Military Review

Home, old dispute between the Slavs

122



Exactly 185 years ago, February 25 1831 (in a new style), the largest battle in the world took place since the end of the Napoleonic Wars. The Russian army of 72 with thousands of people under the command of field marshal Karl Firidrikh Anton von Dibich (aka Ivan Ivanovich Dibich-Zabalkansky) tried to get through to Warsaw. Near the village of Grokhov, the Polish army of General Yozef Khlopitsky, 56 numbering thousands of soldiers and officers, of whom 40 thousand participated directly in the battle, the rest were in reserve, blocked her path. The Russians had 228 guns, the Poles had 120, as well as two dozen rocket launchers that played a prominent role in this battle.

The Russians stubbornly attacked, the Poles fiercely defended, continually striking counterattacks. The alder grove in the center of the Polish positions passed from hand to hand three times. Only after the fourth attack of the 3 Grenadier Division, which the field marshal himself had led into the battle, the Poles were finally knocked out of the grove, and then from the lunettes behind her. General Khlopitsky participated in this fight, who was wounded in the leg.

After breaking through the enemy defenses in the central sector, Dibich decided to consolidate his success and threw cavalry into the breakthrough. At the point of attack, the cuirassier regiment of Prince Albert of Prussia galloped. However, the attack choked. The rugged terrain behind the grove, dug up by ravines and riverbeds, was not well suited for cavalry actions, in addition the Poles covered the attackers with artillery and rocket volleys. After suffering heavy losses, the cavalry retreated.

However, the Poles could not hold the cut in half the position and in the evening Khlopitsky gave the order to depart to Warsaw, which was only a few kilometers away. The city was covered by powerful fortifications on the outskirts of Prague, standing on the east bank of the Vistula. Dibich, after listening to the reports on losses and ammunition remnants, decided that there was no longer any forces left for the capture of Prague. And although General Karl Wilhelm von Toll called for an immediate assault, believing that the enemy was broken, demoralized and would not offer serious resistance, the field marshal showed caution and ordered a retreat to the supply bases.

Thus, in tactical terms, the battle can be considered a relative victory for the Russian troops, but at the strategy level this was a failure. Because of the stubborn resistance of the Poles, it was not possible to seize Warsaw and even its left-bank suburb. At the end of March, the Poles launched a counteroffensive and defeated the Russian army of General Geismar in the battle of Wavr. However, this is different история.

In the battle of Grokhov, the army of Dibich lost 9400 (according to other sources - 9500) people killed, wounded and missing. Unfortunately, I could not find a breakdown of these losses by categories. The Poles have lost 6800 people, also without breaking down the dead, wounded and missing. Three Polish cannons became the trophies of the Russian army, the rest of the Poles were evacuated. Dibich, in his report, estimated the enemy’s losses at 12 of thousands of people, having almost overestimated them by half. However, such an overstatement is a common thing for any war. And on the screen saver - a picture of the Russian artist Gottfried (Bogdan) Villevalde "The Battle of Grokhov".



The Polish commander-in-chief, Prince Michal Gideon Radziwill, the commander of the Polish forces at Grokhov, General Joseph Hlopitsky and the Russian field marshal Karl von Dibich.



Marines and Grenadier officer of the Polish Army in uniforms of the Russian-Polish war 1830-1831. To the right is the construction of the 4 Infantry Regiment, which defended an alder grove.



Polish rocket man and launcher.



Polish battle banners 1830-31's.



The map of the location of the troops before the beginning of the Battle of Grokhov. The Poles are marked in red, the Russians - in green.



Painting by Wojciech Kossak "General Hlopitsky with his headquarters in the Battle of Grokhov".



Painting by the same artist "Defense of the Alder Grove".
Author:
Originator:
http://vikond65.livejournal.com/445528.html#cutid1
122 comments
Information
Dear reader, to leave comments on the publication, you must to register.

I have an account? Sign in

  1. netvrz
    netvrz 28 February 2016 07: 52
    0
    Interesting data. I wonder what events preceded this war. In honor of what, suddenly, Russia decided to climb into Poland? Tell me where you can find data on Polish-Russian relations, armed conflicts and wars in the XVII-XIX centuries until the final partition of Poland.
    1. X Y Z
      X Y Z 28 February 2016 08: 34
      +1
      For example - The old argument of the Slavs. Shirokorad. In general, it is best to read Oleg Nemensky on the Poles.
      1. moskowit
        moskowit 28 February 2016 09: 18
        0
        What kind of work does he have? Can I find it on the net? Now I'll see ...
        1. X Y Z
          X Y Z 28 February 2016 17: 20
          0
          In the network of his works a lot. As for the twentieth century, I propose to read the capital work of Meltiukhov and, of course, I. Pykhalov.
    2. Lebedev Sergey
      Lebedev Sergey 28 February 2016 08: 36
      +3
      Shirokorad A. The old dispute of the Slavs. Russia. Poland. Lithuania.

    3. moskowit
      moskowit 28 February 2016 08: 42
      14
      It was a mutiny. The Kingdom of Poland was part of the Russian Empire. In 1829, Nicholas the First was crowned Kingdom of Warsaw and, foreseeing "riots", said that he felt like on a volcano ...
      1. Rastas
        Rastas 28 February 2016 20: 13
        -3
        It was a rebellion. About the rebellion we can talk about the 1863rd ode, when most of the Polish people reacted indifferently to the events. And 1830-1831 it was a full-fledged uprising of the Polish people, and the uprising was just, liberating, as if we did not love the Poles. Another thing is that it can be negatively related to the fact that the Polish elite wanted to restore the borders of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1772, that is, with the Belarusian and Ukrainian lands.
    4. Rastas
      Rastas 28 February 2016 20: 18
      +4
      From fiction there are several novels by Lev Zhdanov, written in tsarist times - "Tsarevich Constantin", "Besieged Warsaw", "Fold Poland", where the author is so sympathetic to the Poles, but at the same time notes that the Polish elite is mired in squabbles and lost.
  2. Cartalon
    Cartalon 28 February 2016 08: 22
    +9
    Em, it’s kind of not a war from a legal point of view, but a Polish uprising.
  3. Aleksander
    Aleksander 28 February 2016 09: 22
    21
    Thus, tactically, the battle can be considered a relative victory for the Russian troops, but at the level of strategy it was a failure.


    "At the level of strategy" Warsaw was taken by storm, the rebels were defeated, just six months after the battle at Grokhov. "At the tactical level" Diebitsch won:
    "The fight lasted until the evening, when, finally, the Polish troops, completely upset, began to retreat to the bridgehead of Prague, and from there in complete disarray reached across the bridge to Warsaw. "
    But the Poles occupied the powerful fortifications of Prague, and Dibich did not have siege artillery, because he was walking crush the rebellionrather than storm the fortress. And most importantly, Dibich’s troops were very weakened terrible cholera, which raged in Russia for over a year (there were terrible "cholera riots" in Russia). How seriously this was evident from the fact that Diebitsch himself and Tsarevich Konstantin (the same almost emperor of 1825, whose wife is "Constitution") -died of cholera .
    But in August, everything was decided quickly and decisively (Warsaw was taken), and the enormous losses (12 thousand people) suffered by the Poles near Grokhov also affected.
    1. avt
      avt 28 February 2016 11: 43
      11
      Quote: Aleksander
      But in August, everything was decided quickly and decisively (Warsaw was taken), and the enormous losses (12 thousand people) suffered by the Poles near Grokhov also affected.

      But the author tells us
      In the battle of Grokhov, Dibich’s army lost 9400 (according to other sources - 9500) killed, wounded and missing. Unfortunately, I could not find a breakdown of these losses into categories. The Poles lost 6800 people, also without a breakdown into the dead, wounded and missing. Three Polish guns became trophies of the Russian army, the remaining Poles managed to be evacuated. Dibich in his report estimated the losses of the enemy at 12 thousand people, almost doubled them. However, such an overestimation is a common thing for any war.
      And again, a question to the author - and to clarify where the figures for the losses of the Poles are not too high? Well, again, where did the figures for the losses of the Russian army come from, and even from the "alternative" data?
      Quote: engineer
      in the army of Napoleon, the Poles were the most combat-ready.

      laughing Yah ? Did he form the old guard from them? And then, after years, three Poles, Georgians and a dog in general, took Berlin in 1945?
  4. engineer
    engineer 28 February 2016 10: 34
    -2
    Poles often fought with Russia or Russia with the Poles? in the army of Napoleon, the Poles were the most combat-ready. Napoleon even called the attack on Russia a Polish war. old argument ...
    1. Vadim42
      Vadim42 28 February 2016 14: 40
      0
      It turns out Napoleon was a Pole, along the lines of a neighbor.
      1. kryuger.mark
        kryuger.mark 28 February 2016 16: 27
        +6
        Napoleon was an ancient ukr. Do not offend other neighbors.
  5. KBR109
    KBR109 28 February 2016 11: 05
    +2
    The dispute is old from the time of Gediminas and then the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which then united with the Kingdom of Poland into a single Rzhech Pospolita. The dispute about who should be the center of the crystallization of a single state of the Slavs. Poland was ruined by medieval democracy and the right to "VETO" (not allow) to SEIMA.
  6. Jääkorppi
    Jääkorppi 28 February 2016 11: 22
    +6
    Gallop across Europe! Very superficially, neither the Polish uprising nor the battle itself was consecrated! Although the Russian - Polish war is a very interesting topic, as is the history of Little Russia, around which there was a confrontation with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Commonwealth.
    1. 97110
      97110 28 February 2016 21: 54
      0
      Quote: JääKorppi
      no Polish rebellion consecrated

      How to sanctify - in the Orthodox or Latin order? Apparently, they could not decide, they decided not to sanctify the rebellion. That the author did not consecrate at all.
  7. Alex
    Alex 28 February 2016 12: 01
    +6
    A strange article of some kind. And this is just my feeling of a kind of Polish superiority: like, we did not win, but the Russians, although strategically, lost. And in general: the Poles are heroes, and the Russians - so, went for a walk ...
    1. KBR109
      KBR109 28 February 2016 12: 14
      +2
      Military history, Alex, alas, I'm not inclined to obey your sense of patriotism. Want to rewrite history - you and cards in hand ...
      1. Alex
        Alex 28 February 2016 12: 41
        +5
        I’m not going to rewrite anything, I’m against it myself. Just after this article, as in that anecdote: "Spoons were found, but the sediment remained." Moreover, as personally I am so very interested in these very rocket launchers, which, if I believe the author of the article, "played a significant role in this battle." This is the second time I've heard about these notorious Polish missiles on the pages of VO, but here's something concrete, except for a couple of engravings of dubious authorship and origin. But the cat cried out the specifics here, but the Polish ambition is more than enough. This is to my patriotism.
        1. Alex
          Alex 28 February 2016 13: 06
          +2
          And the information on the "minus" will be or so, fine crap around the corner?
    2. avt
      avt 28 February 2016 12: 31
      +5
      Quote: Alex
      and the Russians went out for a walk ...

