The Unz Review • An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersRussian Reaction Blog
Maddison Project 2020: New Historical GDP Estimates
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Forgot to blog about it at the time, but latest version of the Maddison Project was released a month ago.

In my last post (on the MDP 2018), I noted that many of the results for Russia were very strange:

The USSR was also supposedly slightly richer than Italy, at the level of countries such as Austria and Finland, and only marginally behind the UK, France, and Germany as late as the early 1980s.

The new figures make a lot more sense, to be frank.

USSR/RSFSR-RF GDPcc as % of American, 1885-2018.

Russia is currently at 43%/45% of US GDPcc (PPP) acc. IMF (2020) and World Bank (2019) estimates respectively, so that’s a good match at the end.

That’s unlike MDP 2013, which put it at just around 15% in the early 2010s, which while accurate only in nominal terms, is not what these historical comparisons are about (i.e. proxying living standards according to a theoretical dollar that maintains constant purchasing power across both space and time).

Nor however is it like the MDP 2018, which had USSR/RSFSR GDPcc reaching an implausible 60%+ of US GDP – almost converging it with a number of West European economies – during the 1960s.

The highest academic estimates of Soviet GDPcc as a percentage of American I have seen prior to this are 50%, and that’s of course not adjusting for goods in centrally planned economies being less well tailored to consumer preferences (“consumers would sacrifice 12-15% of their income to get in exchange the possibility of choice in a free market” – Jose Luis Ricon, citing research).

A peak at 40% of the US level is, again, much more plausible.

USSR/RSFSR-RF GDPcc relative to other “catchers up”, 1885-2018.

This, again, is much more plausible than the MDP 2018, in which the USSR was level pegging with the likes of Austria, Japan, Finland, and even the UK during the 1970s:

***

So, best comprehensive estimate of historical GDPcc to date?

Unfortunately, while the modern data is more plausible, at least as pertains to Russia, there are a number of very bizarre findings.

Italy maintains a GDPcc of $2500-$3000 (even more on some years) through to where its series begins in 1311. This is nonsensical, considering that the “base” for a Malthusian society – as almost all societies were before the Industrial Revolution – is pegged at around $400 or $500. Rich city states fed by agricultural surpluses from the hinterlands or overseas might be higher, but only $1,000-$1,500 range at best. It also implies some other strange things, such as that the UK only reached Italy’s medieval per capita levels c.1800, and the Soviet Union – in the mid-1930s.

 
Hide 54 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Please keep off topic posts to the current Open Thread.

    If you are new to my work, start here.

    Commenting rules. Please note that anonymous comments are not allowed.

  2. Further back you go less meaningful are the comparisons. People in villages – even in the early 20th century – lived in completely different ‘economy‘. Most had housing at no cost and little ‘cash‘. Comparing it beyond certain point is silly, nobody was living poorer than e.g. Irish peasants (70% of population), no GNP numbers can ever capture that.

    A few points about GNP in the 20th century:
    – Czechia living standards were higher than Italy (incl. Italian south and islands), Spain and rural France, but below US and the advanced parts of the West. The ratio was more like 80% and not 40-60% as shown. The huge amount of free (=non-monetized) consumption needs to be included. Education, health care, most vacations, spas, subsidised basics, free housing after a certain wait, free sports, culture, etc… there is no way any Western record keeping can account for it, or even understand it. The miracle after 1989 was largely a function of simply monetizing all those activities so they were captured. Today everyone agrees that Prague is a richer city than Madrid, Rome, etc…

    – Poland has always been 15-20% poorer, this is key to understanding the peculiar Polish slave mentality towards the West, they are still doing it. Poor, desperate people are easy to buy.

    – Austria’s higher GNP was not a post-WWII phenomenon, Austria was already very rich in 1945. A lot of it had to do with WWII plunder of neighbours as Nazis, they kept most of the gains. It has little to do with so called ‘different systems’, Austria was aggressively socialist on 1950-90 period, on many ways more so then the actual ‘socialist’ countries.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Beckow


    Poland has always been 15-20% poorer, this is key to understanding the peculiar Polish slave mentality towards the West
     
    Odd comment. It is Poland that resisted the Nazis while Czechia served them, and most recently (alongside Hungary) has successfully stood up to the EU. Czechia has always gone along with whoever was stronger.

    Replies: @mal, @Beckow

    , @AnonGOGO
    @Beckow

    In terms of standards of living and production, Austria was not rich in 1945. It took until 1949 to reach the (rather meager) pre-annexation levels of 1937.

    Out of interest, what did the supposed Nazi loot in Austria consist of? On a side note, I'd wager that Czech "plunder" of ethnic German property was more significant in this regard. Expelling a third of the population while keeping most of their wealth must have led to a pretty significant per-capita wealth increase. Altough much of the beneficial effects of this were probably undone in the long term by voting communists in power.

    Replies: @Beckow

  3. It would seem Italians and other Southern Europeans are simply not evolutionarily adapted to the modern world. In every regard, they seem like a fledgling, dying species.

  4. Italy maintains a GDPcc of $2500-$3000 (even more on some years) through to where its series begins in 1311.

    Keep in mind Italy invented capitalism before it was cool. Venice and Genoa Republics, and North Italy were powerhouses of finance.

    ‘Bank’ concept originates from Italy. This is massively powerful. $3,000 GDP in 1311 would not surprise me at all.

  5. @Beckow
    Further back you go less meaningful are the comparisons. People in villages - even in the early 20th century - lived in completely different 'economy'. Most had housing at no cost and little 'cash'. Comparing it beyond certain point is silly, nobody was living poorer than e.g. Irish peasants (70% of population), no GNP numbers can ever capture that.

    A few points about GNP in the 20th century:
    - Czechia living standards were higher than Italy (incl. Italian south and islands), Spain and rural France, but below US and the advanced parts of the West. The ratio was more like 80% and not 40-60% as shown. The huge amount of free (=non-monetized) consumption needs to be included. Education, health care, most vacations, spas, subsidised basics, free housing after a certain wait, free sports, culture, etc... there is no way any Western record keeping can account for it, or even understand it. The miracle after 1989 was largely a function of simply monetizing all those activities so they were captured. Today everyone agrees that Prague is a richer city than Madrid, Rome, etc...

    - Poland has always been 15-20% poorer, this is key to understanding the peculiar Polish slave mentality towards the West, they are still doing it. Poor, desperate people are easy to buy.

