Military Review

The Tsar's gift to Poland - at the expense of Russia: the lessons of pacification

22
The Tsar's gift to Poland - at the expense of Russia: the lessons of pacification



Two hundred years ago, Alexander I granted the Poles the Constitution

Historians know very well: when at the end of the 18th century Prussia, Austria and Russia divided Poland into three receptions, the actual Polish lands went to Prussia and Austria, and Russia only the lands of the former Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Russia, which were formerly subordinated to Poland in the course of multi-hundred expansion.

Russia annexed the land, where the Polish was only the gentry, and the absolute majority of the people who were in her slave dependency, was the basis on which the ethnic groups of Lithuanians, Belarusians and Ukrainians soon formed.

But until very recently in historical mythology of Poland, these lands now independent of Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine from Russia demanded "return", and their own development - "cancel"

The tsarist government in Russia — regardless of the stigma now-liberal on Alexander the First or protective on Nicholas the First — for a long time went towards the imperialist sentiments of the Polish gentry, allowing it, even as part of Russia, to preserve its almost all western part of Russia The “inner empire” is a confessional, linguistic, educational, economic, legal, political monopoly - and a powerful lobby in St. Petersburg.

Russia made concessions. Poland demanded more - not only independence, but also the restoration of the Polish Empire of the Commonwealth at the expense of Russia, at the expense of those whom it continued to consider inside Russia as its slaves.

Learn, ignorant parquet "pacifier"! Do not give your people into slavery. Do not trade that is not created by you and conquered!

November 27 marks two hundred years since Alexander I signed the Constitution of the Kingdom of Poland - the very first constitutional act of Russia and, perhaps, the most progressive constitutional charter in Europe at that time. At the same time, a modern political aphorism fits the Polish constitution of 1815 - “We wanted the best, but it turned out as always.”

So, Poland, having sworn allegiance to Napoleon, after his defeat, naturally turned out to be a hostage of a big geopolitical game. The Grand Duchy of Warsaw, which was rotten by the French protectorate at that time, was claimed by all members of the anti-Napoleonic coalition: Prussia in the north, Austria in the south, and Russia.

I deliberately do not focus on the "Polish share" for Russia, because, unlike the allies, who simply dissolved the Polish outskirts, Moscow made more subtle and at the same time ambitious plans.

“I hope to bring about the rebirth of your brave and respectable people,” Alexander I wrote in those years to the elderly Tadeusz Kosciuszko, who had not so long ago fought with Russia for Polish independence. - I took on this sacred duty. A little more, and the Poles, through prudent policies, will regain their homeland and name. ”

The fact remains that the Russian tsar decided on an experiment to create a prototype of a federal state. He created the autonomous Kingdom of Poland, "united with the Russian Empire."

Reading today the constitution 200-year-old, you catch yourself thinking how far the charter was advanced for the Poles. Napoleon, who promised the pans the restoration of statehood in the event of a victory over Russia, as they say, did not stand nearby.

So, the constitution of Alexander I:

♦ maintained the armed forces of Poland, whose numbers were not limited, but depended on the state budget revenues;

♦ established the Sejm with people's representation “for all time”;

♦ recognized Catholicism as the national religion of the Kingdom of Poland;

♦ consolidated Polish as a state language;

♦ granted the exclusive right to the Poles to hold state and other positions;

♦ ensured in Poland freedom of the press, personality, property.

As for the elections to the Sejm, here the constitution of the Kingdom of Poland was too revolutionary. The document declared an electoral system based on broad direct elections due to the moderate electoral qualifications.

Already in 1820, up to 100 thousands of voters participated in the elections to the “ambassadorial hut” with a population of 3,5 million. For comparison: in the then France with 26 million people no more than 80 thousand voters participated in the elections. And in even more “advanced” England, 75% of the members of the House of Commons were simply appointed by the big capitalists.

After such a royal gift, the Poles everywhere rejoiced. Even yesterday's troublemaker Kostyushko wrote to Alexander I that “I will preserve the feeling of just gratitude to the sovereign for his death for resurrecting the name of Poland” (two years later “Polish Lafayette” died, remaining true to the Russian Tsar).