      Nope! "Filled with meat".
      Quote: KBR109
      Military history, Alex, alas, I'm not inclined to obey your sense of patriotism.

      laughing Yah !? laughing Is it okay that the winners have written it and are writing it always and everywhere? Since 1991, they have been writing it to us, but earlier, well, since the time of Petsi # 1, the Germans in general have written EVERYTHING and under "mother" # 2. "Europa branded the" Gendarme of Europe ", only that, against his own will, about which he personally left a note in his diaries about the fact that the Austrians are trying to hold on to power with Russian bayonets, was drawn into the suppression of the Hungarian uprising. Again, for the proposal to decide fate, , the sick man of Europe "and the protection of Christians on the territory of present-day Syria and in the region of Palestine, well, in the Levant (Does it remind you of the current events?), and as a result, after the First World War," The Sick Man of Europe "was dissected by the" democratic enlightened nations " , and Russia / the USSR also saved.
      Quote: KBR109
      Military history, Alex, alas, I'm not inclined to obey your sense of patriotism.

      even as apt, they even pose for cancer and turn it inside with fur in the spirit of the newly-found freedoms of pederasty.
    3. 97110
      97110 28 February 2016 21: 56
      +1
      Quote: Alex
      And in general: Poles are heroes, and Russians are like that
      This is the main sign of the author’s democracy. This sign is presented to receive a bonus and an overtime due to democratic authors.
  8. chelovektapok
    chelovektapok 28 February 2016 13: 16
    14
    The Polish Rzeczpospolita dreamed of "from sea to sea". Russia has historically been a natural obstacle to such fantasies. Troubles, False Dmitry, Marinka Mnishek, Moscow under the Poles ... it was. But the feathers of the Polish uhlans have long been knocked down with pride. No, though. Arrogance and so that the tip of the nose above the eyebrow line remains with them. Known not only to Russians. The Germans are also aware. 1939 1st September. The buttstock from the German Mauser knocks the "Polish chicken" into the mud and "deflorates" the frontier slag. Psheki would have better remembered that. And about the Volyn massacre from Bandera ... And Russia? In 1945. Stalin left them power? Left as brothers! But it could have been different! Ungrateful "Psyakrevites"!
    At the time considered in the article, Russia did not compete with Poland. There were business in Europe. With Prussia, Austria. Poland is so ... confused underfoot. Here, under the distribution, I got it.
    1. 97110
      97110 28 February 2016 22: 02
      +1
      Quote: chelovektapok
      But the feathers of Polish lancers have long been

      Where is their plumage suitable for plucking? Wings wore hussars like? Really behind?
  9. engineer
    engineer 28 February 2016 13: 57
    +6
    in psheks, hatred of Russia at the level of genetics. Compare Poland and the Great Lithuania of 1400 - 1600 and Russia. Russia is nothing in Europe. and after 300 years? Poland and Lithuania are nothing. and Russia is a great power. hence hatred.
  10. Yanka
    Yanka 28 February 2016 14: 28
    +3
    Strictly speaking, one should not think of the Polish uprisings as purely Polish ones. Together with the Poles, most of the former gentry of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth fought for independence from Russia on the lands of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The same Mikhail Radziwill, mentioned in the article, is not a Pole, but a Polish-speaking Belarusian (in the terminology of that time - Litvin). Also, most likely, it was, contrary to the opinions of some commentators, not about a dream "from sea to sea", not about annoying Russia, but about the restoration of at least some independent state (or states, if you count the ON) ... The memories of the divisions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth were still too fresh. In general, in many respects "thanks" to these very sections, there appeared, to put it mildly, the dislike of Poles for Russia.
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 28 February 2016 15: 30
      +7
      And before the sections, they did have tender feelings for each other, the usual enmity of neighboring peoples who argue about one territory, the only aggravating circumstance is religious enmity, without it, perhaps a personal ounce would easily reconcile us with the Poles.
    2. lesnik1978
      lesnik1978 28 February 2016 15: 41
      +7
      The gentry was just Polish or Polish-Kholuy and Radziwill was not a Belarusian, but a polished Lithuanian. And if you don’t know Litvin, this is a slave of the Lithuanian. You shouldn’t call the descendants of the Krivichi, Radimichi, Yatvyag, Prus. Read the yellow press less and watch Polish-Kholuy television.
    3. voyaka uh
      voyaka uh 28 February 2016 15: 55
      +1
      "The same Mikhail Radziwill mentioned in the article is not a Pole, but a Polish-speaking Belarusian (in the terminology of that time - Litvin)" ////

      Separation (and later split) occurred during the invasion
      Batu. Russia suffered a number of military defeats and recognized
      dependence on the Horde (Alexander Nevsky sealed the union and received a shortcut)
      and Lithuania (and several West Russian princes -
      future Belarusians) miraculously resisted several small battles,
      since the Tatars this was not a strategic direction.
      And the Poles fought with Batu already in alliance with the Germans and,
      although they lost, but also did not become vassalmi.
      And now Poland, Lithuania, Belarus began to integrate gradually
      with Europe, and Russia with the Horde and Asia.
      1. Talgat
        Talgat 28 February 2016 16: 31
        +7
        Quote: voyaka uh
        Poland, Lithuania, Belarus began to integrate gradually
        with Europe, and Russia with the Horde and Asia.


        Yes it is

        But it is necessary to mention that after the collapse of the Golden Horde, Russia was able to become the center of the next new Eurasian Empire - and created tsarist Russia, having virtually reunited all the lands of the Golden Horde. Then the USSR - and now in the future EAC, the core and foundation will again be the Russian Federation.

        But Poland did not become the center and head of Europe
        1. voyaka uh
          voyaka uh 28 February 2016 17: 27
          +2
          for Talgat:
          "But Poland has never become the center and head of Europe" ////

          Yes, I do not argue with that. It’s important for some to be an empire
          (by the empire of Genghisides or the Russian Empire, or some other), but for
          some are sufficient to be independent, albeit a small state.
          Who likes what...
          The trick is that the development of countries / empires / continents is uneven, and then up and down.
          Some tiny Switzerland or Holland is getting rich,
          and the vast boundless territories of another region of the earth become empty and wither.
          1. Waciak
            Waciak 28 February 2016 22: 00
            +1
            voyaka uh said:
            Yes, I do not argue with that. It’s important for some to be an empire
            (by the empire of Genghisides or the Russian Empire, or some other), but for
            some are sufficient to be independent, albeit a small state.
            Who likes what..


            voyaka uh I absolutely do not know why you are not so loved here. Very reasonably you speak out and you have only one cons.
            drinks
            1. Arbogast
              Arbogast 29 February 2016 12: 49
              +1
              Quote: Waciak
              voyaka uh I absolutely do not know why you are not so loved here. Very reasonably you speak out and you have only one cons.
              laughing
              "This is a topvar baby" (c)

              Quote: Alex
              Yes, from which side do not look, he is the Lithuanian Lithuanian
              Then, according to this logic, for example, Tsar Alexander III, from which side do not look, he is a German, a German
              1. Alex
                Alex 1 March 2016 12: 59
                +2
                Quote: Arbogast
                Then, according to this logic, for example, Tsar Alexander III, from which side do not look, he is a German, a German

                And who argues with this ??? And if I'm not your authority, then here is a quote from Tarle:

                - Why didn’t Napoleon become the Russian emperor?
                - Because the Frenchman. Only a German can become the Russian emperor.
            2. Uncle VasyaSayapin
              Uncle VasyaSayapin 29 February 2016 14: 15
              +1
              You are a Pole, but he is a Jew. What is not clear? laughing
              Someone cons, someone pluses. That's how we live.
          2. teron
            teron 29 February 2016 14: 04
            +1
            If Russia didn’t work out, Poland would do it. And the Rzeczpospolita would become quite an empire. No "small and independent". And the surrounding peoples, from Germans to Tatars, would become a good bone in their throats.
            Well, it would be if the local nobility didn’t fail again.
      2. andj61
        andj61 28 February 2016 17: 45
        +7
        Quote: voyaka uh
        And now Poland, Lithuania, Belarus began to integrate gradually
        with Europe, and Russia with the Horde and Asia.

