Reasons for the uprising in Poland in 1830-1831

The capture of the Warsaw arsenal

Poland during the reign of Alexander I

In 1807, Napoleon created the Duchy of Warsaw and granted the Poles a constitution that consisted of 89 articles in 11 chapters. Article 4 reads: "Slavery will be destroyed"... The Poles sided with Napoleon and fought side by side with the French, including in the war of 1812.

With the defeat of Napoleon by the allied forces, the victors took up the solution to the Polish question, and it became the object of internal struggle at the Congress of Vienna, which opened in 1814. In the negotiations on the Polish question, Russia's claims were reinforced by its military might and the victories won over Napoleon. Alexander wanted to take the Duchy of Warsaw and become sovereign there.

Alexander often turned to the Poles and said that he forgave them for helping Napoleon and would create for them their own state with a liberal constitution. Alexander's promises had a positive effect on Polish society and put him on the side of Russia. In March 1815, Napoleon fled Elba and became emperor again, thus provoking a new war. This became an incentive to revitalize the work of the congress and find a compromise between the participants. Soon, the congress passed a decision to establish the Kingdom of Poland under the scepter of the Russian emperor.

On May 25, 1815, Alexander I announced the gift of Poland "The most liberal constitution"... The Constitution proclaimed all freedoms, provided civil rights to the Poles. However, the Russian society received this news without enthusiasm. People complained that the powerful empire did not have a constitution that was bestowed on the Kingdom of Poland; the latter was accused of excessive loyalty to those who, more recently, were considered enemies.

It soon became clear to everyone that the autocratic system could not exist in parallel with the constitutional one. Alexander increasingly began to make decisions without taking into account the opinion of the Poles, which contributed to the creation of the opposition. The existence of the opposition angered Alexander. He didn't like that "The diet reads notations to the government".

Kingdom of Poland on the map

Alexander introduced censorship, abolished Masonic lodges, introduced corporal punishment in the army. According to Czartorizhsky, all this created "Fear and obedience system" and contributed to the fact that the old antipathy of the Poles towards the Russians "Turned into hate".

Throughout the 1820s, hatred of Russia increased, which contributed to the creation of underground circles, societies, and associations aimed at the freedom of Poland. One of the leading societies was the Patriotic Society, founded in 1821 by Lukasinsky.

After the end of the Diet in 1825, the situation was extremely tense; cases of evasion from military service became more frequent, in a number of cities there were demonstrations of peasants who demanded the abolition of corvee.

Poland and Nikolay

After the death of Alexander I, the situation in Poland became especially aggravated. The patriotic society entered into an alliance with the Decembrists. Its members were imprisoned, their fate was to be decided by the Investigative Committee, a body that violated the Polish Constitution.

There were rumors in Polish society that Nikolai wanted to destroy the autonomy of Poland, as well as to close the Warsaw University, where revolutionary ideas circulated among students.

Emperor Nicholas I

The Diet of 1830, which was the last chance to negotiate with the emperor, did not live up to expectations. The deputies advocated the exclusion of politicians who were under the direct influence of St. Petersburg from power, advocated freedom of judges, the emperor's preservation of Poland's autonomy, etc.

After the Sejm, the Poles realized that freedom can only be gained through revolution. The Poles hoped for the support of France, where society was with both hands for the Poles and considered the actions of the Russian authorities unacceptable. Already during the uprising, France hesitated a lot, but in the end the French authorities did not dare to spoil relations with powerful Russia, and at the end of the uprising France kindly rescued and protected the fleeing Poles, including the leader of the uprising - Czartorizsky.

Hack and predictor Aviator

Undoubtedly, the existence of an autocratic and constitutional order at the same time is impossible. Alexander decided to play at the constitutional sovereign, but it turned out for him, to put it mildly, unsuccessfully. Seeing the revolutionary movement in the area of ​​the Pyrenees, Alexander became very frightened and began to destroy the rights of the Poles. Every year the rights of the Poles were infringed upon, and the governor of the kingdom mocked the population in every possible way. After the failure of the uprising, the Kingdom of Poland lost its autonomy forever, and the constitution was abolished.