Why did the 15 years later with Poland’s constitution and “liberal values” end? In this regard, in Polish journalism there are a lot of opinions about the tyranny and tyranny of Grand Duke Constantine, who became the viceroy of the Polish tsar (read Alexander I), and the personal imperial commissioner in Warsaw, Nikolai Novosiltsev, to whom modern Poles cannot forgive the arrest of the revolutionary poet Adam Mitskevich. Mickiewicz in his "Jyadah" called Novosiltsev "and the accuser, and the judge, and the executioner").

But let's be frank, the rigidity of the “constitutional monarch” was more likely a consequence than a cause. Apparently, the decisive role in the "closing experiment" was played by the national peculiarity of the Polish people - its historical rebelliousness.

As the 19th century French historian Ernest Laviss wrote, “they [the Poles] did not give up the idea of ​​getting back parts of their territory ceded to Austria and Prussia, nor the requirement that Alexander I should give them - with the risk of restoring Russian public opinion - Lithuania and Ukrainian provinces that were not Polish, neither by origin, nor by language, nor by religion. ” Nicholas I, who succeeded Alexander I (the first emperor died suddenly in 1825 at the age of 47 years from typhus), who called his brother just as "benefactor of Poland", expressed the Poles in the following way: "The generosity was answered by treason."

As a result, after the suppression of the Polish uprising in 1830 − 31. Nicholas I deprived Poland of not only the constitution, but also the army, the parliament and even the administrative-territorial division (the provinces became provinces). From Suwalki to Kielce was stationed the army of Ivan Paskevich, pacified the Polish insurgency.

Then Pushkin wrote:

Is Russia strong? War and pestilence
And riot, and external storms pressure
She, raging, shook -
Look w: everything is worth it!
And around her unrest fell -
And the fate of Poland is solved ...

After the suppression of the uprising, a bronze casket with the text of the constitution was delivered from Warsaw to Moscow. Emperor Nicholas ordered to put paper at the foot of the portrait of Alexander I in the trophy hall Armory wards, waving goodbye: "The deceased Constitution."

After the October Revolution and the declaration of independence by Poland, the original document was in the hands of the Polish prince and then senator Janusz Radziwill. In 1939, the NKGB, after arresting Radziwill, seized in his estate the constitution of the Kingdom of Poland. So she returned to Moscow.

One more story is connected with the “deceased”, already with the Russian trail. After the adoption of the Polish charter, Tsar Alexander ordered the same Novosiltsev to prepare a draft of the “Russian constitution” (in historiography it is referred to as the State Charter of the Russian Empire).

The charter of the work of Novosiltsev (here you are the suppressor of freedoms) was painfully similar to the Polish constitution with freedom of the press, person, property, etc.

Later, after the suppression of the rebellion in 1830-31, several thousand copies of the “Russian Constitution” were found in Warsaw, which the Polish rebels propagated as propaganda material for Russian officers. Say, read what could have been waiting for you, Alexander I, our benefactor, would be alive. This is purely Polish.

Nicholas I ordered to burn all the "letters", justifying it by the fact that "they will leave ten in our memory for a hundred of our young officers, discuss - and most importantly - will not be forgotten."

... Today, the original constitution of the Kingdom of Poland is kept in the Central State Historical Archive. As already mentioned above, for this 55-page manuscript in French (international at that time) a bronze casket with a Polish “flying” eagle on the cover was specially made.

For experts on emblems, this box is not without interest a five-pointed red star, which is framed by a keyhole. Perhaps this is the first use of the mark in the Russian Empire, a century later becoming the main symbol of Soviet Russia.

And finally, a curious fact. Since the Polish – Lithuanian Commonwealth switched to the Gregorian calendar as early as the 16th century, the text of the Constitution of the Kingdom of Poland used a double - “Julian-Gregorian” - writing the date: 15 / 27 in November 1815 of the year.