        It is highly doubtful that they have integrated. The Polish gentry derived their own clan, in contrast to the common people - "cattle" - from the Sarmatians - and behaved accordingly - as in a conquered country. Yes, they all knew Latin - as a distinctive feature of the "Sarmatians" (it is not clear why, however, the Sarmatians), but this was the end of their ties with Europe. Poland, as part of Rech, strove to become the center of crystallization of the great Slavic state, but due to the attitude of the gentry to their people - like to cattle - they did not succeed, and Russia, having integrated with the Turks, became a great state, including the Slavs.
        1. Rivares
          Rivares 29 February 2016 00: 48
          +1
          Quote: andj61
          and Russia, integrating with the Turks, became a great state, including the Slavs.

          Where did you see the Turks?
          1. Uncle VasyaSayapin
            Uncle VasyaSayapin 29 February 2016 14: 19
            0
            Kazan, Ufa, Astrakhan, degrees of Central Asia, western Siberia, northeastern Siberia.
        2. Kaurav
          Kaurav 29 February 2016 02: 52
          +1
          Russia did not need to integrate with anyone, It already integrated everyone, the Commonwealth is a very important stage in the history of Russia, part of it was part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and later in the Commonwealth, modern Russia was born on the basis of relations between Russia, Muscovy and Poland .
        3. Kaurav
          Kaurav 29 February 2016 02: 52
          +1
          Russia did not need to integrate with anyone, It already integrated everyone, the Commonwealth is a very important stage in the history of Russia, part of it was part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and later in the Commonwealth, modern Russia was born on the basis of relations between Russia, Muscovy and Poland .
      3. Nagaibak
        Nagaibak 28 February 2016 17: 58
        +5
        voyaka uh "and Lithuania".
        Lithuania was then with a gulkin nose and was barely fighting off the crusaders.))) Just the Russian princes would be more correct. Or, to be more specific, Polotsk say. Belarus name is also later.
      4. Operator
        Operator 28 February 2016 19: 57
        +3
        "Poor" Russia so pre-integrated with the Horde and Asia (probably borrowing there the machine industry, nuclear physics, rocketry and computer technology) that in the XNUMXth century it completely destroyed four empires (Germanic, Austro-Hungarian, Ottoman and British), and in XXI, it ensured military-strategic parity with the United States, Britain, France and China taken together and began to develop the Middle East (according to the "will" of Peter the Great to wash boots in the Persian Gulf).

        And the "mighty" Poland and Lithuania, 100 percent integrated with Europe, are called limitrophes.

        PS Voyaka, what is the fence you smoke in the Promised Land? laughing
      5. The comment was deleted.
      6. Kaurav
        Kaurav 29 February 2016 02: 44
        0
        what kind of invasion, something new, we continue to fantasize, the new lord of the rings ...
    4. Alex
      Alex 28 February 2016 17: 07
      +8
      Quote: Yanka
      The same Mikhail Radziwill, which is discussed in the article, is not a Pole, but a Polish-speaking Belarusian (in the terminology of that time - Litvin)

      This is in what an alternative history of Radziwill - Belarusians-Litvinians ??? For centuries, they were Lithuanians and no one else.
      1. Yanka
        Yanka 28 February 2016 17: 34
        +1
        It depends on which side you look at. In fact, the genus is undoubtedly Lithuanian, which is even hinted at by the characteristic surname. On the other hand, in Belarusian historiography, it is customary to consider the Radziwills as "their own" for a number of reasons. And they themselves marked their nationality as "Lithuanians" and nothing else.
        1. Alex
          Alex 28 February 2016 18: 19
          +6
          Yes, from which side do not look, he is the Lithuanian Lithuanian. And Belarusian historiography here, excuse me, is not an authority, it, on the orders of a well-known cabinet, will identify Obama in Litvinians.
          1. Yanka
            Yanka 29 February 2016 12: 15
            0
            It seems to me that in this case it is worth being guided by a person’s self-determination? After all, if a person was born, for example, in the USA, but his parents are Russian, he is biologically Russian, but in fact - an American. And he considers himself as such. A similar situation is here.
        2. andj61
          andj61 28 February 2016 18: 28
          +1
          Quote: Yanka
          It depends on which side you look at. In fact, the genus is undoubtedly Lithuanian, which is even hinted at by the characteristic surname. On the other hand, in Belarusian historiography, it is customary to consider the Radziwills as "their own" for a number of reasons. And they themselves marked their nationality as "Lithuanians" and nothing else.

          There were a lot of them, Radziwills. In the 19th century they considered themselves Poles. And the Poles still believe. Although they consider all those who converted to Catholicism to be Poles - the Vishnevetsky, for example, too. And the Litvinians-Belarusians — at the location of their possessions — are a beautiful castle in Nesvizh, castles in Lyubchany near Minsk, and in the World near Grodno, but the castle in Olyka in Volyn, and in Birzai in Lithuania, is still preserved.
        3. lesnik1978
          lesnik1978 28 February 2016 21: 35
          +8
          A pigeon born in a stable will never be a horse. So Radziwill will never be a Belarusian (until 1918 we were called Belarussians, and Belarus was White Russia).
          1. Yanka
            Yanka 29 February 2016 12: 19
            +2
            The term "Belarusian" appeared only under Catherine II. And no one called the territory of the modern Republic of Bashkortostan "White Russia" before it - they were called Lithuania. Belaya Rus - a region to the east: Bryansk, Smolensk, possibly Kaluga. This can also include the modern Mogilev region of the Republic of Belarus. This is clearly seen on almost all maps of the 15-16 centuries.
    5. andj61
      andj61 28 February 2016 17: 38
      +6
      Quote: Yanka
      The same Mikhail Radziwill, which is discussed in the article, is not a Pole, but a Polish-speaking Belarusian (in the terminology of that time - Litvin).

      Of course, it is now considered so, only the Radziwills themselves did not consider themselves Belarusians or Litvins, but deduced kinship from the ancient Lithuanian family. And so many times they took as their wives the daughters of the Polish magnates that it is quite possible to call them Poles. And by faith they were mostly Catholics, and partly Protestants, but not Orthodox at all.
      It was about the war of the gentry. After all, the gentry in the period of the Commonwealth had so many rights that you can't drag it out. Any nobleman - a member of the Seimas, will say "not permissible!" - and no decision will be made. Because of this, Speech fell apart. But if we take not the gentry, but the simple Orthodox people, it will be clear that this people did not participate in the uprising. This struggle was for the independence of the gentry from the state power - and nothing more!
      The funniest thing is the other. For half a century, the Germans destroyed the Polish population, partly assimilated - no one uttered a word. In Austria-Hungary, the gentry lost ALL rights - no one raised uprisings. In Russia, they created a state with a separate status - the Kingdom of Poland, the cities were left with the Lithuanian Statute adopted in the Speech (an interesting point - the magnates could assign the status of cities to settlements. Jews used - they wrote out a letter from the descendants of the magnate to assign the status to the village where they lived cities - in Polish - and were already city dwellers - from there came the "shtetl Jews"), the entire gentry was given hereditary nobility (in Poland there were up to 10% of the population, and in Russia only about 4%) - and constantly revolted ! And you could immediately press this gentry to the nail, like the Germans and Austrians - and everything would be quiet! so in our country it was not just the Soviet regime that was playing humanism, but the tsars too.
      1. Yanka
        Yanka 28 February 2016 17: 55
        -1
        Quote: andj61
        Of course, it is now considered so, only the Radziwills themselves did not consider themselves Belarusians or Litvins, but deduced kinship from the ancient Lithuanian family.

        Just Litvin they called themselves, to which there is a considerable amount of written evidence. Here it’s true that it is worth noting that virtually the entire population of the server side of the ON called itself the Litvinians, that is, of the current Belarus, Lithuania.
        Quote: andj61
        But if we take not the gentry, but the simple Orthodox people, it will be clear that this people did not participate in the uprising. This struggle was for the independence of the gentry from state power - and nothing more!

        You have an interesting border: Orthodox - ordinary people, Catholics - nobility. Do not you think that even if we discard historical knowledge at all, well, even theoretically it can’t be? And you can recall that Protestantism and Uniatism were widely popular at least in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania - where are we going to write them? In the common people or in the gentry? :)
        Quote: andj61
        The funny thing is in another. The Germans destroyed part of the Polish population in half a century, partly assimilated, and nobody uttered a shout. In Austria-Hungary, the gentry lost ALL rights - no one raised uprisings.

        As I wrote below - there is nothing funny about this. After the Napoleonic Wars, the vast majority of the former Commonwealth fell under the power of Russia - hence the uprising. Well, imagine, conditional China occupied all of Japan, including sacred places like Tokyo and Kyoto, and Russia occupied just a couple of small Japanese islands. Where is the likelihood of rebellion going to be higher? In addition, the mental and cultural similarity of the nobility of the Commonwealth with the Germans and Austrians was much higher than with the Russian nobles.
        1. andj61
          andj61 28 February 2016 18: 02
          +8
          Quote: Yanka
          You have an interesting border: Orthodox - ordinary people, Catholics - nobility. Do not you think that even if we discard historical knowledge at all, well, even theoretically it can’t be? And you can recall that Protestantism and Uniatism were widely popular at least in the Grand Duchy of Lithuania - where are we going to write them? In the common people or in the gentry? :)

          It is you who are somewhat distorting my words. I wrote that the Radziwills were Catholics and partly Protestants. But the gentry was both Catholic and Orthodox, and in the Grand Duchy was also Protestant.
          But if Catholics, the common people, still participated in the uprisings, although to a very small extent, then neither the Orthodox, nor the Uniates, nor the Protestants (there were very few of them among the common people), as a rule, did not do this. In Poland, the gentry made up 10% of the population, and they did not consider themselves to be ordinary people with ordinary Poles, but considered themselves descendants of the Sarmatians.
          But the fact that Russia got the vast majority of Poland is not so. Russia got about a third, as well as Austria-Hungary and Germany.
          And the sacred place for the Poles was Krakow - but in Austria-Hungary there were no uprisings. Like in Germany. Why? Yes, because there was no one to rebel - the gentry in the form in which it was in Poland - was destroyed. But in Russia, the gentry remained - Catholic, Orthodox, Uniate, and Protestant. But that liberty, which was in Poland, in Russia could not be anymore, but I really wanted to! So they rebelled. And in Germany and Austria-Hungary there was SOMEONE to rebel.
          1. Yanka
            Yanka 28 February 2016 18: 11
            +6
            Perhaps inclined to agree with you, it looks convincing.
        2. Alex
          Alex 28 February 2016 18: 28
          +4
          Quote: Yanka
          Just Litvin they called themselves, to which there is a considerable amount of written evidence. Here it’s true that it is worth noting that virtually the entire population of the server side of the ON called itself the Litvinians, that is, of the current Belarus, Lithuania.
          So it turns out that Litvinians are not so much a nationality as a self-name of people living in this particular territory.