List of used literature

1. Shchegolev S.I. Poland in the system of Napoleonic France. Creation of the Duchy of Warsaw // Bulletin of St. Petersburg State University. 2004. Ser 2. History... Issue 1-2. S. 74-78.
2. Falkovich S.M. The Polish question in the decisions of the Vienna Congress of 1815 and the reasons for the collapse of the Vienna agreements.
3. Zhidkova O.V. Uprising in Poland 1830-1831 and diplomacy of Russia and France // Bulletin of PFUR, series "General history". 2015. No. 3. S. 70-78.

Comments

[apro]

Undoubtedly, the existence of both autocratic and constitutional systems is impossible

What was the aim of the empire in Poland? This issue has not been disclosed. It was not about integration. It was not carried out, but only the conservation of the situation.

[Basil50]

The author has only one idea about the impossibility of Polish desires and tsarist power.
The Poles dreamed of satisfying * the Polish ambition * and are still outraged that they were forgiven for the bestiality that the Poles showed in the ranks of Napoleon's army.
Now, if they, in the spirit of English culture, were hanged, flogged and taken out as slaves to colonies, then in the Poles there would still be respect and admiration for RUSSIA.
The example of the assimilation of Poles by the Germans and Austrians only confirms my statement.

[Pessimist22]

I agree with you, some of them should be sent to Siberia for assimilation, the rest are in place.

[Fibrizio]

Just replace the word Poland with Russia, And Russia with Nazi Germany. Changing variables immediately and your point of view will change and you will immediately side with the revolutionaries.
If we discard the hatred of the Poles (which, by the way, is cultivated in Russia), the Poles wanted independence. All.

[paul3390]

Not this way. They wanted independence within the maximum borders of the Commonwealth. With Ukraine, Belarus and the Baltics. The proud Poles would not agree to anything less.

[Fibrizio]

Well, here on the portal there are many who want the restoration of the USSR within the old borders. And nothing, they sit and do not boil at the rallies. So the Poles would sit. But we have always considered these territories as a buffer zone.

[Maverick78]

If Poland were independent (within its borders, of course), that would be great. But since they lost to us, they are ready to lie under anyone, just to return "from walrus to walrus"

[Aleksandr1971]

And you, Fibrizio (Alexander), better look at all processes from the point of view of whether Russia is good or bad. Let the Poles themselves think about Polish interests. The Poles do not care about the interests of Russia. And Russia does not care about the interests of the Poles.

By the way, you can see the annexation of Poland to Russia from the perspective of restoring historical justice. As the saying goes "an eye for an eye". The Poles tried to conquer Russia in the 16th century, and for this they were punished by Russia in the 19th century. So there is nothing for modern Poles to take offense at Russia.

[Aleksandr1971]

In Russia, hatred of Poles is not cultivated. Only experts and a few readers of military and political forums know about the state of Russian-Polish relations in Russia. And for the vast majority of Russians, Poland is either unknown or indifferent.

But in Poland, if you, Fibrizio (Alexander), do not know, there is a real state propaganda of hatred of Russia, fueled at all levels, including the Seimas, the President, political parties of Poland. In Poland there are museums of the Soviet occupation of Poland, claims are made about reparations from the USSR to Russia for the war, claims about the Warsaw Uprising of 1944. And did Putin, or Lavrov, or Shoigu say anything anti-Polish? And what assessments of Russia were given by Kvasnevsky, Kachinsky, Macherevich? Is there a museum of the Polish occupation in Russia?

So you, Fibrizio (Alexander), "deuce" for your comments on Russian-Polish relations.