Such a form will enter into mandatory use later all the same century - after Lenin issued a decree on the introduction in Russia of "the same time with almost all cultural nations".
Author:
Originator:
http://www.km.ru/science-tech/2015/11/27/istoriya-rossiiskoi-imperii/767393-tsarskii-podarok-polshe-za-schet-rossii-u
22 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. Rigla
    Rigla 6 December 2015 08: 54
    +6
    Yeah ... So the psheks also snatched, and now they strive to bite ... Although there are no traitors who are worse than Ukrainians.
  2. Oprychnik
    Oprychnik 6 December 2015 10: 10
    +9
    It was some kind of strange "prison of peoples" ... Constitutions for enslaved peoples were written, no, to whip them and put them in a corner.
  3. parusnik
    parusnik 6 December 2015 10: 40
    +3
    Hmm .. when the Poles owned the "eastern kresy" .. they did not write constitutions for the population ..
  4. whiteeagle
    whiteeagle 6 December 2015 10: 47
    +1
    This constitution was not a royal gift. This was the result of the Vienna Congress. The constitution is less progressive than the constitution of Napoleon in 1807 and the Constitution of May 3, 1791. In addition, the main author of the Constitution of 1815 is the Pole-Prince Adam Jerzy Czartoryski. Interestingly, Prussia did not abolish the constitution of Napoleon 1807.
  5. VNP1958PVN
    VNP1958PVN 6 December 2015 10: 50
    +4
    I am more and more convinced that until the tanks pass through these whimpering, fifty years of "love" and ordeal will not happen! They are just being behind in a pose of cancer respect !!!
  6. moskowit
    moskowit 6 December 2015 10: 51
    +5
    Well duck, so that in the eyes of "enlightened Europe" to look like a sort of democrat king. I wonder how the Austrian emperor and the Prussian king did with their Polish "share".
    True, we must pay tribute to Alexander. He forbade the Russian Empire to reward land and peasants, as very often his grandmother did, distributing left and right state peasants.
    1. Sergej1972
      Sergej1972 6 December 2015 17: 59
      0
      In the Austrian part of Poland, the Poles (more precisely, the Polish gentry) had a fairly broad autonomy, they took an active part in the general Austrian political life. In Prussia, a policy of assimilation of the Poles was conducted, but rather unsuccessfully.
  7. Dart2027
    Dart2027 6 December 2015 12: 24
    0
    Alexander I wanted to have a "part of Europe" so he cared for them. That is why they were taken at all, when it was possible to demand the ancient Russian territories, which were then annexed by Stalin? And what a farce he made with his will - Nicholas I, did not even know that he had become a tsar.
    1. captain
      captain 6 December 2015 13: 03
      +3
      The author, the personal opinion of a simple layman, did not draw the main conclusion from his article; the rulers of Russia wanted to please Europe and the Poles. Not to their people, but to Gentiles and alien peoples. Why this was done and why then it was necessary because of this, to shed the blood of the soldiers of the Russian army again, is not clear. The actions of the Bolsheviks are also incomprehensible when they surrendered entire provinces and counties populated by the Russian indigenous peoples of Russia to nationalists of all stripes; Ukrainians, Georgians, Dagestan, the Chechen-Ingush Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, and Estonia. We created benefits for the national suburbs at the expense of the indigenous peoples of Russia, and now we are offended why they don’t love us anywhere. And where do fools love? In which country of the world? We again step on the same rake.
      1. Dart2027
        Dart2027 6 December 2015 15: 46
        +2
        Quote: captain
        the rulers of Russia wanted to please Europe and the Poles. Not to his people, but to Gentiles and alien peoples
        So I’m talking about this - Alexander I wanted to have a "part of Europe" and so he cared for them
        Quote: captain
        The actions of the Bolsheviks are also incomprehensible when they surrendered entire provinces and counties populated by Russian indigenous peoples of Russia to nationalists of all stripes
        There are two kinds of stupidity.
        The first is the classic Mitrofanushka. These are usually harmless precisely because of the lack of their abilities.
        The second is utopian idealists. People are smart, but obsessed with ideas that are impossible to implement. The logic of the Bolsheviks was simple - the proletarians of all countries are brothers, there will be a world revolution, we will build communism. Well, if so, then what's the difference what borders will be now? No, we’ll live right in paradise. But the opportunity to kick the damned tsarism once again and attract new allies is useful and important.
        So the actions of the Bolsheviks are just understandable. True, the problems they created didn’t decrease.
      2. Rastas
        Rastas 6 December 2015 16: 51
        0
        What territories did the Bolsheviks give to the nationalists? It is nationalists from other states. List.
        1. Dart2027
          Dart2027 6 December 2015 17: 52
          +1
          Map of Ukraine

