1
    27 August 2018 05: 56
    Poles again muddy the water ...
  2. +2
    27 August 2018 06: 18
    On this planet, the borders of Poland have decreased and increased so many times that few people were surprised by the next instruction of this "great" power, everything is in the hands of the Lord.
    1. +2
      27 August 2018 07: 54
      Poland by Providence itself is defined as the backyard of Europe
      1. +2
        27 August 2018 20: 27
        And then what? In general, at the Vienna Congress of 1815 there was nothing for Russia to take the originally Polish lands to Warsaw, would they give it to the Germans, even if they would suffer.
        1. 0
          14 October 2018 10: 57
          And Russia is EURASIA, on the margins of which Europe.
      2. The comment was deleted.
  3. +1
    27 August 2018 07: 53
    Historical misunderstanding
    1. +1
      27 August 2018 10: 44
      Quote: Dormidont
      Historical misunderstanding

      Hyena of Europe. And that's it.
  4. +2
    27 August 2018 08: 56
    and he went to war in Lithuania, Belarus and Red Russia.

    1. There was no Belarus then, but there was the Byelorussian SSR.
    Having attacked Belarus and Ukraine, the Poles did not reach Russia itself.
    2. Having overthrown the legitimate, world-recognized government of Russia within its recognized borders, the Bolsheviks, unrecognized by anyone, gave excellent trump cards and an occasion to all neighbors to tear apart Russia and territorial conquests. Why not? No authorities, no obligations to her either: take what I want!
    3. In addition, another December 10 1917 d issued a "decree" on the recognition of independent Poland and, as in the case of Finland, without defining borders.
    Moreover, on August 29, 1918 V.I. Lenin signed a decree of the Council of People's Commissars of the RSFSR on withdrawal from contracts and actsconcluded by the government of the former Russian Empire, about sections of Polandthan AUTOMATICALLY recognized the rights of Poland to Western Belarus and Ukraine.
    Art. 3. All treaties and acts concluded by the government of the former Russian Empire with the governments of the kingdom of the Prussian and Austro-Hungarian empires concerning sections of Poland, in view of their contradictions to the principle of self-determination of nations and the revolutionary sense of justice of the Russian people, which recognized the inalienable right of the people of Poland to independence and unity, are hereby irrevocably canceled.
    The Poles logically and took them.
    But the Bolsheviks, it turns out, misunderstood ....

    And then there were wars because of the foregoing ....
    4. Naturally, if the present Government of Russia and the work of the Constitutional Council were preserved, there would be no war with Poland, and the current Polish border (the border of the USSR after the Second World War, which is actually the internationally recognized Curzon line) would be established in the negotiations.
  5. +8
    27 August 2018 11: 20
    national identity was not inferior, for example, Romania, Serbia or Bulgaria. But they were already independent, although they, it must be admitted, had no historical experience of their own statehood, such as in Poland