    - Austria's higher GNP was not a post-WWII phenomenon, Austria was already very rich in 1945. A lot of it had to do with WWII plunder of neighbours as Nazis, they kept most of the gains. It has little to do with so called 'different systems', Austria was aggressively socialist on 1950-90 period, on many ways more so then the actual 'socialist' countries.

    Replies: @AP, @AnonGOGO

    Poland has always been 15-20% poorer, this is key to understanding the peculiar Polish slave mentality towards the West

    Odd comment. It is Poland that resisted the Nazis while Czechia served them, and most recently (alongside Hungary) has successfully stood up to the EU. Czechia has always gone along with whoever was stronger.

    • Replies: @mal
    @AP

    Um, Zaolie? :)

    Replies: @AP

    , @Beckow
    @AP

    Poland resisted Nazis for two weeks, then they collapsed and mostly collaborated - when allowed to, same as Czechs. I am not defending Czech behaviour - then or now - there is a complete self-centered sub-national mentality in Czechia and they will roll over for anyone. The key is 'anyone': east, west, Chinese... Poland has a more specific low self-esteem and envy-driven Anglo obsession. Poles have been poorer and more vulnerable. Today in Brussels they again talked big and collapsed - as always.

    Yes, there is something odd about it.

    Replies: @mal, @AP, @AP

  6. @AP
    @Beckow


    Poland has always been 15-20% poorer, this is key to understanding the peculiar Polish slave mentality towards the West
     
    Odd comment. It is Poland that resisted the Nazis while Czechia served them, and most recently (alongside Hungary) has successfully stood up to the EU. Czechia has always gone along with whoever was stronger.

    Replies: @mal, @Beckow

    Um, Zaolie? 🙂

    • Replies: @AP
    @mal

    ??

    Replies: @mal

  7. @mal
    @AP

    Um, Zaolie? :)

    Replies: @AP

    ??

    • Replies: @mal
    @AP

    Poland helped themselves to a part of Czechoslovakia (so did Hungary as I recall) and made certain Austrian with a mustache look good.

    Replies: @AP

  8. @AP
    @mal

    ??

    Replies: @mal

    Poland helped themselves to a part of Czechoslovakia (so did Hungary as I recall) and made certain Austrian with a mustache look good.

    • Replies: @AP
    @mal

    This was an example of Poland looking after itself rather that being servile towards the West. Unlike Czechia which meekly surrendered and afterwards quietly and steadfastly served Germany, Poland fought the Germans bitterly. And today it is Poland and Hungary, not Czechia, who successfully stood off against the EU.

    Replies: @mal

  9. @AP
    @Beckow


    Poland has always been 15-20% poorer, this is key to understanding the peculiar Polish slave mentality towards the West
     
    Odd comment. It is Poland that resisted the Nazis while Czechia served them, and most recently (alongside Hungary) has successfully stood up to the EU. Czechia has always gone along with whoever was stronger.

    Replies: @mal, @Beckow

    Poland resisted Nazis for two weeks, then they collapsed and mostly collaborated – when allowed to, same as Czechs. I am not defending Czech behaviour – then or now – there is a complete self-centered sub-national mentality in Czechia and they will roll over for anyone. The key is ‘anyone‘: east, west, Chinese… Poland has a more specific low self-esteem and envy-driven Anglo obsession. Poles have been poorer and more vulnerable. Today in Brussels they again talked big and collapsed – as always.

    Yes, there is something odd about it.

    • Replies: @mal
    @Beckow

    For what it's worth, Pz35t was my favorite Tier 2 tank in World of Tanks, and I seal clubbed a plenty with it. So Czech-German cooperation was not for nothing.

    , @AP
    @Beckow


    Poland resisted Nazis for two weeks, then they collapsed and mostly collaborated – when allowed to, same as Czechs
     
    Poland fought until it was taken over, then engaged in extremely bloody and futile resistance. Czechia didn’t fight, and served very loyally. The differences were stark.

    Today in Brussels they again talked big and collapsed – as always
     
    It is Merkel who backed down in the face of Polish resistance. She got some face-saving words that are useless in practice.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/opinion-hungary-and-poland-win-at-merkels-last-eu-summit/ar-BB1bQJiu

    Opinion: Hungary and Poland win at Merkel's last EU summit

    Fellow EU leaders gave in to Poland and Hungary on rule of law in order to save the EU budget and coronavirus stimulus package, DW's Barbara Wesel writes.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-12-10/merkel-s-deal-with-hungary-and-poland-is-a-compromise-too-far

    Merkel’s Deal With Hungary and Poland Is a Compromise Too Far

    For the sake of an important budget and stimulus deal, the European Union is close to selling its democratic soul.



    Angela Merkel has done it again: She’s “merkeled.” In German, that neologism means to hedge, delay, dilute and fudge — as the eponymous German chancellor is wont to do. There’s much to be said for this elastic style of politics, especially in the labyrinthine European Union. Merkel’s latest fudge, however, will weaken and undermine the bloc, and tarnish her legacy.

    The compromise was struck between her government, which currently holds the EU’s rotating presidency, and two rogue member states, Hungary and Poland. They’ve been threatening to veto the bloc’s seven-year budget and a pandemic recovery fund, worth a combined 1.8 trillion euros ($2.2 trillion). Budapest and Warsaw were holding the package hostage because they wanted to remove a mechanism that ties EU funds to observance of the rule of law.

    Here’s the fudge: The mechanism is still there in the text, unaltered, so the EU can say it stayed firm. But it’s been been neutered with additional “interpretations” so that it’ll almost certainly never be applied. That in turn allows Hungary and Poland to declare victory and let the EU’s money flow — not least, to them....

    In a first round of compromise, the wording was diluted so that the mechanism became almost useless. It now applies only to those rule-of-law breaches that directly corrupt the use of money from Brussels. It no longer has any bearing on all other violations, from cherry-picking judges to harassing journalists, academics or opponents.

    Even this gesture from Brussels, astonishingly, wasn’t enough to appease Budapest and Warsaw. Hence Merkel’s final fudge: On top of the mechanism’s previous dilution, there’s now also the prospect of indefinite delay. The clause won’t kick in until Hungary and Poland get a chance to take it to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Those judges will take their sweet time, and a decision isn’t expected until mid-2022. Conveniently, this will come after Hungary’s parliamentary election, slated for early 2022.