          After the Napoleonic Wars, the vast majority of the former Commonwealth came under Russian rule
          There is more under Austria-Hungary: Galicia alone covers Lithuania with part of Poland like a bull sheep.

          In addition, the mental and cultural similarity of the nobility of the Commonwealth with the Germans and Austrians was much higher than with the Russian nobles.
          Especially mental (they still clean toilet bowls in Europe today). From here ears grow. And all the tricks about the sacred capitals and stuff ... They became enemies not after the partitions, but after the adoption of Catholicism and voluntarily recognition of themselves as the spearhead of the Roman sword. The fact that sharper edges and harder steel were found are already subtleties of big politics.
          1. Yanka
            Yanka 29 February 2016 12: 23
            +2
            Then it is worth raising the question of what "nationality" is in general. You cannot talk about the nationality of people in the 16-17 centuries using modern peoples and nationalities. Don't you think that self-name is mostly nationality?
            1. Alex
              Alex 1 March 2016 12: 46
              +2
              Quote: Yanka
              Then it is worth raising the question of what "nationality" is in general. You cannot talk about the nationality of people in the 16-17 centuries using modern peoples and nationalities. Don't you think that self-name is mostly nationality?

              YankaYou are simply killing me with your "logic". Either you consider the use of modern terminology in relation to the 16-17 centuries unacceptable, then you famously draw a complete analogy between the Litvinians of the 17th century and the Belarusians of the 20th-21st centuries. However, here I come across such delirium constantly and hourly. Whoever does not pick, so they "the great Belarus" immediately withdraw from the ON. And when I spoke about Obama, I did not mean difficulties with the cultural and national self-identification of a person, but about the historical chaos that now, with the highest permission, began to happen in the history of Belarus, walking along the path beaten by the Ukrainian Nazis.
      2. lesnik1978
        lesnik1978 28 February 2016 21: 50
        +5
        These "nobles" came in large numbers to us at one time from Poland, as now Khokhlomors from Ukraine. Former servants. Under-nobility-peasants. Sadists were worse than their clandestine gentlemen. They have a chicken on the table at home and poop on the table, and they punch themselves in the chest and shout that they are gentry. How did they differ from ordinary peasants? Practically nothing, only when they plowed they hooked a cardboard (wooden) saber to their belt. Some tuned it with metal foil, because there was no money for the present. Well, they were more educated than the indigenous population. They then created the Polish-Kholui language, which is now widely spread everywhere.
        1. Yanka
          Yanka 29 February 2016 12: 25
          +2
          The worst thing that can be done in such a discussion is to politicize it;)
    6. Nagaibak
      Nagaibak 28 February 2016 17: 53
      +2
      Yanka "The memories of the divisions of the Commonwealth were still too fresh. In general, largely" thanks "to these very divisions, the Poles' dislike for Russia appeared, to put it mildly."
      Heh heh heh ... oh, these Polish conclusions.))) I watched the Polish film "For what?" in my opinion it is called. About how one young, clearly not smart nobleman, took part in the uprising against Russia. And then, he was perplexed in exile for WHAT he was exiled to the godforsaken garrison in the Orenburg steppes.)))
  11. lukke
    lukke 28 February 2016 16: 10
    0
    And now Poland, Lithuania, Belarus began to integrate gradually
    with Europe, and Russia with the Horde and Asia.
    And the peak of our integration with the Horde was Kulikovo Field? so what
    1. andj61
      andj61 28 February 2016 18: 39
      +1
      Quote: lukke
      And now Poland, Lithuania, Belarus began to integrate gradually
      with Europe, and Russia with the Horde and Asia.
      And the peak of our integration with the Horde was Kulikovo Field? so what

      Let's figure it out: on the Kulikovo field, Prince Dmitry fought with the rebel Mamai, who opposed the legitimate "tsar" Tokhtamysh - and won. Tokhtamysh himself did not even have to suppress the rebellion - the vassal did everything for him. True, having returned as a winner, Dmitry Donskoy had already decided not to pay tribute to Tokhtamysh - and paid for it. Two years after the Battle of Tulikovo, Moscow was burned down, the Russian principalities that had risen were brought to submission ..
  12. Yanka
    Yanka 28 February 2016 16: 11
    +3
    Quote: Cartalon
    And before the sections, they did have tender feelings for each other, the usual enmity of neighboring peoples who argue about one territory, the only aggravating circumstance is religious enmity, without it, perhaps a personal ounce would easily reconcile us with the Poles.

    Before the sections, this was the usual enmity of neighboring nations, after - the struggle for independence with those whom the Poles (and not only the Poles, to be frank) considered occupiers.
    Quote: lesnik1978
    The gentry was just Polish or Polish-Kholuy and Radziwill was not a Belarusian, but a polished Lithuanian. And if you don’t know Litvin, this is a slave of the Lithuanian. You shouldn’t call the descendants of the Krivichi, Radimichi, Yatvyag, Prus. Read the yellow press less and watch Polish-Kholuy television.

    The gentry was mostly propolian, you are right. But this in no way affects their (gentry) nationality. It’s just absolutely not related to each other concepts. The rest of your message is utter nonsense, excuse me. You confuse politics and history.
    1. Alex
      Alex 28 February 2016 17: 12
      +5
      Quote: Yanka
      Before the sections, this was the usual enmity of neighboring nations, after - the struggle for independence with those whom the Poles (and not only the Poles, to be frank) considered occupiers.
      I don’t remember the national liberation wars of the Poles, Lithuanians and Belarusians-Lithuanians (in your terminology) against the German invaders. Or Germany and Austria were not occupiers and did not divide "Greater Poland"?

      Quote: Yanka
      You confuse politics and history.
      And then this is not the same ... You yourself here turn history into politics.
      1. Yanka
        Yanka 28 February 2016 17: 25
        0
        Quote: Alex
        I don’t remember the national liberation wars of the Poles, Lithuanians and Belarusians-Lithuanians (in your terminology) against the German invaders. Or Germany and Austria were not occupiers and did not divide "Greater Poland"?

        Kosciuszko's uprising was directed against all three participants in the sections. And after the Napoleonic wars, uprisings were only on the territory of Russia simply because (suddenly!) Almost the entire Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was part of Russia. Prussia and Austria left East Prussia and, accordingly, Galicia. What kind of uprisings in these two countries are we talking about? Therefore, your sarcasm is not appropriate here.
        Quote: Alex
        And then this is not the same ... You yourself here turn history into politics.

        I am guided by facts, and do not blame the tabloids. You can justify anything you like with the argument "he is like that", but is it just an argument at all?
        1. andj61
          andj61 28 February 2016 17: 52
          +3
          Quote: Yanka
          Kosciuszko's uprising was directed against all three participants in the sections. And after the Napoleonic wars, uprisings were only on the territory of Russia simply because (suddenly!) Almost the entire Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was part of Russia. Prussia and Austria left East Prussia and, accordingly, Galicia. What kind of uprisings in these two countries are we talking about? Therefore, your sarcasm is not appropriate here.

          Let me disagree with you! Austria-Hungary inherited the entire Lesser Poland province with Krakow, as well as Western Ukraine (Galicia), Germany - Silesia and part of Polish Pomerania, and East Prussia was a part of Prussia a long time ago, and only purely nominally, but not really, was a vassal of the Polish king However, like Courland.
          Germany immediately set a course for assimilation - and suppressed the slightest grievances extremely harshly. There was no honorable nobility - there was no one to rebel. In Austria-Hungary, the gentry was required to prove its status by diplomas - as a result of the gentry, less than a third remained. At the same time, the rights of the remaining gentry, in comparison with the rights in Poland, were practically eliminated - they became ordinary small nobles. And also the possibilities of rebellion were suppressed, some nations were set against others. In Russia, ALL the gentry remained such - that’s why the gentry riots!
          1. Yanka
            Yanka 28 February 2016 17: 58
            +2
            I do not rule out that you may be right, but I still think that the main reason is the fragmentation of the territories taken away by Austria and Prussia. Russia, however, "grabbed" the most delicious and fatty piece, for which it suffered later.
            1. andj61
              andj61 28 February 2016 18: 15
              +2
              Quote: Yanka
              I do not rule out that you may be right, but I still think that the main reason is the fragmentation of the territories taken away by Austria and Prussia. Russia, however, "grabbed" the most delicious and fatty piece, for which it suffered later.