    The First Bulgarian Kingdom: 680 g - 1018 g.
    Second Bulgarian Kingdom: 1187 g. - 1396 g.
    Principality of Bulgaria: 1878 g. - 1908 g.
    Trier Bulgarian Kingdom: from 1908 to that time - another 10 years.
    According to the author, is this a little experience?
    1. -1
      27 August 2018 11: 28
      And where did the author write about the "little experience" in relation to Bulgaria ???
      1. 0
        27 August 2018 13: 54
        I would read the quote to the end.
        1. -5
          27 August 2018 14: 12
          Indeed, you would read to the end, you would not write nonsense. Although Russian is not your native language, which excuses me. Undoubtedly, Poland’s own statehood experience is richer than Bulgaria’s
          1. -1
            27 August 2018 21: 41
            When the Polish state appeared and how long it existed on its own - give the facts.
            I gave you the facts, and if you can’t take it, you have problems with arithmetic, and not with Russian. hi
            1. -1
              28 August 2018 13: 07
              And you yourself do not know? Why then are you trying to argue ??? The Polish state - the middle of the 10th century until the end of the 18th, i.e. more than 8 centuries of continuous existence, which is more than Bulgaria. Then, for several years, the independent Duchy of Warsaw and the Kingdom of Poland - in fact, in personal union with Russia
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. -1
                  29 August 2018 15: 02
                  It was from 1815 to 1830
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. -2
                      29 August 2018 15: 28
                      As grit, "learn history", as you write yourself. The Kingdom of Poland was a state with its own currency, laws, authorities and an army, in common with the rest of Russia was that it was headed by the King of Poland, crowned in Warsaw, who was also the Emperor of All Russia.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
          2. -2
            27 August 2018 23: 46
            In addition, Trans-Danube Bulgaria is the successor of Great Bulgaria to Khan Kubrat Khan whose capital was Fanagoria (in Crimea). Bulgaria is the oldest state that exists under the same name in Europe.
            1. 0
              28 August 2018 13: 02
              Is it really the Bulgarians, not the Ukrainians dug the Black Sea?
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. 0
                  29 August 2018 14: 55
                  The Greeks gave the Russian alphabet to the Russians, and the Russian did not give anything to the Russians, their history, with their Cossacks, hetmans, rads and eternal betrayals, is not needed, we have our own.
                  1. The comment was deleted.
                    1. 0
                      29 August 2018 15: 33
                      Nothing, our Russian Kiev prince baptized us, who before that was our Russian Novgorod prince, who seized Kiev by military force. Moscow could not be founded by a "Ukrainian prince", in the absence of Ukraine and Ukrainians at that time.

                      Russia has always been called Rus, but it has never been called "Muscovy".

                      Quote: Wayar
                      And all Russian manuscripts were written by Ukrainians and Belarusians.

                      This is not true. All the manuscripts were written by Russians, again, in the absence of then "Ukrainians" and "Belarusians", and most of them on the territory of present-day Russia, but the fact that in the territory of present-day Ukraine and Belarus it was unimportant with medieval manuscripts is a fact.

                      Quote: Wayar
                      Well, about your Cossacks, you would also read

                      We read and are reading about our Cossacks. We also had our own Cossacks, but we don’t need strangers.
                      1. The comment was deleted.
    2. 0
      1 September 2018 18: 59
      Well, of course, I understand the gap in 500 years - on a scale of the galaxy is nothing
  6. -1
    27 August 2018 17: 55
    They raised the "Hyena of Europe", "The ugly brainchild of the Versailles Treaty" - was, is and will remain in History as such.
  7. +3
    28 August 2018 00: 03
    Quote: polpot
    the next instruction of this "great" power

    What, excuse me, "instruction"? To whom and what can they point to? They can only sit in their swamp and croak at the world around them. Always dissatisfied with everything, with their stupid idea of ​​"more from sea to sea." If they did not have such an "eternal enemy" of them as Russia, then it would be urgently necessary to come up with it. Well, they came up with it, although Russia needs this Poland like a dog boots, they suffered in their time. But under the guise of rebuff from some "enemy" they can already run around the world with an outstretched hand and beg for money for this. And to repulse the "aggressor" all means are good and any ally is good. Their whole story is like this, there is even nothing to invent. And it is easier for Panamas to govern its people, keeping them in eternal fear of the "foe-Russia". A real, respected and strong state will never grow out of such wretchedness, so the Great Poles, perhaps, can forget about Greater Poland. love
  8. The comment was deleted.
    1. +1
      29 August 2018 15: 00
      And why in an article about Poland to remember Belarus ??? And even more so to talk about how she "fought with the Horde", when during the Horde there was no trace of Belarus.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. 0
          29 August 2018 15: 37
          The Commonwealth speech is not only crown Poland. During the horde of the Russian Federation, there was not, as there was no RB, but Russia and the Russians were, from which there is continuous state continuity.
          1. The comment was deleted.
            1. 0
              29 August 2018 16: 10
              What exactly am I "not able to confirm" ??? Only you are lying here. Although, most likely, not consciously, but simply due to lack of knowledge.
              You will find the chronicle yourself, if you wish. There is where and with two "s", by the way, although, in any case, grammar is not an argument, even 100 years ago Russia was written as "Russia", and "Russians" as "Russian", but when "Litvin" is written as " Belarusians "cannot be changed by any grammar.
              Russia could not be part of Belarus; Belarus as an independent state formation appeared only in the 20th century. Belarusians could not free anyone from the horde, because during the horde of Belarusians was not.
              1. The comment was deleted.
                1. +1
                  29 August 2018 16: 35
                  Yes, I say, Russian people lived in Russia (then they could write "Russian", a hundred years ago "Russian", now "Russians", the grammar norm is changing), but "Ukrainians" and "Belarusian" did not live there. Here is the chronicle for you: https://amp-amp.livejournal.com/119894.html
                  The Belarusians, or rather their ancestors, of course, were called "Litvin", like the rest of the inhabitants of the ON.
                  White Russia and Belarus is not ON, but only part of it.