    Viktor Orban, Hungary’s prime minister, can therefore keep playing his cynical game of pocketing the European cash that buoys his submerging economy while running a quasi-autocracy. His country is a big net beneficiary of the EU budget, and stands to get another 6.2 billion euros from the pandemic stimulus fund he’s so graciously allowing now. Poland can expect even more: It’s the single biggest net recipient of European money, and would get 23.1 billion euros on top from the stimulus.

    Some reports suggest that there may have been additional understandings in the compromise. Even after the Luxembourg court approves the rule-of-law mechanism, Hungary and Poland can probably appeal or deflect decisions, thus stretching them out forever. Portugal, which will take over the EU presidency on Jan. 1, may also bring the separate Article 7 proceedings to an official close.

    Replies: @Beckow

    , @AP
    @Beckow


    Poland resisted Nazis for two weeks, then they collapsed and mostly collaborated – when allowed to, same as Czechs
     
    Poland fought until it was taken over, then engaged in extremely bloody and futile resistance. Czechia didn’t fight, and served very loyally. The differences were stark.

    Today in Brussels they again talked big and collapsed – as always
     
    It is Merkel who backed down in the face of Polish resistance. She got some face-saving words that are useless in practice.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/opinion-hungary-and-poland-win-at-merkels-last-eu-summit/ar-BB1bQJiu

    Opinion: Hungary and Poland win at Merkel's last EU summit

    Fellow EU leaders gave in to Poland and Hungary on rule of law in order to save the EU budget and coronavirus stimulus package, DW's Barbara Wesel writes.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-12-10/merkel-s-deal-with-hungary-and-poland-is-a-compromise-too-far

    Merkel’s Deal With Hungary and Poland Is a Compromise Too Far

    For the sake of an important budget and stimulus deal, the European Union is close to selling its democratic soul.



    Angela Merkel has done it again: She’s “merkeled.” In German, that neologism means to hedge, delay, dilute and fudge — as the eponymous German chancellor is wont to do. There’s much to be said for this elastic style of politics, especially in the labyrinthine European Union. Merkel’s latest fudge, however, will weaken and undermine the bloc, and tarnish her legacy.

    The compromise was struck between her government, which currently holds the EU’s rotating presidency, and two rogue member states, Hungary and Poland. They’ve been threatening to veto the bloc’s seven-year budget and a pandemic recovery fund, worth a combined 1.8 trillion euros ($2.2 trillion). Budapest and Warsaw were holding the package hostage because they wanted to remove a mechanism that ties EU funds to observance of the rule of law.

    Here’s the fudge: The mechanism is still there in the text, unaltered, so the EU can say it stayed firm. But it’s been been neutered with additional “interpretations” so that it’ll almost certainly never be applied. That in turn allows Hungary and Poland to declare victory and let the EU’s money flow — not least, to them....

    In a first round of compromise, the wording was diluted so that the mechanism became almost useless. It now applies only to those rule-of-law breaches that directly corrupt the use of money from Brussels. It no longer has any bearing on all other violations, from cherry-picking judges to harassing journalists, academics or opponents.

    Even this gesture from Brussels, astonishingly, wasn’t enough to appease Budapest and Warsaw. Hence Merkel’s final fudge: On top of the mechanism’s previous dilution, there’s now also the prospect of indefinite delay. The clause won’t kick in until Hungary and Poland get a chance to take it to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Those judges will take their sweet time, and a decision isn’t expected until mid-2022. Conveniently, this will come after Hungary’s parliamentary election, slated for early 2022.

    Viktor Orban, Hungary’s prime minister, can therefore keep playing his cynical game of pocketing the European cash that buoys his submerging economy while running a quasi-autocracy. His country is a big net beneficiary of the EU budget, and stands to get another 6.2 billion euros from the pandemic stimulus fund he’s so graciously allowing now. Poland can expect even more: It’s the single biggest net recipient of European money, and would get 23.1 billion euros on top from the stimulus.

    Some reports suggest that there may have been additional understandings in the compromise. Even after the Luxembourg court approves the rule-of-law mechanism, Hungary and Poland can probably appeal or deflect decisions, thus stretching them out forever. Portugal, which will take over the EU presidency on Jan. 1, may also bring the separate Article 7 proceedings to an official close.
  10. @mal
    @AP

    Poland helped themselves to a part of Czechoslovakia (so did Hungary as I recall) and made certain Austrian with a mustache look good.

    Replies: @AP

    This was an example of Poland looking after itself rather that being servile towards the West. Unlike Czechia which meekly surrendered and afterwards quietly and steadfastly served Germany, Poland fought the Germans bitterly. And today it is Poland and Hungary, not Czechia, who successfully stood off against the EU.

    • Replies: @mal
    @AP

    Sure, I agree with you about Poland looking for herself. But don't you see how that's a scummy move from Czechoslovakia point of view?

    It is true that the main mover and shaker was the mustached Austrian. But it was Polish action that made Czechoslovakian position hopeless. So complaining about the lack of action by the Czechs from the Polish seems silly as they were the ones who prevented this action in the first place.

  11. @Beckow
    @AP

    Poland resisted Nazis for two weeks, then they collapsed and mostly collaborated - when allowed to, same as Czechs. I am not defending Czech behaviour - then or now - there is a complete self-centered sub-national mentality in Czechia and they will roll over for anyone. The key is 'anyone': east, west, Chinese... Poland has a more specific low self-esteem and envy-driven Anglo obsession. Poles have been poorer and more vulnerable. Today in Brussels they again talked big and collapsed - as always.

    Yes, there is something odd about it.

    Replies: @mal, @AP, @AP

    For what it’s worth, Pz35t was my favorite Tier 2 tank in World of Tanks, and I seal clubbed a plenty with it. So Czech-German cooperation was not for nothing.

  12. @Beckow
    @AP

    Poland resisted Nazis for two weeks, then they collapsed and mostly collaborated - when allowed to, same as Czechs. I am not defending Czech behaviour - then or now - there is a complete self-centered sub-national mentality in Czechia and they will roll over for anyone. The key is 'anyone': east, west, Chinese... Poland has a more specific low self-esteem and envy-driven Anglo obsession. Poles have been poorer and more vulnerable. Today in Brussels they again talked big and collapsed - as always.