              From the "fat" - only Warsaw. In Austria-Hungary - Krakow - this is a really sacred place for Poles, even Lublin, Lvov; - in Germany - Poznan, Torun, Gdansk, Czestochowa (another sacred place for Poles!).
            2. Alex
              Alex 28 February 2016 18: 46
              +3
              Quote: Yanka
              Russia has "grabbed" the most delicious and fatty piece
              Well, the fat content turned out to be quite lean, no higher than lamb. But seriously, it was Germany (ports, coast, trade routes) that took the tidbits for itself, and Austria, which is thinner. Don't you think that the “partners” really wanted Russia to be “obese”? But about suffering is you to the very point. Looks like from "overeating" ...
        2. Nagaibak
          Nagaibak 28 February 2016 18: 10
          +3
          Yanka "Prussia and Austria remained East Prussia and, accordingly, Galicia"
          After the sections of Prussia, Gdansk, Poznan, and Torun departed. What is only East Prussia?)))
          Austria - Krakow, Lublin. What is only Galicia?)))
          You at least somehow strangely set out.)))
          After the war of 1812, Lublin became part of the Kingdom of Poland, as I recall. Just Polish gentry was ready to endure Europeans with any sauces. And their ambition did not allow them to be subordinate to the Muscovite barbarians. And it is precisely in the Polish ambition and no more. But in general it’s right that ours didn’t pile them up figs.))) This I specifically say for all Polish trolls on the site.)))
        3. Alex
          Alex 28 February 2016 18: 42
          +4
          Quote: Yanka
          You can justify anything you like with the argument "he is like that", but is it just an argument at all?
          Not an argument, because your statement has returned to you. Well, okay, that’s not the point. You can talk as much as you like about the Napoleonic wars and about who got the bulk of the Commonwealth, but tell me: did Poniatowski’s corps fight AFTER the Napoleonic invasion, or still TIME? Or weren’t the Polish cavalrymen helping Napoleon make a coup that paved his way to the imperial throne? Repeat the above arguments with which you have already agreed (I shake your hand and hi , not often this can be found in discussions) there is no need.
          1. Yanka
            Yanka 29 February 2016 12: 01
            +2
            During. I don’t understand the truth, what does this have to do with our conversation :)
  13. Yarik
    Yarik 28 February 2016 17: 29
    0
    In the place where everyone has brains, the Poles have Wolnosz. wassat
  14. Cartalon
    Cartalon 28 February 2016 19: 15
    0
    Actually, everything that was needed from Poland was taken away by Catherine, she regretted that Galichin had to be given to the Austrians, and the annexation of Warsaw and other primordially Polish lands was purely personal stupidity of Alexander Pavlovich, who had Russian national interests in tenth place, and talk about bold chunks Wasn’t it so cool that the Prussians from Napoleon were draped that 40% of the population of Prussia in 1806 were Poles?
  15. Waciak
    Waciak 28 February 2016 21: 35
    +1
    The article is curious and most of the comments are entertaining. I admire the knowledge of the history of Poland from some commentators and much can be learned from this discussion.
    I often meet on this portal the definition of “Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth” and for lordship I would like to mention where it came from. “Rzeczpospolita” that is, the definition of “Res Publica” accurately translated into Polish may not be known to everyone and sometimes refer to this name here as some kind of eccentricity.

    Understanding why the “November Appearance” from 1930 exploded in Russian annexation, a map from that period may be of help. The green color is the space adopted by Poland by Russia. This is the dominant part of the land of the former “Rzeczypospolitej”.

    I also agree with the opinion that the biggest problem dividing Poland and Russia from time immemorial is the self-esteem of the Catholic Church and Orthodoxy.
    1. andj61
      andj61 28 February 2016 22: 16
      +2
      Quote: Waciak
      Understanding why the “November Appearance” from 1930 exploded in Russian annexation, a map from that period may be of help. The green color is the space adopted by Poland by Russia. This is the dominant part of the land of the former “Rzeczypospolitej”.

      Interesting reasoning! winked Your map shows green ALL the territories that departed to Russia from the Rzeczpospolita since the mid-17th century. Courland was an independent duchy, formally having a vassal dependence on the Polish king. Anna Ioannovna became empress of Russia - the duchy passed to Russia. Smolensk, Kiev, Chernihiv - it's generally silly to discuss. You even have Poltava - in Zhechi! So you would start with how the Grand Dukes of Lithuania - and Poland had nothing to do with it - conquered these lands, taking advantage of the weakness of Russia. Time passed, Russia gained strength - and these lands returned to Russia. Moreover - from the very history of your gentry republic - the beginning of the end of Zhecha was the inclusion of the territory of present Ukraine (without Galicia) in the Lesser Poland province, previously it was withdrawn from the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. The border between Ukraine and Belarus is from those times. And then the Little Russian gentry began to convert to Catholicism en masse, and became more Poles and Catholics than the Poles themselves. Their implantation of Catholicism led to disaster, though together with the unlimited rights of the nobility in Zhechi.
      But the discussion during the discussion was about the division of Poland at the end of the 18th century and its redistribution after Napoleon. And your card has nothing to do with it.
      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon 28 February 2016 22: 25
        0
        The Poles have just such a vision, they and Smolensk even consider them to be a freak, you most likely would have shared this point of view, and Courland, when Anna Ivanovna reigned, did not depart to Russia, but Biron simply became the duke.
        1. Waciak
          Waciak 28 February 2016 23: 00
          +1
          Maybe such a card would be better ?. Here it is more precisely determined which lands Poland lost during the next analysis.

          Ps. I do not show this pretentious to Russia about the lands occupied by Poland. I am just participating in the discussion.
          Whoever has weak nerves, let a bib tie himself because he can inadvertently spit on himself or the keyboard.
          1. Alex
            Alex 28 February 2016 23: 30
            +8
            Waciak, leave your advice to the faint-hearted ladies from Warsaw cafes, here people will have stronger testicles. Now, regarding the "Eastern Crushes". Since when has the territory of present-day Ukraine (in any of its parts) become, albeit the former, Poland? This is in what delirium did you see the Smolensk region as a Polish territory? Or are you quite satisfied with the simple logic there: Poland is there, where at least once a Pole at least farted? The fact that your fellow tribesmen, for the sake of the Europeans scoffing at you and despising you, by years of robbery tore off pieces of land that never (emphasizing NEVER) did not belong to them, does not make you its owner yet. As well as a petty squeeze of the Slavic territories belonging to (or rather, captured) of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, which were unable to defend themselves after the Mongol invasion. So tie your own diapers when serious uncles and aunts again begin to divide your political and geographical misunderstanding. It just seems to me that this time is already forever.
            1. Cartalon
              Cartalon 28 February 2016 23: 46
              -2
              Does it ever occur to you that your logic can be perfectly used against Russia? All the lands on this planet belong to someone either by the right of the strong or by the grace of the strong and there are no exceptions.
              1. Alex
                Alex 29 February 2016 00: 28
                +3
                Quote: Cartalon
                Does it ever occur to you that your logic can be perfectly used against Russia?

                Firstly, no one even bothers to worry about at least some kind of logic when they want to run into Russia. I just "say what I want, and then you wash off the dirt." Have we heard a little of unproven nonsense lately?

                Secondly, and don’t we give a damn about the opinion of the Gayropei Tolerasts or feminized mattresses? After Psyaka’s statements, I don’t want to pay attention to their schizos at all, not to think about their ability to make logical conclusions.

                All the lands on this planet belong to someone either by the right of the strong or by the grace of the strong and there are no exceptions.

                Thirdly, precisely because no one has yet canceled the right of the strong, one must firmly stand with both feet on one’s own land and bite the tongues of anyone who even in a dream dares to make a claim even for a scrap of the size of a postage stamp. For then you can give the Poles and Moscow, that there is exchanged for trifles. And Mongolia and in general everything to the Dniester and the Carpathians.
          2. Rivares
            Rivares 29 February 2016 01: 10
            +2
            And how do you like this card from 1861 with the dimensions of Poland? Do not tie a bib to yourself? And then your first card from 1860 is not readable, on the map from 1861 everyone can see what is not readable there)))
            http://lithuanianmaps.com/images/1861_Stielers_Hand-Atlas_-_Ostsee-Laender.jpg
          3. andj61
            andj61 29 February 2016 09: 57
            0
            Quote: Waciak
            Could such a card be better ?.

            This is not about that. And then, in general, Poland?
            There were two Rus - one Western - this is the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the second - Eastern - this is the Grand Duchy of Moscow. Both there and there they spoke the same language, believed and prayed to the same god and one rite. One of the great princes of Lithuania - Jagiello - decided to try on a crown on himself. And he became king of Poland, marrying a Polish princess. In general, the Principality did not follow him - and another person became the prince, and nobody, like Jagiello, changed his faith. At first there was a union of the kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, then this union was transformed into the Burn (Speech) of the Commonwealth - the monarchist-gentry Republic. At the same time, the royal power after the interruption of the Jagiellonian dynasty was weakened so much that no one even seriously took it. If not directly, then through uniatism. But not all. And many very specific princes, whose principalities became part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, under feudal law changed their overlord - from Lithuania to Moscow.
            And you think this is the conquest of Russia. The conquests actually began later - from the middle of the 17th century, and even then this must be considered the unification of Russian lands. Then two forces clashed - the Orthodox Cossacks of Bogdan-Zinovy ​​Khmelnitsky and the troops of Prince Jeremiah Vishnevetsky, the famous Prince Erema. He converted to Catholicism at the age of 18, and his son even became the king of Poland. It was not the Cossacks who fought with the Poles here - the king did not really send his "quyartsan" army there - but the Russians fought with the Russians, the Orthodox - with the Uniates and Catholics. Bogdan turned to the Russian Tsar and received help. First, the Left Bank, and then other lands gradually began to be part of Russia.
            The ending was laid in the era of Catherine 2. There was no longer the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. Catherine 2 granted the Lithuanian Statute to all the cities that became part of Russia - that is, she left everything as it was. The last Polish king Poniatowski tried to equalize the rights of Orthodox and Protestants with Catholics and as a result of the rebellion and civil war. At the same time, the rebellious gentry attacked the neighbors. Rebellion really managed to stop only by the partitions of Poland. But Ponyatovsky was very close to Catherine, they said that he was her lover, he died in Petersburg.
        2. andj61
          andj61 29 February 2016 15: 41
          0
          Quote: Cartalon
          and Courland, during the reign of Anna Ivanovna, did not depart to Russia, but Biron simply became the duke.