          Moreover, they themselves created it as a state.
          1. Rastas
            Rastas 6 December 2015 22: 03
            0
            You don’t have to deal with nonsense and transfer it from a sick mind to a healthy one, all the more so since in the days of the USSR they did not attach any importance to who belongs to which republic. Ukrainian nationalists will tell you that the Krasnodar Territory, Voronezh and Belgorod Regions are originally Ukrainian, and the damned Bolsheviks gave them to Russia. Belarusian nationalists will tell that Smolensk and Bryansk regions should be Belarus. Armenian nationalists believe that Baku is an ancient Armenian city, and Azerbaijani nationalists believe that their country should stretch from the Caspian to the Black Sea. Georgian nationalists are demanding that they give the Sochi region - originally, as they think, Georgian land. So download blame the Bolsheviks.
            1. Captain nemo
              Captain nemo 7 December 2015 07: 02
              0
              Quote: Rastas
              Ukrainian nationalists will tell you that the Krasnodar Territory, Voronezh and Belgorod regions are originally Ukrainian, and the damned Bolsheviks gave them to Russia.

              Not when they will not tell you this, I specifically asked them "when the Kuban was part of Ukraine until 1917", and what do you think - Map of the German General Staff from 1918 in German, and not earlier. Although the UPR itself did not seem to be in the Kuban.
            2. Dart2027
              Dart2027 7 December 2015 20: 26
              0
              Quote: Rastas
              You don’t have to deal with nonsense and transfer it from a sick mind to a healthy one, all the more so since in the days of the USSR they did not attach any importance to who the republic belongs to.

              So I already wrote about this:
              Quote: Dart2027
              The logic of the Bolsheviks was simple - the proletarians of all countries are brothers, there will be a world revolution, we will build communism. Well, if so, then what's the difference what borders will be now? No, we’ll live right in paradise. But the opportunity to kick the damned tsarism once again and attract new allies is useful and important.
        2. V.ic
          V.ic 6 December 2015 17: 54
          +1
          Quote: Rastas
          What territories did the Bolsheviks give to the nationalists? It is nationalists from other states. List.

          Poor thing, you probably don’t suspect the existence of a search bar in your browser? It becomes just drive in the question and look through the answers, for example:
          "Recognition by the Bolsheviks of the independence of the former regions of the Russian Empire":
          03.12.1917/XNUMX/XNUMX Ukraine;
          18.12.1917/XNUMX/XNUMX Finland;
          29.12.1918/XNUMX/XNUMX Poland;
          02.02.1920/XNUMX/XNUMX Estonia;
          07.05.1920/XNUMX/XNUMX Georgia;
          12.07.1920/XNUMX/XNUMX Lithuania;
          10.08.1920/XNUMX/XNUMX Armenia;
          11.08.1920/XNUMX/XNUMX Latvia;
          Source: http://iuprc.livejournal.com/26993.html
          1. Rastas
            Rastas 6 December 2015 21: 58
            0
            Georgia and Armenia, after the elimination of nationalist governments, became part of the Transcaucasian SSR. Finland and Poland recognized independence by necessity, as they did not want to be part of Russia, much less forcefully. And why they were needed there at all is unclear. Well become independent and what of this? The Baltic countries became independent after the liquidation of Soviet power there in the 18th year with the help of German bayonets and, by the way, with the active cooperation of the White Guard generals.
            1. V.ic
              V.ic 7 December 2015 08: 14
              0
              Quote: Rastas
              The Baltic countries became independent after the liquidation of Soviet power there in the 18th year

              And in my answer to you, is something not correctly indicated?
              Quote: V.ic
              02.02.1920/12.07.1920/11.08.1920 Estonia; XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX Lithuania; XNUMX/XNUMX/XNUMX Latvia;

              Quote: Rastas
              with the help of German bayonets and, by the way, with the active cooperation of the White Guard generals.