    Yes, there is something odd about it.

    Replies: @mal, @AP, @AP

    Poland resisted Nazis for two weeks, then they collapsed and mostly collaborated – when allowed to, same as Czechs

    Poland fought until it was taken over, then engaged in extremely bloody and futile resistance. Czechia didn’t fight, and served very loyally. The differences were stark.

    Today in Brussels they again talked big and collapsed – as always

    It is Merkel who backed down in the face of Polish resistance. She got some face-saving words that are useless in practice.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/opinion-hungary-and-poland-win-at-merkels-last-eu-summit/ar-BB1bQJiu

    Opinion: Hungary and Poland win at Merkel’s last EU summit

    Fellow EU leaders gave in to Poland and Hungary on rule of law in order to save the EU budget and coronavirus stimulus package, DW’s Barbara Wesel writes.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-12-10/merkel-s-deal-with-hungary-and-poland-is-a-compromise-too-far

    Merkel’s Deal With Hungary and Poland Is a Compromise Too Far

    For the sake of an important budget and stimulus deal, the European Union is close to selling its democratic soul.

    [MORE]

    Angela Merkel has done it again: She’s “merkeled.” In German, that neologism means to hedge, delay, dilute and fudge — as the eponymous German chancellor is wont to do. There’s much to be said for this elastic style of politics, especially in the labyrinthine European Union. Merkel’s latest fudge, however, will weaken and undermine the bloc, and tarnish her legacy.

    The compromise was struck between her government, which currently holds the EU’s rotating presidency, and two rogue member states, Hungary and Poland. They’ve been threatening to veto the bloc’s seven-year budget and a pandemic recovery fund, worth a combined 1.8 trillion euros ($2.2 trillion). Budapest and Warsaw were holding the package hostage because they wanted to remove a mechanism that ties EU funds to observance of the rule of law.

    Here’s the fudge: The mechanism is still there in the text, unaltered, so the EU can say it stayed firm. But it’s been been neutered with additional “interpretations” so that it’ll almost certainly never be applied. That in turn allows Hungary and Poland to declare victory and let the EU’s money flow — not least, to them….

    In a first round of compromise, the wording was diluted so that the mechanism became almost useless. It now applies only to those rule-of-law breaches that directly corrupt the use of money from Brussels. It no longer has any bearing on all other violations, from cherry-picking judges to harassing journalists, academics or opponents.

    Even this gesture from Brussels, astonishingly, wasn’t enough to appease Budapest and Warsaw. Hence Merkel’s final fudge: On top of the mechanism’s previous dilution, there’s now also the prospect of indefinite delay. The clause won’t kick in until Hungary and Poland get a chance to take it to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Those judges will take their sweet time, and a decision isn’t expected until mid-2022. Conveniently, this will come after Hungary’s parliamentary election, slated for early 2022.

    Viktor Orban, Hungary’s prime minister, can therefore keep playing his cynical game of pocketing the European cash that buoys his submerging economy while running a quasi-autocracy. His country is a big net beneficiary of the EU budget, and stands to get another 6.2 billion euros from the pandemic stimulus fund he’s so graciously allowing now. Poland can expect even more: It’s the single biggest net recipient of European money, and would get 23.1 billion euros on top from the stimulus.

    Some reports suggest that there may have been additional understandings in the compromise. Even after the Luxembourg court approves the rule-of-law mechanism, Hungary and Poland can probably appeal or deflect decisions, thus stretching them out forever. Portugal, which will take over the EU presidency on Jan. 1, may also bring the separate Article 7 proceedings to an official close.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @AP


    ...Poland fought until it was taken over
     
    Yes, for two weeks. I said that above, what are you arguing with?

    That was also less than a year after Poles enthusiastically attacked Czechia with Hitler after Munich agreement. What goes around, comes around. Today too.


    ...then engaged in extremely bloody and futile resistance.
     
    It was bloody because the Germans were killing Polish untermensch with a gusto not seen since Ceasar went to France. It was futile, you are right - without the cursed Red Army there would be no Poles left today. The Canadians or Yanks were not coming, too bloody for them. But I am sure they would offer supporting editorials. They always do.

    The mechanism is still there in the text, unaltered, so the EU can say it stayed firm. But it’s been been neutered with additional “interpretations”...
     
    May I introduce you to how it works? The "interpretation" depends on who is doing the "interpreting". It has always been the Western institutions, staffed by loyal - and very liberal - Western appointed officials and judges. They will take their sweet time and prevaricate and then they will rule for Brussels. Always. The fact that the wording stayed the same, with 'rule of law' means that Poland-Hungary folded. They know their betters.

    If you believe that this time it will work differently, that the 'interpretations' will be fair or God forbid side with the outsiders, well, you obviously have not been paying attention. If you put yourself in the just hands of the Brussels 'interpreters' you have already lost...

    Replies: @Supply and Demand, @AP

  13. @AP
    @mal

    This was an example of Poland looking after itself rather that being servile towards the West. Unlike Czechia which meekly surrendered and afterwards quietly and steadfastly served Germany, Poland fought the Germans bitterly. And today it is Poland and Hungary, not Czechia, who successfully stood off against the EU.

    Replies: @mal

    Sure, I agree with you about Poland looking for herself. But don’t you see how that’s a scummy move from Czechoslovakia point of view?

    It is true that the main mover and shaker was the mustached Austrian. But it was Polish action that made Czechoslovakian position hopeless. So complaining about the lack of action by the Czechs from the Polish seems silly as they were the ones who prevented this action in the first place.

  14. @Beckow
    @AP

    Poland resisted Nazis for two weeks, then they collapsed and mostly collaborated - when allowed to, same as Czechs. I am not defending Czech behaviour - then or now - there is a complete self-centered sub-national mentality in Czechia and they will roll over for anyone. The key is 'anyone': east, west, Chinese... Poland has a more specific low self-esteem and envy-driven Anglo obsession. Poles have been poorer and more vulnerable. Today in Brussels they again talked big and collapsed - as always.

    Yes, there is something odd about it.

    Replies: @mal, @AP, @AP

    Poland resisted Nazis for two weeks, then they collapsed and mostly collaborated – when allowed to, same as Czechs

    Poland fought until it was taken over, then engaged in extremely bloody and futile resistance. Czechia didn’t fight, and served very loyally. The differences were stark.