          She departed - in the sense that if Courland had previously been in the vassal dependence on the Polish king, now it has become - on the Russian emperor. But in fact - an independent duchy ...
      2. Yanka
        Yanka 29 February 2016 12: 09
        +2
        What is the difference, who won whom when? We are talking about the causes of the uprisings in the territories of former Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania.
    2. Operator
      Operator 28 February 2016 23: 08
      0
      Rzeczpospolita, the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and the Prussian Kingdom as state entities were liquidated by the Russian Empire / Soviet Union.

      The Polish Republic was created by the Soviet Union from scratch out of German Gauleiterism - if anyone has forgotten, Great Britain, represented by Winston Churchill, offered to eliminate the "jackal of Europe" (C) following WWII.

      Therefore, we can confidently predict that, based on the TMV results, the Russian Federation will agree with the proposal of the Anglo-Saxons and will include the Warsaw Federal District laughing
      1. Cartalon
        Cartalon 28 February 2016 23: 25
        +1
        Please where is this link, Churchill proposed to eliminate Poland.
        1. Operator
          Operator 29 February 2016 00: 31
          +1
          Firstly, the amendment is not Gauleiting, but raise it higher - the Governor-General as part of the German Reich with its capital in Krakow (My God, we created the capital of the Republic of Poland from scratch).

          Secondly, I apologize to the descendants of Winston Churchill - he used the term "hyena", not "jackal".

          Thirdly, everyone knows (except the Poles, of course) the "Strange War" of Great Britain and France with Germany during the occupation of the territory of allied Poland in September 1939 - 115 Franco-British divisions did not lift a finger against 23 German divisions opposing them on the Western Front ...
          Against the background of the complete self-elimination of Poland's allies, the active intervention of the Soviet Union in the fate of ethnic Belarusians and Ukrainians (and at the same time the Polish and Jewish minorities), who lived in the territories forcibly torn away from the RSFSR in 1920, looks quite natural. By its actions, the USSR saved these people from the fate planned by the state program of the German Reich on the ethnic cleansing of the eastern "living space" of the German nation.

          Fourth (answering your question directly), the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, on November 11 of November 1940, forced the Czechoslovak President E. Benes and the Polish Prime Minister V. Sikorski to sign a declaration on the creation of a Federation of these states - naturally, with the elimination of Poland as a public entity.

          Fifth, it was the Soviet Union that in February 1945 in Yalta insisted on the creation of a unitary Polish Republic instead of the Czech-Slovak-Polish Federation, and also presented the new state territories from the German Reich liberated by the Red Army (not Polish and not British, Karl).

          PS Portraits of the founder of the Polish Republic Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin should hang in the red corner of every Polish house laughing
          1. Cartalon
            Cartalon 29 February 2016 01: 13
            +1
            The creation of the USSR eliminated Russia as a state entity? In general, it was a Polish fantasy, and Churchill, like in the Balkans, wanted to portray something like that, he really wanted to draw a new Austria-Hungary.
            1. Operator
              Operator 29 February 2016 02: 12
              0
              You are right - the creation in the 1922 year of the confederate state of the USSR liquidated the RSFSR as a federal state (with the right to freely exit the confederation, which the current RF took advantage of in the 1991 year).

              You are right again - Winston Churchill was an ardent opponent of state independence of all Western Slavs request
          2. Waciak
            Waciak 29 February 2016 11: 05
            +1
            Fourth (answering your question directly), the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill, on November 11 of November 1940, forced the Czechoslovak President E. Benes and the Polish Prime Minister V. Sikorski to sign a declaration on the creation of a Federation of these states - naturally, with the elimination of Poland as a public entity.


            Where does such sensational historical information come from - can you have invented it yourself ?. On November 11, 1940, Churchill already had slightly different problems than the federalization of Czechoslovakia with Poland, especially since Czechoslovakia had not existed for two years. This is your appearance, this is a pure fairy tale.

            Ps. You blame the Poles for arrogance and in the discussion on the topic of history that you are trying to offend two words to anyone who has a different flag than the Russian one. The story was better or worse, but this is a distant thing, but the statements of some interlocutors give evidence of today's Russians. It diverges a little from the mentality prevailing in today's Ukraine - one should not give a damn about everything regarding the neighbor and tell him what and how he has to think.

            True history should connect, not divide, but also compromises in the way of looking. Unless the "connection" does not lie in the sphere of interest of the discussant. hi
            1. Alex
              Alex 29 February 2016 14: 42
              +2
              Quote: Waciak
              the statements of some interlocutors give evidence of today's Russians.

              Well, whose cow, as they say, mumbled ... After all those statements that were rushed from the first persons of Poland to accuse the Russians of an inappropriate attitude towards her, it was the same as asking for love for the bastard.
    3. The comment was deleted.
    4. Yanka
      Yanka 29 February 2016 12: 05
      0
      In general, what I tried to convince the discussion partners :) It is foolish to chop off a large part of the vast country and then complain that the Poles say that they have something against us. Regarding Catholicism and Orthodoxy I do not agree, they were used rather as an excuse to motivate the inhabitants of the time.
      1. Alex
        Alex 29 February 2016 14: 44
        +2
        YankaYou are not annoyed by the fact that you practically word for word repeat the ideological paradigms of ukro-fascists? Or are you from the BPF? Then everything is clear.
        1. Yanka
          Yanka 29 February 2016 14: 47
          0
          Which for example? It is interesting to know :) I do not belong to either one. I repeat - I am discussing about history, not politics, I expect the same from interlocutors.
          1. Alex
            Alex 1 March 2016 13: 26
            +4
            Quote: Yanka
            Which for example? Interesting to know :)

            Please.
            Quote: Yanka
            It is foolish to chop off a large part of a huge country and then complain about the fact that the Poles, they say, have something against us.
            Quote: Yanka
            Russia, however, "grabbed" the most delicious and fatty piece, for which it later suffered.
            Quote: Yanka
            the struggle for independence with those whom the Poles (and not only the Poles, to be frank) considered occupiers.
            That is, Russia "grabbed", "occupied", "chopped off". The fact that Poland itself and with the rapture of “grabbing”, “tapping” and simply conquering Russian lands, is modestly left out of the brackets.

            Quote: Yanka
            In general, in many respects "thanks" to these very sections, there appeared, to put it mildly, the dislike of the Poles for Russia.
            Russia, of course, was the only participant in the divisions. Interestingly, with whom only she then "shared"? But let us also leave this uncomfortable question aside: Europe, as before, is closer and dearer, and you can endure the occupation from it. The only difference between you and the Nazis are coming out that they refer to their own history, and you - to the Polish one. But the goals and conclusions are the same: to present Russia as a monster, solely responsible for all "atrocities."

            But this is so, petals: Russophobia today will not surprise anyone. But present-day Ukraine did not begin with the Maidan and not with shelling of Donetsk. It all started with the distinction between Russians and Ukrainians, as a special national community. And appeals were also to Europe. Do not recognize?
            Quote: Yanka
            virtually the entire population of the server side of the ON called themselves Litvins, that is, of the current Belarus, Lithuania.
            Then an elegant volt in the style of card cheaters, and now, "sleight of hand, gentlemen, and no fraud": we Belarusians / Lithuanians are Europeans, and you Russians are Asian barbarians, with whom we have nothing and simply cannot have anything common.
            Are you in doubt How dare you! So
            Quote: Yanka
            in Belarusian historiography accepted


            I would like to believe that you are personally telling the truth:
            Quote: Yanka
            Neither one nor the other.
            But something is stopping me from believing in it. Somehow everything is very familiar. It is painfully familiar, to the crunch of fists. And what is most terrible - ideas like yours, I hear around myself more and more often. So do not claim that politics and history are two different things. I do not want to quote about this, they are already well known.
    5. Uncle VasyaSayapin
      Uncle VasyaSayapin 29 February 2016 14: 33
      +1
      And in order to understand the reaction, look at the map of the Russian Empire, when Poland entered it. And it will become clear what the Russians are unhappy with. "They gave Poland independence, they immediately attacked, taking advantage of the civil war."
      Poland of that period is called the Commonwealth, because to call it the Republic of Poland, identifying with the so-called. The "Polish People's Republic" is inconvenient. But it seems to me that everything needs to be called by its proper names. It would be easier for everyone.
      In Soviet times, Poles were imposed on us as fraternal people. And when did they behave fraternally? Always attacked at the first opportunity. If it were not for the defeat of the Tatars in the 14th century, the entire Moscow principality would have captured. They gave them autonomy - rebellion, gave independence - war. A union was imposed on Western Russians. But in the empire they could be really brothers, and even almost elders.
      1. Yanka
        Yanka 29 February 2016 14: 45
        0
        Quote: Uncle VasyaSayapin
        In Soviet times, Poles were imposed on us as fraternal people. And when did they behave fraternally? Always attacked at the first opportunity. If it were not for the defeat of the Tatars in the 14th century, the entire Moscow principality would have captured. They gave them autonomy - rebellion, gave independence - war. A union was imposed on Western Russians. But in the empire they could be really brothers, and even almost elders.