                  Quote: Wayar
                  We’ll write off in a year. )))

                  Yeah, finish 7th grade - come.
    2. +1
      30 August 2018 02: 02
      Great Lithuania is the Russian name for the Lithuanian Empire, which conquered and subjugated Slavic (Russian lands). Small Russia is a territory that was originally Russia. Great Russia is the territory that was conquered or captured by the Russians during the expansion of their state. For example, just Greece or small is Greece in the south of the Balkan Peninsula. And Great Greece is its colony in Sicily and Italy. The Russian language is much closer to Belarusian than Lithuanian, therefore it is strange to attribute Belarusians to Lithuanians.
  9. The comment was deleted.
    1. 0
      29 August 2018 15: 17
      Fuck the achievement of humanity - the plug !!!! "In Northern Europe, the fork appeared much later. For the first time in English, it was described by Thomas Coriet in a book about his Italian travels in 1611, but the fork was widely used in England only in the XNUMXth century. Interestingly, the Catholic Church did not welcome its use. calling the plug "unnecessary luxury".
      Traditionally, it was believed that the fork appeared in Russia in 1606, and was brought by Marina Mnishek. At a wedding feast in the Kremlin, Marina with a fork shocked the Russian boyars and clergy. However, during excavations in Veliky Novgorod, archaeologists found a fork, which was dated to the middle of the XIV century. "

      Quote: Wayar
      At this time in Lithuania, modern Belarus

      Belarus has nothing to do with the Principality of Lithuania, except for the common territories

      Quote: Wayar
      we had cities with the Magdeburg Law

      Is this good or bad?? Moreover, the absolute majority of "Belarusians" (who did not exist under that name at that time) did not live in cities. The majority of the inhabitants of cities in present-day Belarus became Belarusians only after WW2.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. 0
          29 August 2018 16: 12
          Quote: Wayar
          "Belarus has nothing to do with the Principality of Lithuania, except for the community of territories" - seriously?


          Quote: Wayar
          This means that the RF, formed in 1991, has nothing to do with the history of the Moscow Principality and the Russian Empire, except for a common territory.

          It has, because There is a continuous history of the state. Just like the modern French Republic has the most direct relation to the French kingdom. But Belarus - alas, only in the 20th century did such a state education appear.
  10. The comment was deleted.
    1. 0
      29 August 2018 15: 24
      Mickiewicz would charge anyone who says that he is "Belarusian". He is a Catholic Lithuanian with Polish as his native language (by the way, he also knew Lithuanian), and by Jewish standards he is a Jew.
      1. The comment was deleted.
        1. 0
          29 August 2018 16: 16
          Quote: Wayar
          Litvin is Belarus.