    Today in Brussels they again talked big and collapsed – as always

    It is Merkel who backed down in the face of Polish resistance. She got some face-saving words that are useless in practice.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/opinion-hungary-and-poland-win-at-merkels-last-eu-summit/ar-BB1bQJiu

    Opinion: Hungary and Poland win at Merkel’s last EU summit

    Fellow EU leaders gave in to Poland and Hungary on rule of law in order to save the EU budget and coronavirus stimulus package, DW’s Barbara Wesel writes.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-12-10/merkel-s-deal-with-hungary-and-poland-is-a-compromise-too-far

    Merkel’s Deal With Hungary and Poland Is a Compromise Too Far

    For the sake of an important budget and stimulus deal, the European Union is close to selling its democratic soul.

    [MORE]

    Angela Merkel has done it again: She’s “merkeled.” In German, that neologism means to hedge, delay, dilute and fudge — as the eponymous German chancellor is wont to do. There’s much to be said for this elastic style of politics, especially in the labyrinthine European Union. Merkel’s latest fudge, however, will weaken and undermine the bloc, and tarnish her legacy.

    The compromise was struck between her government, which currently holds the EU’s rotating presidency, and two rogue member states, Hungary and Poland. They’ve been threatening to veto the bloc’s seven-year budget and a pandemic recovery fund, worth a combined 1.8 trillion euros ($2.2 trillion). Budapest and Warsaw were holding the package hostage because they wanted to remove a mechanism that ties EU funds to observance of the rule of law.

    Here’s the fudge: The mechanism is still there in the text, unaltered, so the EU can say it stayed firm. But it’s been been neutered with additional “interpretations” so that it’ll almost certainly never be applied. That in turn allows Hungary and Poland to declare victory and let the EU’s money flow — not least, to them….

    In a first round of compromise, the wording was diluted so that the mechanism became almost useless. It now applies only to those rule-of-law breaches that directly corrupt the use of money from Brussels. It no longer has any bearing on all other violations, from cherry-picking judges to harassing journalists, academics or opponents.

    Even this gesture from Brussels, astonishingly, wasn’t enough to appease Budapest and Warsaw. Hence Merkel’s final fudge: On top of the mechanism’s previous dilution, there’s now also the prospect of indefinite delay. The clause won’t kick in until Hungary and Poland get a chance to take it to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Those judges will take their sweet time, and a decision isn’t expected until mid-2022. Conveniently, this will come after Hungary’s parliamentary election, slated for early 2022.

    Viktor Orban, Hungary’s prime minister, can therefore keep playing his cynical game of pocketing the European cash that buoys his submerging economy while running a quasi-autocracy. His country is a big net beneficiary of the EU budget, and stands to get another 6.2 billion euros from the pandemic stimulus fund he’s so graciously allowing now. Poland can expect even more: It’s the single biggest net recipient of European money, and would get 23.1 billion euros on top from the stimulus.

    Some reports suggest that there may have been additional understandings in the compromise. Even after the Luxembourg court approves the rule-of-law mechanism, Hungary and Poland can probably appeal or deflect decisions, thus stretching them out forever. Portugal, which will take over the EU presidency on Jan. 1, may also bring the separate Article 7 proceedings to an official close.

  15. @AP
    @Beckow


    Poland resisted Nazis for two weeks, then they collapsed and mostly collaborated – when allowed to, same as Czechs
     
    Poland fought until it was taken over, then engaged in extremely bloody and futile resistance. Czechia didn’t fight, and served very loyally. The differences were stark.

    Today in Brussels they again talked big and collapsed – as always
     
    It is Merkel who backed down in the face of Polish resistance. She got some face-saving words that are useless in practice.

    https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/opinion-hungary-and-poland-win-at-merkels-last-eu-summit/ar-BB1bQJiu

    Opinion: Hungary and Poland win at Merkel's last EU summit

    Fellow EU leaders gave in to Poland and Hungary on rule of law in order to save the EU budget and coronavirus stimulus package, DW's Barbara Wesel writes.

    https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-12-10/merkel-s-deal-with-hungary-and-poland-is-a-compromise-too-far

    Merkel’s Deal With Hungary and Poland Is a Compromise Too Far

    For the sake of an important budget and stimulus deal, the European Union is close to selling its democratic soul.



    Angela Merkel has done it again: She’s “merkeled.” In German, that neologism means to hedge, delay, dilute and fudge — as the eponymous German chancellor is wont to do. There’s much to be said for this elastic style of politics, especially in the labyrinthine European Union. Merkel’s latest fudge, however, will weaken and undermine the bloc, and tarnish her legacy.

    The compromise was struck between her government, which currently holds the EU’s rotating presidency, and two rogue member states, Hungary and Poland. They’ve been threatening to veto the bloc’s seven-year budget and a pandemic recovery fund, worth a combined 1.8 trillion euros ($2.2 trillion). Budapest and Warsaw were holding the package hostage because they wanted to remove a mechanism that ties EU funds to observance of the rule of law.

    Here’s the fudge: The mechanism is still there in the text, unaltered, so the EU can say it stayed firm. But it’s been been neutered with additional “interpretations” so that it’ll almost certainly never be applied. That in turn allows Hungary and Poland to declare victory and let the EU’s money flow — not least, to them....

    In a first round of compromise, the wording was diluted so that the mechanism became almost useless. It now applies only to those rule-of-law breaches that directly corrupt the use of money from Brussels. It no longer has any bearing on all other violations, from cherry-picking judges to harassing journalists, academics or opponents.

    Even this gesture from Brussels, astonishingly, wasn’t enough to appease Budapest and Warsaw. Hence Merkel’s final fudge: On top of the mechanism’s previous dilution, there’s now also the prospect of indefinite delay. The clause won’t kick in until Hungary and Poland get a chance to take it to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Those judges will take their sweet time, and a decision isn’t expected until mid-2022. Conveniently, this will come after Hungary’s parliamentary election, slated for early 2022.

    Viktor Orban, Hungary’s prime minister, can therefore keep playing his cynical game of pocketing the European cash that buoys his submerging economy while running a quasi-autocracy. His country is a big net beneficiary of the EU budget, and stands to get another 6.2 billion euros from the pandemic stimulus fund he’s so graciously allowing now. Poland can expect even more: It’s the single biggest net recipient of European money, and would get 23.1 billion euros on top from the stimulus.