        So maybe that's the point? No need to impose anything on anyone - there will be fewer problems;) The consent of the Grand Duchy of the Union of Lublin was due to the long and disastrous Livonian War. By the way, with Moscow. And before that, the Krevsky Union existed for more than two hundred years, which at one time put an end to possible integration processes with the Moscow principality. At that time (at the time of the conclusion of the Union of Lublin), Poland was culturally and civilizationally closer to the population of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania than anyone else. And now you are discussing this as some kind of betrayal by the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Poland. Why - it is not clear.
  16. CB activist
    CB activist 28 February 2016 22: 49
    +3
    I respect Polish valor. But I strongly disapprove of Polish foreign policy (in the 19th century, in the beginning of the 20th, and now in the 21st century). All of her is a complete adventure. All she wants is one thing - the restoration of the Commonwealth, but this is impossible. Polish brothers, stop fooling around, look at the world soundly, look at the role that Poland plays with its American patrons, this is a disastrous role for Poland.
    1. Yanka
      Yanka 29 February 2016 12: 12
      0
      You don’t think that rhetoric in the style of “stop fooling, look at the world soundly” and “all of it wants the same thing - restoration of the Commonwealth” can be easily applied to modern Russia, if “Rzeczpospolita” is replaced by “USSR” or "The Russian Empire"?
      1. Alex
        Alex 29 February 2016 14: 57
        +3
        Quote: Yanka
        You don’t think that rhetoric in the style of “stop fooling, look at the world soundly” and “all of it wants the same thing - restoration of the Commonwealth” can be easily applied to modern Russia, if “Rzeczpospolita” is replaced by “USSR” or "The Russian Empire"?

        The elderberry garden, and the uncle in Kiev. This is to ensure that the Soviet Union did not very much strive to restore the Russian Empire. Then, until now (do not forget: the Russian Federation is the official legal successor of the USSR) there would be claims not only to Poland, but also to Ukraine, Transcaucasia, Finland, your Belarus, Turkestan, a good piece of Iran-Persia.
        1. Yanka
          Yanka 29 February 2016 15: 03
          +1
          Quote: Alex
          The elderberry garden, and the uncle in Kiev. This is to ensure that the Soviet Union did not very much strive to restore the Russian Empire. Then, until now (do not forget: the Russian Federation is the official legal successor of the USSR) there would be claims not only to Poland, but also to Ukraine, Transcaucasia, Finland, your Belarus, Turkestan, a good piece of Iran-Persia.

          I agree, but Poland also has no complaints. Neither to Belarus, nor to Ukraine, but to no one. Yes, some comrades express such thoughts, but there are enough such comrades in any country. And in Poland, and with us, and with you. I believe that history should remain history. When a country begins to realize its ambitions, based on the fact that something happened somewhere else unfairly towards it, it turns into a fooling of its own population and populism. We live in the 21st century and must proceed from the current state of things, including borders.
          1. Alex
            Alex 1 March 2016 11: 50
            +2
            Quote: Yanka
            I agree, but Poland also has no complaints. Neither to Belarus, nor to Ukraine, but to no one.

            Even as it does. And to Belarus, and to Ukraine (especially now), and even to Lithuania (though very carefully and quietly, I would say - in private). And he is not ashamed to express them even at the state level. I am already silent about their history textbooks. In them, the western regions of Ukraine and Belarus are referred to only as rejected or occupied territories. Even the map of Poland is shown with the borders of 1939, where the "Eastern Kresses" are shaded. The Japanese depict the "northern territories" in much the same way. This analogy is not quite "some comrades".
      2. CB activist
        CB activist 29 February 2016 18: 28
        -1
        It seems to me (moreover, I am sure) that the rhetoric in the style of "stop fooling, look at the world sensibly" can be easily applied to the United States. They are making a fool there to the fullest, making a fool is dangerous, just now the US created ISIS (Camp Bucca camp in Iraq). And they want all the same - world domination.
        1. Yanka
          Yanka 29 February 2016 20: 54
          0
          Quote: SV Activist
          It seems to me (moreover, I am sure) that the rhetoric in the style of "stop fooling, look at the world sensibly" can be easily applied to the United States. They are making a fool there to the fullest, making a fool is dangerous, just now the US created ISIS (Camp Bucca camp in Iraq). And they want all the same - world domination.

          I apologize, but in our discussion, apparently, there are no representatives of the United States :) And indeed, they are discussing the relations between the Commonwealth and Russia.
          1. CB activist
            CB activist 1 March 2016 01: 37
            0
            An attempt to explain the relations between Russia and Poland (that 200 years ago, now) without taking into account the influence of the great powers leads to an absurd, erroneous result, to such a result that can not be practically used. This rule (the rule of accounting for powerful third forces) is valid from the moment when the Commonwealth ceased to exist, i.e. from the moment when Poland ceased to be the most powerful state in Europe.

            Poland must stop being an instrument in the wrong hands and a tool in the wrong geopolitical plans. I am surprised at how readily the roles of the Baltic countries, Poland, and Ukraine assigned to the Americans take on themselves. And they don’t think about the consequences!

            If you, Yanka, and others like you come to power in the Republic of Belarus, you too will enthusiastically accept the role assigned to you from the Americans without thinking about the consequences.
            It is not necessary to dissemble that in our discussion there are no representatives of the United States, this representative is you. You, Yanka, criticize Russia in a stereotyped manner, as prescribed by the role, and when you are pointed to the Director organizing all this yapping, you awkwardly shield him. By the way, it is the role that prescribes you to apply a double standard - to point out the "imperial ambitions" of Russia and not to see the REAL imperial ambitions of the United States point-blank.
            1. Yanka
              Yanka 1 March 2016 10: 06
              +1
              Quote: SV Activist
              An attempt to explain the relations between Russia and Poland (that 200 years ago, now) without taking into account the influence of the great powers leads to an absurd, erroneous result, to such a result that can not be practically used. This rule (the rule of accounting for powerful third forces) is valid from the moment when the Commonwealth ceased to exist, i.e. from the moment when Poland ceased to be the most powerful state in Europe.

              Those. from your point of view, after the Nazi troops occupied Belarus, the partisans fought against the fascist occupiers because "powerful third forces" forced them to do this? The situation is similar to the situation after the occupation of the lands of the Commonwealth of Russia, Prussia and Austria, among other things. And in general, it is similar to any occupation at any moment in history.
              1. CB activist
                CB activist 1 March 2016 20: 07
                -1
                Yanka, you simply do not know, it is difficult for you to realize and accept that the Belarusian partisans were Soviet people, the USSR was their state, the USSR was not a "powerful third force" for them. The Belarusians fought not only in partisan detachments, but also in the ranks of the Red Army, on a general basis, because they were not foreigners in the USSR. Accordingly, it never entered anyone's head to create national military units and formations out of them, and in such a status "force" them to fight against fascism.

                Y. Pilsudsky was going to fight the USSR, relying on a powerful third of the force. No one forced him; he himself was ready to place Poland at the disposal of these forces as a junior partner.
                1. Yanka
                  Yanka 3 March 2016 00: 00
                  0
                  Quote: SV Activist
                  Yanka, you simply do not know, it is difficult for you to realize and accept that the Belarusian partisans were Soviet people, the USSR was their state, the USSR was not a "powerful third force" for them. The Belarusians fought not only in partisan detachments, but also in the ranks of the Red Army, on a general basis, because they were not foreigners in the USSR. Accordingly, it never entered anyone's head to create national military units and formations out of them, and in such a status "force" them to fight against fascism.

                  In my opinion, you do not know that we are talking about uprisings in the territories of the Commonwealth, which half a century ago were forcibly annexed to Russia. Occupation -> subsequent uprisings and riots. And there are some third forces here? The example of the partisans was given purely as an example of the actions of the population in the occupied territories. I’m telling you that the conversation about some "third forces" is here neither to the village nor to the city. Or, in your opinion, the Belarusian partisans fought the invaders because they were good, and the Poles because they were bad? Are the Poles second-class people?
  17. Cartalon
    Cartalon 29 February 2016 22: 59
    +1
    Well, in general, to issue claims based on the fact that when something happened, beloved Polish occupation, but in general, in terms of genetics, Russians and Poles are almost no different from each other, the only difference is faith and the rejection of Russian Slavic mess in the state building after the Horde yoke, for due to which Russia, in contrast to all other Slavs, did not lose sovereignty
  18. Yanka
    Yanka 29 February 2016 23: 21
    0
    Quote: Cartalon
    Well, actually give out claims on the basis of what once happened, a favorite Polish occupation

    What did you get it from? :)
    1. Cartalon
      Cartalon 1 March 2016 00: 35
      +2
      After reading dozens of Polish articles on the topic of Russian-Polish relations, on the basis of which, you must repent of the wild pits to the grave.
      1. Yanka
        Yanka 1 March 2016 10: 08
        0
        Quote: Cartalon
        After reading dozens of Polish articles on the topic of Russian-Polish relations, on the basis of which, you must repent of the wild pits to the grave.