          It was your clowns who suddenly decided to think so. Litvin is a resident of the ON, of various nationalities. Mickiewicz's mother is Jewish. you decide, you are broadcasting for nationality or geography.
  11. 0
    29 August 2018 15: 54
    Read what "union" is and all questions will disappear even from you.
  12. The comment was deleted.
    1. 0
      29 August 2018 16: 41
      You probably do not know, but in addition to the RSFSR, the war with Poland was waged and lost by the Lit-BSSR, the RSFSR of Belarus only helped.
      1. 0
        29 August 2018 16: 55
        Quote: Gopnik
        RSFSR led the war with Poland and lost the Lit-BSSR

        Just for fun: where did you get this from? Can you give any historical facts? I am sure that NO. And since you touched on the formation of Soviet Belarus, it will be useful for you to know that the first capital of Soviet Belarus was Smolensk, the original Belarusian city.
        1. +1
          29 August 2018 17: 03
          And that in the 6th grade they still haven’t been taught this, have they finished ON? Then wait a couple of academic years and the teachers will tell you that 3 independent states fought with Poland - the RSFSR, the Ukrainian SSR and the Lit-BSSR.

          Quote: Wayar
          Smolensk is an original Belarusian city

          And the capital of the Ukrainian SSR was at that time the Russian city of Kharkov, it was, yes. I doubt the originality, for when Smolensk was founded, there were no Belarus and Belarusians yet.
        2. 0
          29 August 2018 17: 25
          Smolensk, go and call it the capital of the BSSR because he did not enter the Pale of Settlement. And it would somehow look indecent if the majority of the population of the capital were Poles and Jews (as in Minsk). And so he took a Russian city, the population within the framework of indigenousization, called Belarusians (as happened in the east of the Ukrainian SSR) and everything is ok. True, it didn’t work, I had to return Smolensk to the RSFSR, they didn’t want the townspeople to become "Belarusians"
  13. 0
    29 August 2018 16: 26
    Quote: Wayar
    “Rus has always been called Rus, but it was never called“ Muscovy ”- this is so, because Rus is Ukraine, which was part of Belarus. And the Moscow principality was then part of the Horde. This is the 6th grade. You probably don't go to school, and I'm wasting my time on you.

    This is probably the 6th grade of the Belarusian school, and yes, I don’t go to school. Ukraine, it was also Russia, yes, until the 20th century. And Ukraine never entered Belarus, when in the 20th century these state entities appeared, they existed in parallel.
    Dei-no, wasting time in vain, it’s better to unlearn, since, unlike me, go to school, also in the 7th grade
  14. The comment was deleted.
    1. 0
      29 August 2018 17: 21
      The Russian Federation was not formed in 1991, but was renamed, not only in the Russian Federation, but also in Russia.
      This is possible news for you (in the 6th grade they still haven’t been taught this), but Moscow is far from the most ancient city in Russia, and where, by the way, is Moscow? Why is not Novgorod, for example, either Vladimir there, or Petersburg in general? With St. Petersburg, your image would be even more colorful, because he is even younger.
      Polotsk is now a Belarusian city, yes, but then it wasn’t such, alas.
      Lithuania has not changed its name, it was as Lithuania, and has remained. And what does it matter to us, who has "changed" what name, what questions can there be for us? Or are you hinting that in vain the Lithuanian-Polish lands were annexed to the BSSR, under the name "Western Belarus", populating the Jewish-Polish cities (including Minsk) with Belarusians, and it was necessary to leave Belarus within the Polotsk and Vitebsk lands?
    2. 0
      29 August 2018 17: 26
      Quote: Wayar
      when in the place of the future Moscow, the frogs jumped, and savages from the tribe of ringlets fought stumps in Polotsk, in the Belarusian city there was already St. Sophia Cathedral. And the fact that Lithuania changed its name to Belarus

      I don’t understand one thing: why didn’t you dig a sea for yourself? And so, according to your speeches, you are no worse than your neighbors with V / NA.
  15. +2
    29 August 2018 20: 49
    Quote: Wayar
    history! And only one small fact out of a thousand speaks about the great role of Poland in the formation of the Russian Federation as a state and contribution to its culture: what is a "fork" in Muscovy learned from a Polish woman

    Excuse me, were there elephants in Poland at that time too? And then all of us, sinners, tease that the elephant is a "truly Russian" animal. Does that mean Polish after all? fellow