    Some reports suggest that there may have been additional understandings in the compromise. Even after the Luxembourg court approves the rule-of-law mechanism, Hungary and Poland can probably appeal or deflect decisions, thus stretching them out forever. Portugal, which will take over the EU presidency on Jan. 1, may also bring the separate Article 7 proceedings to an official close.

    Replies: @Beckow

    …Poland fought until it was taken over

    Yes, for two weeks. I said that above, what are you arguing with?

    That was also less than a year after Poles enthusiastically attacked Czechia with Hitler after Munich agreement. What goes around, comes around. Today too.

    …then engaged in extremely bloody and futile resistance.

    It was bloody because the Germans were killing Polish untermensch with a gusto not seen since Ceasar went to France. It was futile, you are right – without the cursed Red Army there would be no Poles left today. The Canadians or Yanks were not coming, too bloody for them. But I am sure they would offer supporting editorials. They always do.

    The mechanism is still there in the text, unaltered, so the EU can say it stayed firm. But it’s been been neutered with additional “interpretations”…

    May I introduce you to how it works? The “interpretation” depends on who is doing the “interpreting”. It has always been the Western institutions, staffed by loyal – and very liberal – Western appointed officials and judges. They will take their sweet time and prevaricate and then they will rule for Brussels. Always. The fact that the wording stayed the same, with ‘rule of law‘ means that Poland-Hungary folded. They know their betters.

    If you believe that this time it will work differently, that the ‘interpretations‘ will be fair or God forbid side with the outsiders, well, you obviously have not been paying attention. If you put yourself in the just hands of the Brussels ‘interpreters’ you have already lost…

    • Agree: Supply and Demand
    • Replies: @Supply and Demand
    @Beckow

    This guy seems like a Polish nationalist. No value in arguing with such fools.

    Europe ends at the the river Oder. Czechs are white Europeans, Poles are brown untermenschen. There were two Romes: the Empire of the Caesars and the Holy Empire of Pope & Kaiser. The Poles were a party to neither.

    , @AP
    @Beckow


    …Poland fought until it was taken over

    Yes, for two weeks. I said that above, what are you arguing with?
     
    You are wrong as usual, as above. Germans invaded September 1, last battle against Germans was October 6. Germany lost about 60% as many soldiers against Poland as they did against France.

    That was also less than a year after Poles enthusiastically attacked Czechia with Hitler after Munich agreement
     
    At Munich, Czechs proved they were giving their territory away without a fight. Piles naturally took lands inhabited by their own people.

    …then engaged in extremely bloody and futile resistance.

    It was bloody because the Germans were killing Polish untermensch with a gusto not seen since Ceasar went to France
     
    It was bloody because Poles, unlike Czechs, had refused to cooperate.

    It was futile, you are right – without the cursed Red Army there would be no Poles left today
     
    The first correct thing you wrote.

    The mechanism is still there in the text, unaltered, so the EU can say it stayed firm. But it’s been been neutered with additional “interpretations”…

    May I introduce you to how it works? The “interpretation” depends on who is doing the “interpreting”
     
    You should have read further:

    In a first round of compromise, the wording was diluted so that the mechanism became almost useless. It now applies only to those rule-of-law breaches that directly corrupt the use of money from Brussels. It no longer has any bearing on all other violations, from cherry-picking judges to harassing journalists, academics or opponents.

    Even this gesture from Brussels, astonishingly, wasn’t enough to appease Budapest and Warsaw. Hence Merkel’s final fudge: On top of the mechanism’s previous dilution, there’s now also the prospect of indefinite delay. The clause won’t kick in until Hungary and Poland get a chance to take it to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Those judges will take their sweet time, and a decision isn’t expected until mid-2022. Conveniently, this will come after Hungary’s parliamentary election, slated for early 2022.

    Replies: @Beckow, @Gerard-Mandela

  16. Some fun stuff in there:

    *They still haven’t fixed the 1880 break in their Indonesia series (which is pretty easy to fix; I did it myself in my script to fix the biggest problems in their 2018 edition: https://enopoletus.github.io/mpdreconcl.py )

    *As A. Karlin pointed out, their Italian series is obviously screwed up; they had it far closer to the truth in their multiple benchmark-based CGDPpc 2018 series. Italy was not a rich country in 1800!

    *Their North Korea series is different this time, and clearly better (though I don’t like how they treat the period between 1943 and 1990 as a dark age when nothing changed). So is their South Korea series for pre-1960.

    *Their Cuba series has been made arbitrarily even lower and should be increased by at least 100% to get right for the 1950s and 1960s (remember, Cuba was about as rich as Chile in the 1950s and about as rich as Italy in 1953). Cuba’s economic recovery post-1993 is clearly exaggerated.

    *China’s post-2013 economic growth is very likely understated, given the well-known progress in its top-tier cities, but is surely correct and better than the official series for pre-2013.

    *The Romania series seems to take the officially fast growth during the socialist era too much at face value.

    *The Soviet Union adjustment looks a lot like what I made after they released the 2018 edition.

    *Japan probably shows too low growth because they’re using the official series. Thus, the Philippines are shown as much poorer than Japan during the 1930s when they were, in fact, slightly richer. Probably the same growth underestimate applies to Finland.

    *The Syria numbers look implausible; the country was modernizing before the war.

    There are likely more issues; I’ll point them out as they arise.

    I’ll release a script to fix the various problems in this 2020 series in a couple days.

    • Agree: Anatoly Karlin
    • Thanks: Blinky Bill
  17. The excel is correct?

    Check the new data and it turns out that the USSR is above Japan in the period 1885-1913, contrary to Karlin’s graph

  18. @Beckow
    @AP


    ...Poland fought until it was taken over
     
    Yes, for two weeks. I said that above, what are you arguing with?

    That was also less than a year after Poles enthusiastically attacked Czechia with Hitler after Munich agreement. What goes around, comes around. Today too.


    ...then engaged in extremely bloody and futile resistance.
     
    It was bloody because the Germans were killing Polish untermensch with a gusto not seen since Ceasar went to France. It was futile, you are right - without the cursed Red Army there would be no Poles left today. The Canadians or Yanks were not coming, too bloody for them. But I am sure they would offer supporting editorials. They always do.

    The mechanism is still there in the text, unaltered, so the EU can say it stayed firm. But it’s been been neutered with additional “interpretations”...
     