        I agree, perhaps. Modern Poland is a bad example here :)
  19. Waciak
    Waciak 1 March 2016 11: 30
    +1
    Quote: Cartalon

    I agree, perhaps. Modern Poland is a bad example here :)


    Unfortunately, but here I am forced to admit that in Polish society the spirit of Russianness is constantly scary. This follows from our common history because it is difficult to love a neighbor who contributed to the liquidation of the Polish state and then bloodyly suppressed the appearance in 1830 and 1863. By the way, rebel a huge number of the population was resettled in Siberia creating unimaginable dramas of all Polish families. All this is true and surely there were many other reasons for mutual reluctance, however, over the course of a few years, it becomes obvious that these mutual antagonisms are expediently fixed and strengthened through media propaganda and, what’s funny, through politicians submissive to this propaganda. It is this distinctive feature of the politics of Western states in today's world that the main tone of reality is given primarily by the media. Politicians, on the other hand, seem to have no other choice and are adapting themselves to media propaganda. Public opinion is driven by persistent lies and a blockade of information that contradicts these lies. This does a lot of harm and reinforces the negative position of the Poles towards the Russians, however, there is also a significant part of society that is aware that this is a game in which the Polish nation is only a pawn. Despite all this, the Polish Internet interlocutor turns out to be a stupid nationalistic troll - there is no other way out if you just look at him because he is not a representative of the entire Polish state. Such people are simply crippled and not out of their own guilt. The important thing is that among decent ordinary people there are more and more people who think reasonably, which can be seen in the comments on the topic related to Russia on the leading web portals in Poland. And then contrary to the obvious presentation of these articles which these comments concern.
    We will never love each other. It would be nice if we just figured out - and here the role is for us - and a drop hollows a rock. hi
  20. Waciak
    Waciak 1 March 2016 12: 51
    +2
    And I would also like to say that history should also be discussed in order to recognize the views of the second side. It is not supposed to bristle at the same time if these views differ unusually than ours. The historiography of each state familiar with internal use will repeatedly conclude decently idealization, and patriotism alone tells us to think about our history rather well. We may consequently be surprised if the other side sees the same event differently or presents many such circumstances about which we know nothing from our perspective. The most important thing is not to mind the facts, but opinions about historical events should simply be taken as a look with which you can argue, but do not belong violently against it. Views are part of our distinction and do not mean right now that we do not respect someone.
    1. andj61
      andj61 1 March 2016 13: 55
      +1
      Quote: Waciak
      Views are part of our distinction and do not mean right now that we do not respect someone.

      Totally agree with you! But in reality everything is not so simple. At school, I was sure that the Poles are our brothers: this is how we were raised in the USSR. But as a student, he talked with the Poles - and was surprised to learn that they don't like Russians - to put it mildly - very much. And they do not hide their views. And at that time we were very close allies! We constantly had Polish films on TV "Four Tankmen and a Dog", "The Stake Is More Than Life" by J. Kloss, etc. We were taught that Poles are our brothers! But the reality was different ...
      Although all the misunderstandings between our peoples and countries are a thing of the past, this is history. And it was thanks to the USSR, thanks to Stalin's perseverance - neither the British nor the Americans wanted this - Poland received the large territories that were part of Germany - along with houses, factories, farms, but completely without a population: all Germans were evicted from there. Wasn’t this a good compensation for the lost lands of Western Ukraine and Western Belarus?
      In any case, this is history. But the poor attitude of the Poles towards the Russians remains. And the opinions of Russians here, on the site, very often precisely because people have already come across this from the Poles.
    2. Alex
      Alex 1 March 2016 14: 02
      +2
      Quote: Waciak
      and patriotism alone tells us to think about our history rather well.

      Patriotism (Greek πατριώτης - compatriot, πατρίς - fatherland) is a moral and political principle, a social feeling, the content of which is the love of the fatherland and the willingness to sacrifice your private interests for the benefit of the interests of the fatherland.
      Wikipedia (C)

      Patriotism tells you to love your homeland and be proud of it, and not lie and distort history. We teach children "don't lie", "it's better to be honest than to lie and look stupid", etc., but all these moral values ​​instantly evaporate like morning fog when it comes to ambition, territorial claims or just banal national envy. And this is where all the methods are good: falsification of facts, suppression, outright lies. But where is patriotism?
  21. Waciak
    Waciak 1 March 2016 15: 02
    +1
    The statehood of Poland has a thousand-year-old and rich tradition. Poland as a state also existed in 1939, a rally is some kind of strange assertion that thanks to Stalin, Poland after 1945 generally exists, because Stalin was so generous that he allowed us to maintain our own statehood. What is the text at all?
    I personally understand the dedication and contribution of the Soviet Union to the liberation of Poland, and I especially remember the sacrifices made by Soviet soldiers - but I do not confuse this with attributing to Stalin some kind of divine personality. Stalin was a pragmatic politician, probably also a patriot, but one cannot silence the fact that he was also a tyrant without human feelings in this, especially for his own nation. On September 17, 1939, Stalin - one way or another - annexed half of Poland's territory to the USSR. I made it "the right of the stronger" and you can dress it in beautiful phrases.
    In 1945, with the "right of the stronger", Stalin simply pushed Poland to the west and the Poles had nothing to say here. Stalin did it in his own business, as in this way he "legalized" the annexation of the lands taken from Poland on September 17, 1939 to the USSR. Then such "happiness" of Poland by force does not have to be forced to like the Pole. It has its positive and negative sides. To this second belongs the fears of the Poles about the tendency of revanjism from the German side which may arise in the future. One way or another, Poland and the Poles took note of the need for functioning in the new reality, and I think that a reasonable person in Poland today does not think about changing anything if the territorial form is in use. It falls out, however, if only the Russians realized that Stalin would not arouse the least sympathy in the Poles - in order to express it most with analysis.
    1. andj61
      andj61 1 March 2016 16: 03
      +1
      Quote: Waciak
      Then such "happiness" of Poland by force does not have to be forced to like the Pole. It has its positive and negative sides. To this second belongs the fears of the Poles about the tendency of revanjism from the German side which may arise in the future.

      Germany is now completely different from what it used to be. None of the serious politicians can even utter a word in terms of revising the outcome of the war. And in terms of combat qualities, Germany needs to be wary of Poland, and not vice versa. bully
      In addition, there is a small chance to change reality: Western Ukraine has been a part of Poland for a long time, it is quite possible that it will ask to return - they have long sought to "enter Europe" by any means. So the city of Lvov, founded by the Russian prince, has a chance to become Lemberg again. However, I don't think Galicia will be a good acquisition for Poland. winked
    2. Operator
      Operator 1 March 2016 16: 56
      0
      In 1945, the Soviet Union, represented by J.V. Stalin, created a Polish state from the German governorship-general, and did not "simply push Poland to the west."

      The Polish state did not exist since September 1939 and, moreover, according to the Anglo-Saxons it should not have existed after 1945 (see the 1940 Declaration on the establishment of the ChSPF).

      In connection with the absence of the Polish state, following the WWII results, the Soviet Union did not have to legalize anything - there was no one to make claims. And now there is nobody - the Polish People’s Republic of the 1945 model of the year was not the assignee of the Republic of Poland of the 1939 model of the year.

      In any case, Polish claims against the Russian Federation are completely unclear - the western territories of Belarus and Ukraine are not part of the Russian Federation. Here on these your neighbors and run over.

      By the way, the German state, the German Reich, was first completely liquidated by dividing into four protectorates - the zones of occupation, and then created from scratch in the form of as many as two states (without Strasbourg, Sudeten, Silesia and Prussia). Germany and East Germany were not the legal successors of the German Reich.

      If you recall this story, then Poland with spheroconic claims to the Russian Federation may play out before its next section laughing
      1. andj61
        andj61 1 March 2016 18: 55
        0
        Quote: Operator
        By the way, the German state, the German Reich, was first completely liquidated by dividing into four protectorates - the zones of occupation, and then created from scratch in the form of as many as two states (without Strasbourg, Sudeten, Silesia and Prussia). Germany and East Germany were not the legal successors of the German Reich.

        You still forgot to mention the Republic of Austria, it also entered the Reich, however, like the Czech Republic, but the latter was without the Sudetenland and as a protectorate. hi
        1. Operator
          Operator 1 March 2016 19: 39
          -1
          You are absolutely right.

          Clarification - the division of the remnants of the German Reich was made into two states (Germany and East Germany) and one protectorate (West Berlin).

          And which is characteristic - none of the Germans, unlike the Poles, buzzes laughing
  22. Warrior2015
    Warrior2015 4 March 2016 18: 20
    +2
    Quote: moskowit
    It was a rebellion. The Kingdom of Poland was part of the Russian Empire.
    As already correctly noted, the uprising is nevertheless, because legally Nicholas, the king of Poland waged war against Nicholas, the emperor of All-Russia ... wassat

    Quote: Aleksander
    At the strategy level, "Warsaw was taken by storm, the rebels were defeated, just six months after the battle at Grochow." At the tactical level, Diebitsch won:
    No, this is the same as if Napoleon, having won at Borodin (no matter how bitter it seemed to us), would not have entered Moscow, but would have retreated to Smolensk, and his rearguard corps would be smashed by our Cossacks.

    Suvorov, having taken Prague (the "Threshold" of Warsaw), took Warsaw to surrender, and no one argues with this. And Diebitsch, having conducted some battle at Grochów with an unclear result, did not take Warsaw and thereby allowed the flame of the uprising to flare up so that in several subsequent battles part of his corps was defeated, and the Russian Empire cost a lot to suppress the uprising.

    Quote: avt
    Did he form the old guard from them?

    So yes, oddly enough, did you know that the Shevolger-Lancers regiment of the Poniatovsky corps was part of the "Old Guard" Bonopartia, and the regiment of "Vistula grenadiers" was part of the "Middle Guard"?

    Certainly not the most combat-ready, but really one of the coolest ... Read about Somosierra and about the personal assessments of the Poles as a "little Corsican".

    Quote: andj61
    Yes, they all knew Latin - as a distinctive feature of the "Sarmatians" (it is not clear why, however, the Sarmatians), but this was the end of their ties with Europe.
    God forbid, I am not a supporter of the Poles. But genetically and anthropologically, there is a historically correct link in "Sarmatism"! The skulls of the Sarmatians recovered back in the 1970s-1990s from burials (at least that means parts of the clans in their union) are extremely reminiscent of the skulls of precisely part of the Poles and partly a small number of Czechs.