              P. R. Bermondt-Avalov and German volunteers mean? / as German bayonets7 /
              Well, oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo! Well-oo-oo-oo-nn esto-oo-o-nn-ts helped Nikolai Nikolaevich Yudenich ... Saved from the Red Army bayonets of unfinished white in urgently rebuilt concentration camps.
  8. Litsvin
    Litsvin 6 December 2015 16: 08
    +4
    The royal gift - the constitution !!! ??? Ha ha ha And how many MATERIAL gifts did the Cream make flatter ????
    1) On what basis did Stalin give this historic land of the Litvin-Belarusians — the Belastotsky Krai — to this swaggering flatter? These lands belonged to the Krivic Slavs and were part of the principality of Novogrudok, which was the center of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
    2) And on what basis did they decide that the lion's share of East Prussia should belong to the flatters - the USSR took only 1/3 in the form of the Kaliningrad region, and the rest of Prussia from the Kaliningrad region through Danzig and to Schetten, what the hell did the pshek have? These are the lands of the Baltic tribe of the Prussians, partly of the Yatvingians. The crusaders destroyed or assimilated the Prussian tribe and "sat down" on their land, BUT NOT on the land of the Lyakhs. Lyakhi had nothing to do with East Prussia.
    3) And on what basis did the historically German city of Breslau receive a significant part of Silesia after the war?
    If we look at this from the point of view of historical justice, then these lands and Silesia and 2/3 of East Prussia should have been included in the GDR after the Second World War, but they should not be flattered.
    4) And on what basis did the land in the southeast receive the lands that once belonged to the Principality of Galicia-Volyn, which, after the threat of the Mongols, Daniil-Galitsky voluntarily transferred to the ON?
    So much for you. It made no contribution to the defeat of the Nazis - just "complete zero". What they were capable of as warriors, the Poles showed in September 1939, when the Germans went through the "great flattening - neh bandze Polish from Mozha to Mozha" like a knife through butter. The speed of the Wehrmacht's advance was equal to the speed of movement of "tank columns on the march," taking into account the time for smoke breaks, sleep, washing and refueling tanks. "
    As one German (!) Military historian said after the war: "... the overall contribution of Poland to the defeat of Nazi Germany can be compared with the damage caused by the mice that lived in German barns ...".
    BUT WITH THIS, THE FLAT RECEIVED BY THE BLOOD OF THE RUSSIAN SOLDIER:
    1) Statehood and independence
    2) Saved the gene pool (about 3,5 thousand “rolled up” (not actually killed, but dissidents who served in Polish prisons) councils in the Polish People’s Republic after the war, can it be compared with the number of Poles killed by the Nazis during the occupation. In general, according to the plans of the Germans after the victory over the USSR, the Poles should have completely disappeared from the face of the earth in the physical sense)
    3) Received a little less than half of its modern territory - a territory that has never belonged historically flatter.
    This is the arithmetic. I do not know what Stalin thought in Potsdam when he negotiated with the Anglo-Americans "on the Polish question," but he did the greatest stupidity by agreeing to arrange a post-war flattening along the Curzon line for 1921. THIS WAS A BIG MISTAKE in the 20th century on the Polish question. Didn't this Great Leader think that the Poles would become friends for the Russians !? WILL NEVER BECOME !!! WE ARE BELARUSIANS, DESCENDANTS OF LITVINS, WE KNOW POLES AS SEALED. They are even now asleep and see how to take away from us the "spring crops" to Stolbtsy near Minsk.
    1. Captain nemo
      Captain nemo 7 December 2015 07: 36
      0
      Quote: Litsvin
      On what basis did Stalin give our historical lands of the Litvin-Belarusians — the Belastotsky Krai — to this swaggering flatter?

      It is sad, but on the basis of the betrayal of "Generalisimo" Stalin, not only in 1946 when its borders were formally formalized in writing, but in 1943 in Tehran.
      And the betrayal was that in all the literature and the Internet to this day it is asserted that the Riga Peace Treaty disappeared on September 17, 1939. But this turns out to be not true, because the "territorial integrity" according to the Riga Peace but with the changed borders resurfaced in Tehran in 1943, where the "Polish question" was resolved in its main part. Yalta and Poddam are details, minus the "Territorial integrity" of the Vilna region because Lithuania did not conclude a peace treaty with Poland. Although in September 1939, she loudly declared her indifference to the lands that she seemed to consider her own, unexpectedly declaring her neutrality when Hitler, before September 17, offered her to take her lands in the Vilnius region from Poland.
      And now we are fools, and Lithuania is on a "white horse", everything is so "clean" and "not vicious", because she did not kill a single Pole in 1939, and we are a little yes.
  9. Litsvin
    Litsvin 6 December 2015 16: 09
    +5
    CONTINUED: And now imagine that after 1945 the Polish town remained in its historical size "Warsaw and Krakow" - with a territory about 40-50% less than now and even without access to the Baltic Sea !!! The Kaliningrad region would occupy all of East Prussia - from Konigsberg to Schetten. After the reunification of the GDR and the FRG in 1989, Russia, with its Kaliningrad region, would have bordered the modern FRG about 60 km west of Schetten (the German name of the city, of course, would now be called in Russian - for example, "Suvorovsk"). Silesia would be completely part of the GDR and would also be part of the FRG.
    Since 1945, the Belastotsk region would have been part of the BSSR (there even now half of the population is ethnic Belarusians), and after 1991 it would be part of the Republic of Belarus. And, you Russians would travel to YOUR Kaliningrad region through a friendly state. And there immediately across the border - and Germany. Conversely, transit pipelines and railway routes would go through the Kaliningrad Region immediately to Germany, bypassing the flattery. And the Poles would even ask you for access to the Baltic Sea.
    You see what consequences the Kremlin’s policy towards flatter has led to! This tsarist constitution simply fades in comparison with other “royal gifts” made flatter in the 20th century.
    Hence the conclusion - you need to learn from your mistakes in the "Polish question" and not repeat them in the future. The main principle for further relations in the corrupt Poles should be the principle laid down by Catherine 2 (the Great) - to the phrase of her favorite: “Poland will never be a friend of Russia,” Catherine replied: “IT WILL NOT BE POLAND !!!”.
    1. Captain nemo
      Captain nemo 7 December 2015 07: 45
      0
      Quote: Litsvin
      and even without access to the Baltic Sea !!!