    May I introduce you to how it works? The "interpretation" depends on who is doing the "interpreting". It has always been the Western institutions, staffed by loyal - and very liberal - Western appointed officials and judges. They will take their sweet time and prevaricate and then they will rule for Brussels. Always. The fact that the wording stayed the same, with 'rule of law' means that Poland-Hungary folded. They know their betters.

    If you believe that this time it will work differently, that the 'interpretations' will be fair or God forbid side with the outsiders, well, you obviously have not been paying attention. If you put yourself in the just hands of the Brussels 'interpreters' you have already lost...

    Replies: @Supply and Demand, @AP

    This guy seems like a Polish nationalist. No value in arguing with such fools.

    Europe ends at the the river Oder. Czechs are white Europeans, Poles are brown untermenschen. There were two Romes: the Empire of the Caesars and the Holy Empire of Pope & Kaiser. The Poles were a party to neither.

  19. @Beckow
    @AP


    ...Poland fought until it was taken over
     
    Yes, for two weeks. I said that above, what are you arguing with?

    That was also less than a year after Poles enthusiastically attacked Czechia with Hitler after Munich agreement. What goes around, comes around. Today too.


    ...then engaged in extremely bloody and futile resistance.
     
    It was bloody because the Germans were killing Polish untermensch with a gusto not seen since Ceasar went to France. It was futile, you are right - without the cursed Red Army there would be no Poles left today. The Canadians or Yanks were not coming, too bloody for them. But I am sure they would offer supporting editorials. They always do.

    The mechanism is still there in the text, unaltered, so the EU can say it stayed firm. But it’s been been neutered with additional “interpretations”...
     
    May I introduce you to how it works? The "interpretation" depends on who is doing the "interpreting". It has always been the Western institutions, staffed by loyal - and very liberal - Western appointed officials and judges. They will take their sweet time and prevaricate and then they will rule for Brussels. Always. The fact that the wording stayed the same, with 'rule of law' means that Poland-Hungary folded. They know their betters.

    If you believe that this time it will work differently, that the 'interpretations' will be fair or God forbid side with the outsiders, well, you obviously have not been paying attention. If you put yourself in the just hands of the Brussels 'interpreters' you have already lost...

    Replies: @Supply and Demand, @AP

    …Poland fought until it was taken over

    Yes, for two weeks. I said that above, what are you arguing with?

    You are wrong as usual, as above. Germans invaded September 1, last battle against Germans was October 6. Germany lost about 60% as many soldiers against Poland as they did against France.

    That was also less than a year after Poles enthusiastically attacked Czechia with Hitler after Munich agreement

    At Munich, Czechs proved they were giving their territory away without a fight. Piles naturally took lands inhabited by their own people.

    …then engaged in extremely bloody and futile resistance.

    It was bloody because the Germans were killing Polish untermensch with a gusto not seen since Ceasar went to France

    It was bloody because Poles, unlike Czechs, had refused to cooperate.

    It was futile, you are right – without the cursed Red Army there would be no Poles left today

    The first correct thing you wrote.

    The mechanism is still there in the text, unaltered, so the EU can say it stayed firm. But it’s been been neutered with additional “interpretations”…

    May I introduce you to how it works? The “interpretation” depends on who is doing the “interpreting”

    You should have read further:

    In a first round of compromise, the wording was diluted so that the mechanism became almost useless. It now applies only to those rule-of-law breaches that directly corrupt the use of money from Brussels. It no longer has any bearing on all other violations, from cherry-picking judges to harassing journalists, academics or opponents.

    Even this gesture from Brussels, astonishingly, wasn’t enough to appease Budapest and Warsaw. Hence Merkel’s final fudge: On top of the mechanism’s previous dilution, there’s now also the prospect of indefinite delay. The clause won’t kick in until Hungary and Poland get a chance to take it to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Those judges will take their sweet time, and a decision isn’t expected until mid-2022. Conveniently, this will come after Hungary’s parliamentary election, slated for early 2022.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @AP


    ...rule-of-law breaches that directly corrupt the use of money from Brussels...until Hungary and Poland get a chance to take it to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg
     
    Luxembourg? No kidding, so then it must all be ok, the judges in 'Luxembourg' are famous for their impartiality. Right. I almost wish you were right, but the history of those institutions doesn't allow for it.

    All issues have to do with 'use of money'. EU money is everywhere, so that clarification is meaningless is practise. We will soon know what Luxembourg judges think about it. But I already know.


    "Poles naturally took lands inhabited by their own people
     
    So how come those lands are now in Czechia inhabited by Czechs? (The region was mixed.)

    In any case with that logic, can Russia take eastern Ukraine inhabited by Russians? Or Narva in Estonia? Or Riga that is plurality Russian speaking? Can Mexico take California or Arizona? Or is there a different set of rules depending on who you are? You should know that would not qualify as a 'rule'.


    "without the cursed Red Army there would be no Poles left today"

    The first correct thing you wrote.

     

    We agree, good. But do you realize that is the single biggest overriding issue in all these discussions? That with 'no Poles without Russia's help' all this other stuff is rather meaningless?

    Replies: @utu

    , @Gerard-Mandela
    @AP


    Poland fought until it was taken over, then engaged in extremely bloody and futile resistance. Czechia didn’t fight, and served very loyally. The differences were stark.

    You are wrong as usual, as above. Germans invaded September 1, last battle against Germans was October 6.
     

    HAHAHAHAHA! Seriously WTF?

    Polish state, the Polish government had collapsed and stopped functioning by September the 14th you idiot.
    That is 2 weeks as Beckow said. I suspect he is laughing his a** of too much to even bother replying with it to your instantaneous BS.