[Denis812]

At least in the circle of my friends and acquaintances, I don't see any anti-Polish cult in Russia. There is some contempt, such as "unfinished", "sky litter", etc.
Well, the "political scientists" - idiots on television, like Yakub Koreyba, of course, do everything to increase the degree of hostility towards Poland.
Exactly also in Poland itself. At the everyday level, I don't see any dislike for Russians. Although I have been living in Poland for 5 years. There is dislike for the policies of the Russian Federation.
The Ukrainians, yes, the Poles do not really digest. In private conversations, a "pan -> slave" relationship slips. By the way, it is very similar to how the same Americans talk about the Poles themselves :)

There are a lot of museums in Poland about the Soviet occupation. Recently I was in Gdansk, where Solidarity was born. So there it is on every corner.
In principle, you can understand the Poles. We worked, so to speak, to "overthrow the age-old yoke" of tsarism-communism :)
On the other hand, there is November 4 in Russia. The official holiday of the liberation of Moscow from the Poles.
And the monument to Minin-Pozharsky, which stands on Red Square, is the most anti-Polish symbol. Well and stuff.
But this is if you look at Polish museums and monuments through the eyes of citizens of the Russian Federation and at Russian through the eyes of Polish citizens.
Try to look at all this through the eyes of the citizens of the country in which these monuments are located.
And it turns out that here and there - everything about independence, liberation and so on.

[disyptiformer]

There is nothing more terrible, disgusting, insignificant than the Slavs reformatted by Catholics.
The Empire held back Catholicism in the Kingdom of Poland. It was 5 mil. Orthodox Poles. Now it's 500 thousand or so. Russophobia can only be cured by decatholization. https://drevo-info.ru/articles/14808.html

[sailor roman]

The author, for some hidden reasons, hides the facts of the leadership and financing of the Polish "society" by Great Britain, France, Austria and even the Ottoman Empire, the presence of a considerable number of agents of these states, leading the creation of armed formations and planning the actions of the rebellious Poles. During the hostilities, Russian troops detained dozens of such agents.

[Aleksandr1971]

The author of the article, in my opinion, correctly identified the direction of the analysis of the causes of the Polish uprising. But a deep holistic analysis did not work out. There are innuendos and "holes" in the article.

[Finches]

Sasha I recklessly created Polish autonomy and the proud nobility incited by Catholic priests excited ... By this time, a wave of cholera riots swept through the Empire, the revolution in France ... In short, all one to one! But the cornerstone of the stumbling block was the centuries-old enmity between Catholicism and Orthodoxy, multiplied by the independence of the brain of the Poles, and the catalyst for the uprising was the freedoms that Alexander granted them! Nicholas I did not fully understand the whole threat and for some time turned a blind eye to the separatism there, but he had no time to deal with the Poles, he had to deal with his Decembrists!

[Aleksandr1971]

I will assume that due to internal liberal convictions, Emperor Alexander tried to experiment on the Poles with a constitutional semi-parliamentary system for its subsequent introduction into Russia itself. And it turned out that the conquered Poles in Russia began to live better than the Russians themselves. The Poles got rid of the serfdom. The gentry received the rights of the Russian nobility (although not all), more reasonable judicial procedures were introduced in Poland and the Code of Napoleon was borrowed; the Poles did not serve in the Russian army and paid taxes not to Russia, but to their autonomy. This clear improvement in life gave the Poles the hope of snatching even more advantages from Tsarist Russia. As the saying goes: "Give me a finger, bite off your hand."
Of course it was in vain, in my opinion, Tsar Alexander made such concessions to the Poles. For the proper consolidation of the Polish land in Russia, it was necessary to resettle the Poles to Siberia and Central Asia, and settle the Russians in Poland. And then the same thing would happen to the population of Poland as to the ten tribes of Israel.
The conquest will never be reliable and lasting without getting rid of the conquered people. To be convinced of this, it is necessary to take the lessons of the history of other major military powers, from which either nothing is left or there are pathetic scraps.

[parusnik]

Undoubtedly, the existence of an autocratic and constitutional order at the same time is impossible.

.... But in the Grand Duchy of Finland, somehow it existed ... Alexander, gave the Constitution to the Poles, the Finns ... except for his own people ... not grown up to this ...

[3x3zsave]

... But in the Grand Duchy of Finland, somehow it existed ...
Only for the Finns this was not enough.