      I will not argue, but if you roll back time, then during the first partition of Poland, Poland still had access to the sea, and Germany was still not connected by land with East Prussia.
      No matter how bitter it was, but for the sake of justice, we still have to agree that Gdansk is still a Polish city.
      East Prussia, of course, not what kind of Poland. Maybe she was there once, but so few Swedes there probably held out longer than they did. Without reservation, those territories were lost by it in a fair and open struggle, and by no means were they conquered again.
      1. Litsvin
        Litsvin 7 December 2015 14: 23
        0
        Danzig (!!!) was NEVER a Polish city "by reason". Danzig was founded by the Germans as one of the key outposts during the expansion to the lands of the Balts - primarily the PRUSSIANS AND YATVYAGOV. Lyakhi had nothing to do with this city. The Poles received part of the Order lands AFTER our victory with the Poles at Grunwald in 1410.
        Thus, the Germans took the southern coast of the Baltic Sea not from the Poles (Poles), but from the largest unions of the Baltic tribes: Prussians and Yatvingians. From the first, at least the name remains (Prussia, the city of Pruzhany, Brest region - where some of the Prussians moved under Algerd and Vytautas). From the second - yatvyag, only little-known toponyms and hydronyms remained.
        1. Captain nemo
          Captain nemo 7 December 2015 19: 35
          0
          Quote: Litsvin
          Danzig (!!!) was NEVER a Polish city "by reason".

          I apologize, I confused it with Gdynia, Danzig (Gdansk) really stands aside, and after the 1st World War, Poland has not yet departed with the special status of a "Free City" or something of this 70% with the German population.
    2. The comment was deleted.
  10. Rastas
    Rastas 6 December 2015 16: 49
    0
    Vasily Klyuchevsky: “But with Russian participation the Slavic cemetery moved apart with a new vast grave, on which so many of our fellow tribesmen, Western Slavs, were buried. It was necessary to enter Poland into its ethnographic borders, to make it real Polish Poland, without making it German Poland. The reason for popular life demanded that Western Russia be saved from militancy, and only cabinet policies could give Poland to Germany. Without Russian regions, within its national borders, even with a corrected state system, an independent Poland would be incomparably less dangerous for us than Poland itself in the form of Austrian and Prussian provinces. Finally, the destruction of the Polish state did not save us from the struggle with the Polish people: 70 years have not passed since the third partition of Poland, and Russia has already fought with the Poles three times (1812, 1831 and 1863). The specter of the Commonwealth, rising from its historical grave, gave the impression of a living popular force. Perhaps, in order to avoid enmity with the people, it was necessary to preserve its state. ”
    1. Dart2027
      Dart2027 6 December 2015 19: 31
      +1
      Quote: Rastas
      Perhaps in order to avoid enmity with the people, it was necessary to preserve its state.

      Or make this state turn into another Luxembourg.
      1. Litsvin
        Litsvin 7 December 2015 14: 26
        0
        No, it’s better to do so - to the phrase of your favorite: “Poland will never be a friend of Russia,” Catherine replied: “IT WILL NOT BE POLAND !!!”.