[Korsar4]

Even if you draw the conditional “red line of desires”, which you cannot cross, the next generation will not be enough.

All according to the "Tale of the Goldfish".

[3x3zsave]

A bit wrong. In the face of temptation by a different paradigm, the second generation will obey the tradition, doubting, but the third will reject the tradition based on the doubts of the elder if the pressure from outside increases.
That, in fact, happened all over the world.

[Korsar4]

This paradigm shift has been observed in almost all areas.
I don't really like this word, but it rather capaciously characterizes aspirations and changes.

[3x3zsave]

I don't really like this word
The term can be replaced with "tradition". I did this to avoid taftology. But this does not change the essence, our children are the essence, another tradition, the catalyst of which we have become.

[Korsar4]

I like the word “way”, but each word has its own shades.

[3x3zsave]

It's right. For me, the word "lifestyle" is thoroughly saturated with the concept of "homebuilding", in its darkest manifestations. But these are just my cockroaches! Endemic! There are few of them left!

[Korsar4]

And what is gloomy about Domostroy? A guide for zealous owners and housewives.

[3x3zsave]

And what is gloomy about Domostroy?
Interpretation of moralizing (in a good way) in generations. By his example, he showed that the historical stereotype is inevitable.

[Korsar4]

Useful skills didn't change as quickly as they do now. An eternal confrontation between stability and dynamics.

[VIP]

To punish the emperor: what a fig toil

[3x3zsave]

Not a bad debut.

[cost]

Greetings Anton
Indeed, the Author registered only a week ago and this article is his firstborn.
We wish him interesting richly illustrated articles. Avoid copying and provide links to material used in the work
With a start,Artem Lavrentiev... Good luck. Good luck

[Trilobite Master]

Quote: 3x3zsave

Not a bad debut.

Only if as a debut.
With this content, the article should be called differently, for example, "Some aspects of the emergence of one of the reasons for the uprising ..."
The topic is interesting, but the author approached it somewhat superficially, limiting himself, in fact, only to a brief historical outline, on the basis of which he made a rather controversial, but for me personally, fundamentally incorrect conclusion that

the existence of both autocratic and constitutional order is impossible

To reduce the reasons for the uprising to the fact that the tsar, they say, first "gave" and then "took away" "out of bounds" - this, in my opinion, is somehow very primitive. After all, after all, there was also the economy, the current political situation, "tactical" nuances ...
In short, I will refrain from positive assessments for now. If the car does not reconsider its approach to research and writing articles, then, I am afraid, in his person we will get another author, whom I refer to the category of "don't write - don't write."

Output.

The author has great prospects for self-improvement and it will be very regrettable if he does not try to take advantage of these prospects.

[ee2100]

The creation of various political and economic structures (autonomies) within one state, as history shows, is always fraught with explosions of popular discontent. This is strictly according to Krylov, how to harness a swan, a crayfish and a pike in one cart.
Now on the territory of the Russian Federation there is such an autonomous entity as the Chechen Republic, and it strongly reminds me of Poland at the beginning of the XNUMXth century.

[VIP]

I agree there is such an analogy. While Vovan is in control of the situation, and then what?

[ee2100]

It's like an abscess on the body of society. It can be treated with iodine, but there is a danger of driving the infection "inside" and getting generalized inflammation of the whole organism or opening it. Now they smear with iodine.
It is necessary to introduce a section of history "historical rake" not only for historians, but also for lawyers and other managers.

[VIP]

"it's like an abscess on the body," and another option is surgery?

[ee2100]

That's all right. There is a prompt solution to the problem and a palliative one, in our case we smear with iodine (honey) "oh, don't need iodine, smear with honey better"

[Pereira]

The Chechen Republic reminds me more of the Crimea of ​​the 15-16 centuries. As long as the notches and fortresses at the edge of the Wild Field are maintained, it is more or less calm. If there is any trouble - wait for the raid.

[ee2100]

I disagree. In Poland and Chechnya "appeasement", not cordons and zaseki. Crimea XV-XVI centuries more like the confrontation between the LPR-DPR and Ukraine.

[Olgovich]

Some kind of unfinished short article, where the reasons for the uprising have not been revealed: if they are considered those listed in the article

"introduced censorship, abolished Masonic lodges, introduced corporal punishment in the army, Alexander got very scared and began to destroy the rights of the Poles. Every year the rights of the Poles were infringed upon, and the governor of the kingdom mocked the population in every possible way.

, then you can see that in the German and Austrian parts of Poland, there was not even a Hint of Polish statehood, the diet, education in Polish, self-government, etc., as was the case with the Poles in Russia. They were forcibly Germanized in Germany and Austria.

And ... no uprisings, although, it would seem, should blaze with might and main. But where there is freedom, there is an uprising ...

[bober1982]

Quote: Olgovich

Some kind of unfinished short article

Too short article.
Whom does the author mean when he speaks of the governor of the kingdom (?), Who mocked the population (?)
If about the Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich, then it was only a miracle that he was not killed in his own palace, representatives of this very local population.

[VIP]

"where there is freedom, there are uprisings" it is always like this: the more you give, the more you want.

[Mavrikiy]

After the death of Alexander I, the situation in Poland became especially aggravated. The patriotic society entered into an alliance with the Decembrists.

To put it mildly, isn't it a lot?

Alexander I Pavlovich (12 (23) December 1777, St. Petersburg - 19 November (1 December) 1825, Taganrog)
Decembrists - members of the Russian anti-government movement, members of various secret societies of the second half of the 1810s - the first half of the 1820s, who organized the uprising (riot) on December 14 (26), 1825

To rivet the union in 2 weeks ...

According to Czartorizski, all this created a "system of fear and obedience" and contributed to the fact that the old antipathy of the Poles towards Russians "turned into hatred."

He's lying. England planted money, so the blood boiled.

[bober1982]

Quote: Mavrikiy

Lying

So, probably all the same it is impossible to say, but the fact that some conclusions the author made contradictory, it is - yes.
On the whole, the author's idea is correct - the incompatibility of autocratic power with the Polish constitutional power.
The situation in Poland aggravated immediately after Poland itself became a state within a state, that is, Alexander I granted the Poles unheard-of freedom.
Nicholas I defused the situation, in the manner characteristic of the Sovereign, he suppressed and determined the place of Poland as one of the provinces of Russia. There was a temporary respite.

[BAI]

The situation in Poland aggravated immediately after Poland itself became a state within a state

In Finland, everything was more or less calm during the entire stay in the RI. Even in spite of the supremacy of Finnish laws over Russian ones.

[bober1982]

The Poles have a very rich history, there is a lot of ambition, in contrast to the Finns.

[VIP]

What about Finland? They also had autonomy and steeper than the Polish

[bober1982]

Quote: V I P

What about Finland?

We have to repeat ourselves, the Finns never had a Polish ambition.

[ee2100]

I agree, another mentality. And the Finns themselves chose the side of Russia

[VIP]

I agree: mentality means a lot

[ee2100]

The Finns didn't have such a curly history as the Poles

[Maverick78]

The Finns never had a state until 17, but the Poles did.

[Operator]

Russia, following the example of Prussia, was not supposed to grant autonomy to its part of Poland, but to begin the total Russification of the Poles who did not agree to send them to the development of Siberia or deport them to America.

Flirting with the local population of Poland (as well as Finland) led to the collapse of the empire in 1917.

[Fibrizio]

And what moral right did we have to do this? Come to their land and teach them how to sip cabbage soup? How do you think, after this, how the Pole is perceived Russia and such proposals from her side?
You want to act like Hitler. Not willing to go to a concentration camp, but to make slaves from the rest of the biomass. Imagine someone coming to us with your ideas.

[ee2100]

There is an opinion, and I agree with him, that Poland is this extra piece that Russia could not digest and, as a result, at the beginning of the XNUMXth century, it choked on it.

[Aleksandr1971]

Russia could digest Poland, but out of the foolishness of the tsars did not do it.

Digestion methods have been known since antiquity. So did Philip II of Macedon, Assyria with the 2 tribes of Israel, the French with Languedoc, the Turks with Anatolia, the British with the population of North America, the Spaniards with the population of Central and South America.

[Kronos]

To do so in the 18th and 19th centuries was already bad form in politics.

[Aleksandr1971]

You are wrong, Kronos. This was done in the 19th century and in the 20th century. This is what China is doing now in Xinjiang and in Tibet. Some blather, but mostly ignore.

[ee2100]

Russia also digested a lot, but Poland could not.

[Aleksandr1971]

Russia did not digest Poland because of the foolishness of the tsars. We had the strength to digest. Example - the North Caucasus - the Circassians, Shamil, the Caucasian War.

[ee2100]

They believed so believed! But the fact is on the face! Suggest other tsars for the XIX-XX centuries in Russia! The process was necessary, as it is now in Belarus. Lukashenka is over. And in Russia it should be understood, and if not, then they are kerdyk.

[ee2100]

"Irreversible" error, Internet corrected

[Aleksandr1971]

Russia had the same moral rights as England in North America, Spain in Central and South America, China in East Turkestan and Tibet, the Arab Caliphate or the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East.

This is the right of the conqueror. And the principle: "Woe to the vanquished."

[Foul skeptic]

Russia had the same moral rights as England in North America, Spain in Central and South America, China in East Turkestan and Tibet, the Arab Caliphate or the Ottoman Empire in the Middle East.

Do you consider it necessary to continue a number of the Third Reich in Eastern Europe?
As I understand it, you shouldn't have any claims to Germany's policy towards the population of the same USSR?

[Aleksandr1971]

I did not speak about the Third Reich. I said that European countries behaved in this way in the 19th century in relation to the conquered peoples. Russia should have behaved in the same way towards the Poles. It was necessary to take an example from the democratic USA, which in the 19th century behaved in a known way towards the Indians.

Why do you think that Russia cannot behave like that? Is Russia in the 19th century worse than civilized England, France, the United States? This is some kind of racism on your part in relation to Russia.

[Foul skeptic]

This is some kind of racism on your part in relation to Russia.

For this to become discrimination against Russia on my part in this matter, you must show where I said in a conversation that I consider such things to be normal on the part of England, France, the United States (etc.) and abnormal only on the part of Russia. Can you?

I did not speak about the Third Reich.

And why? It will fit exactly as much into your worldview with the rights of conquerors as all your other examples.

[Aleksandr1971]

In the 19th century, it was normal to assimilate a conquered people by force. Don't judge by the past by current criteria. Otherwise, the entire past must be reset. This is how the angry protesters act now in the United States in relation to historical monuments and works of art and literature.


The Americans practically nullified the Indians in the 19th century, and Russia unfortunately lost this chance in relation to the Poles.

And the Third Reich brought down the pseudoscience of biological superiority under genocide. Before the Third Reich, conquerors justified their policy simply by the right of the conqueror. I also justify the policy of strong states by the law of the strong. I would not like our country to be weak. I want Russia to be strong, and for other countries to tremble before Russia, so they tremble before the United States.

[Foul skeptic]

In the 19th century, it was normal to assimilate a conquered people by force.

This was done in the 19th century and in the 20th century.

In your own words, this is normal in the 20th century. Therefore, let us return to clarifying your attitude to the policy of the Third Reich for the peoples of Eastern Europe. And, by the way, it makes absolutely no difference for the vanquished whether any pseudoscience is subsumed under the worldview “you are to blame for what I want to eat” or not.

The Americans practically nullified the Indians in the 19th century, and Russia unfortunately lost this chance in relation to the Poles.

I will abstract from the ethics of the proposal and concentrate on the practical implementation. How are you going to forcibly evict the developed non-nomadic people in the center of Europe so that the people themselves would accept it without complaint? The Poles, even with less pressure, constantly broke into uprisings. Otherwise, we would have gotten a permanent partisan war.

[Aleksandr1971]

Let's go back to the 19th century.

You can cite the method that the British arranged in Tasmania at the end of the 19th century, namely, they lined up in a chain with rifles in their hands and went through the whole island, shooting every aborigine they saw. You are making claims for this against the British, not against me.

In relation to the Poles, it was possible to carry out not a massacre, but a resettlement. For example, in the 19th century, Russia cleared the Western Caucasus of the Circassians. Almost all Circassians, except for a part of the Circassians, ended up in the Ottoman Empire. Now the Western Caucasus is the prosperous Krasnodar and Stavropol Territories. We are resting in Sochi.

And in the east of the Caucasus there were Vainakhs and Dagestanis. Do we rest in Chechnya and Makhachkala? Now these are regions that are corrupt and constantly bearing the risk of civil war, on which crazy money is spent. Consequently, in relation to the Vainakhs and Dagestanis, the tsarist government made a mistake, not driving them out to the same Turks.

If the Poles had been evicted (and among the plans for eviction were Madagascar and New Guinea), then the Poles in Poland would no longer be able to revolt. After all, the Circassians in the Krasnodar Territory do not rebel against Russia because there are almost no Circassians left there.

[Foul skeptic]

You are making claims for this against the British, not against me.

And what does this have to do with it? Some kind of spreading of thought along the tree.

Almost all Circassians, except for a part of the Circassians, ended up in the Ottoman Empire. Now the Western Caucasus is the prosperous Krasnodar and Stavropol Territories. We are resting in Sochi.
And in the east of the Caucasus there were Vainakhs and Dagestanis. Do we rest in Chechnya and Makhachkala?

A very peculiar understanding of things, as for me. That is, the reason for the "resort nature" of the place in the presence or absence of the native population, and not in the climatic and geographical differences in regions? According to this logic, the Circassians were in vain to get rid of the Ottoman Empire - they got there with grief in half - and now everyone is resting in Turkey
Okay, I understand that I will not get an answer to the question I asked you, so the conversation is not very promising. Thank you for your time.

[Aleksandr1971]

You will receive the answer.
The Russians had to abolish the Poles in the 19th century so that they would not spoil the lives of today's Russians, so that the land of the Poles was cultivated by the Russians, so that there would be no American soldier on Polish soil. This is for my descendant to live well, and so that the descendants of the enemy are not born at all and do not spoil the air for my descendants. They, the enemies, think so about us, about the Russians, and they want us to disappear from the world. I wish to disappear for them, not for us.

[Aleksandr1971]

We have already annulled the Pechenegs and Polovtsians, about whom Putin expressed himself artistically, the Berendey and Circassians, the Big Horde, and much more.
Do you think it was wrong? Or do you say what was it was? I probably won't get an answer from you.
And I will give the answer for you. If we had not destroyed this heap of hostile peoples and states, then now we would not live here, but the descendants of those whom we once killed long ago would live. Better to live for us than adversaries.

[Aleksandr1971]

By the way, about your question about the British in Tasmania. This is not spreading on a tree, but an example of how the winners should deal with the losers. I think that in the 19th century it would have been right for Russian troops to comb Poland and shoot all the Poles they came across.

[Fibrizio]

I understand what the position is.
1. If there is someone weaker, we will twist it into a ram's horn. This is normal practice in the 1800s and everyone did it before. The main thing is that the starshaki do not come and pile on you for such a mess. And so everything is possible. This is also the norm for the 21st century.
2. Genocide is good. But in one case. If he is not in relation to you, but in your interests. If not, that's bad.
3. Whom the strong man decides to breathe or be a slave.

So it's not in vain that the Poles are worried. NATO is called. Otherwise it would have been their way to the crematorium.

[Foul skeptic]

point three of your list - it cannot be otherwise.
It's good when the strong is smart and kind.
Otherwise it's worse.

[Aleksandr1971]

You, Fibrizio (Alexander), are wrong again.
The article was about the 19th century, not the 21st century.
Now Poland is not part of Russia. Russia does not threaten it even if Poland were a sovereign country and not part of NATO.

And the fact that Russia used to zero the surrounding countries and peoples - this led to the fact that Russia occupies 17 million square kilometers, and not the territory of the Moscow region (approximately the time of Ivan Kalita). Are you not against the fact that Russia is still the largest country in the world?
All strong nations nullified weak nations. Otherwise, many strong and cultured states of the world will not exist now.

[Aviator_]

And what about the Poles, who got Prussia and Austria-Hungary during the partition? I have a suspicion that they sat quietly, like a mouse behind a broom. And only in Russia did they get excited, with French and English money.

[Foul skeptic]

And what about the Poles, who got Prussia and Austria-Hungary during the partition? I have a suspicion that they sat quietly, like a mouse behind a broom.

Sergey, hello! The Poles, who during the partition went to Prussia and Austria-Hungary, did not sit like a mouse at a broom. This is if we talk about attempts to restore the statehood of Poland. There were uprisings in Krakow and Poznan. Which was preceded by a rather lengthy preparation. And the money there figured quite to itself Polish from quite to itself the Polish nobility, which turned out to be out of work. Another question is that there were no spontaneous uprisings (for example, peasant ones) as such, in contrast to the territories that Russia inherited. But this is not surprising. First, there is a religious issue. We have successfully abolished the union "from above" (it was very tasty to get one and a half million new milch parishioners) and created a new knot of internal tension. That in Prussia, that in AV there was no state religion, therefore the Lutheran-Prussians in the 19th century calmly got along with the Catholics-Prussians, and therefore with the Catholics-Poles. In Austria-Hungary, there is generally a patchwork quilt. Secondly, the average level of Prussia in the economic, educational and health terms was higher than the Polish one, and the Polish one was higher than the Russian one. This led to a phenomenon that even received a proper name in historiography - ostflucht - the movement of Poles from the "Prussian Polish" territories to the west, directly to Prussia, and in their place Poles from the "Russian Polish" territories. Moreover, the latter rushed in such numbers that Bismarck had to forcefully expel them back.

[Aviator_]

Thank you, Timur, I did not know this small structure of interfaith and other relations.

[Operator]

Why slaves - on the contrary, standard subjects of the Russian Empire. And we came in 1813 to the land of the Duchy of Warsaw as the victors of the French Empire, which included the Duchy. It is estimated that the Polish subjects of France accounted for up to 1/4 of Napoleon's army.

[Maverick78]

On good terms, of course they did not. But the Poles behaved as with the Russian population of their "vaping crests"? So I will express my opinion. We didn’t do anything to them that they hadn’t done to us before ... so let them be offended.

[BAI]

Kingdom of Poland on the map

Territorial formation No. VIII was slaughtered in Poland, obviously in vain.

[VIP]

Quote: 3x3zsave

... But in the Grand Duchy of Finland, somehow it existed ...
Only for the Finns this was not enough.

Appetite comes with eating

[VIP]

"The Patriotic Society has entered into an alliance with the Decembrists" in fact with the Southern Society, or rather with Pestel. He promised them: a part of Ukraine, Belarus, and asked the Russian provinces to give

[1536]

Quote: apro

Undoubtedly, the existence of both autocratic and constitutional systems is impossible

What was the aim of the empire in Poland? This issue has not been disclosed. It was not about integration. It was not carried out, but only the conservation of the situation.

A very simple goal. The goal was to save the Polish people from being scattered over the vastness of Europe and disappearing into oblivion. The Poles retained their statehood not in the name of the so-called coalition of European states, but in spite of it, and at the behest of the Russian monarch. All the time, the Poles in Russia were treated with reverent and respect. Despite not all their negative attitude towards the Russian people in general.

[bukhach]

Quote: Fibrizio

If we discard the hatred of the Poles (which by the way is cultivated in Russia), then the Poles

Hatred of the Poles is cultivated, and very successfully, by the Poles themselves, so do not shift it from the sick to the healthy.