    September 14th to October 6th is basically non-resistance and completing formalities you cretin - thats the problem when a moron as yourself , desperate to create instantaneous BS, just copies the first nonsense listed on Wikipedia , when the sequence of events is well-known already.
    Maybe you want to include the dates of the holocaust to go until 1946, because the Poles were still massacring Jews even then, using your idiotic logic? LOL


    Red Army had bigger problems tying the laces of their boots than they did moving into and occupying their part of Poland you imbecile - because there was basically nothing or pitiful "resistance"

    So there it is - the Poles, with one of the largest Armies in history......got annihilated in the embarrassingly short time of 2 weeks by the Nazis, with the Soviets moving into a land of no functioning state and zero or pitiful organised state military resistance . Nobody bothers to even call it a war or battle with the Nazis or Soviets in Poland or with their main cities - it's mostly called somewhere between an annexation and a invasion

    Now practically everybody interested in that part of history or that part of the world, every Pole knows these dates of 1st and 14th September. A severely f**ked up loser as yourself, even with all the abnormal time you are on here, copying and pasting corrupt edits from Wikipedia, spending millions of hours trying to timewaste on this same issue over several years.........STILL isn't even aware of these dates??!!! LOL


    Germany lost about 60% as many soldiers against Poland as they did against France.
     
    Another embarrassing and idiotic lie. France was a convincing but still far harder and more intense victory for the Nazis than the Polish "battle" was.. No serious person has ever tried to even think differently on this issue.

    Poland fought until it was taken over, then engaged in extremely bloody and futile resistance. Czechia didn’t fight, and served very loyally. The differences were stark.
    It was bloody because Poles, unlike Czechs, had refused to cooperate.
     
    Czechoslovakia was forced by every major power except USSR to give away parts of their land you imbecile. Cowardly , opportunistic and of course, impotent, Poles took advantage of this situation. No non-superpower country would have acted differently to Czechoslovakia if put in their position

    Poland on the other hand, did all it could to incite or provoke war - both whoring with the Nazi's and hoping to lure the Nazis and Soviets into battle against eachother . Safe to say this "tactic" did not work well for them. It was inciting all this, because completely different to the Czechs , they had guarantees of protection from France and Britain ...which those countries deservedly treated with the contempt it deserved. They were preparing for war, fully expecting French and British (maybe American) military with them...got slaughtered easily , didnt get direct foreign assistance.....and effectively gave up fighting properly after this

    So Czechs/Slovaks fully deserve to be seen as victims, Poles can merit absolutely zero sympathy.
    Czechoslovakia don't have honour in their actions but they certainly don't have any dishonour in their lack of military action . Poles have neither honour or sympathy for what happened to them in WW2.


    It is Merkel who backed down in the face of Polish resistance. She got some face-saving words that are useless in practice.
     
    LOL. Seriously any dumb American should be banned from having an atlas. By this idiot "logic" the "formidable" Estonia and Latvia were courageous in resisting EU "attempts" to stop the human rights abuses of not automatically allowing ethnic Russian citizenship or the language laws . Or Germany were "severely resistant" to Montenegro refusing "democracy reforms" before their 30 year long gangster ruler was allowed to take them into NATO recently.......or the failed, farcical bankrupt state of Banderastan was showing "brave resistance" to western attempts to create an "anti-c0rruption court" there and "isn't" a severely, weak, prostitute-client state under control of the west. LOL.
    These disputes are superficial in nation you imbecile and have no impact on the power dynamics in Europe or the west.

    Replies: @AP, @Beckow

  20. @Beckow
    Further back you go less meaningful are the comparisons. People in villages - even in the early 20th century - lived in completely different 'economy'. Most had housing at no cost and little 'cash'. Comparing it beyond certain point is silly, nobody was living poorer than e.g. Irish peasants (70% of population), no GNP numbers can ever capture that.

    A few points about GNP in the 20th century:
    - Czechia living standards were higher than Italy (incl. Italian south and islands), Spain and rural France, but below US and the advanced parts of the West. The ratio was more like 80% and not 40-60% as shown. The huge amount of free (=non-monetized) consumption needs to be included. Education, health care, most vacations, spas, subsidised basics, free housing after a certain wait, free sports, culture, etc... there is no way any Western record keeping can account for it, or even understand it. The miracle after 1989 was largely a function of simply monetizing all those activities so they were captured. Today everyone agrees that Prague is a richer city than Madrid, Rome, etc...

    - Poland has always been 15-20% poorer, this is key to understanding the peculiar Polish slave mentality towards the West, they are still doing it. Poor, desperate people are easy to buy.

    - Austria's higher GNP was not a post-WWII phenomenon, Austria was already very rich in 1945. A lot of it had to do with WWII plunder of neighbours as Nazis, they kept most of the gains. It has little to do with so called 'different systems', Austria was aggressively socialist on 1950-90 period, on many ways more so then the actual 'socialist' countries.

    Replies: @AP, @AnonGOGO

    In terms of standards of living and production, Austria was not rich in 1945. It took until 1949 to reach the (rather meager) pre-annexation levels of 1937.

    Out of interest, what did the supposed Nazi loot in Austria consist of? On a side note, I’d wager that Czech “plunder” of ethnic German property was more significant in this regard. Expelling a third of the population while keeping most of their wealth must have led to a pretty significant per-capita wealth increase. Altough much of the beneficial effects of this were probably undone in the long term by voting communists in power.

    • Agree: utu
    • Replies: @Beckow
    @AnonGOGO


    ...Nazi loot in Austria consist of?
     
    Six years of industrial production, materials, food...The looting of Czechia during WWII was very substantial (and not just of Czechia.)

    Czech “plunder” of ethnic German property
     
    As I pointed out before, sequence in history matters. Germans and Austrians started a genocide war against Czechs and lost. What you call 'plunder' were simply consequences. There is no Eastern Prussia any more because Germans murdered millions of civilians in the east, and they did it first.

    Or would you prefer that the moment Germans lost all would be forgotten and forgiven? Why would the victims agree to that?

    Replies: @utu, @AnonGOGO

  21. Medieval China was actually a lot poorer than Western Europe and equal with Eastern Europe. Qing China in 1830 was barely above the subsistence level, although it really did not have any serious challengers in East Asia. Although it was not in really serious trouble if opium and the British had not showed up.

  22. @AP
    @Beckow


    …Poland fought until it was taken over

    Yes, for two weeks. I said that above, what are you arguing with?
     
    You are wrong as usual, as above. Germans invaded September 1, last battle against Germans was October 6. Germany lost about 60% as many soldiers against Poland as they did against France.

    That was also less than a year after Poles enthusiastically attacked Czechia with Hitler after Munich agreement
     
    At Munich, Czechs proved they were giving their territory away without a fight. Piles naturally took lands inhabited by their own people.

    …then engaged in extremely bloody and futile resistance.

    It was bloody because the Germans were killing Polish untermensch with a gusto not seen since Ceasar went to France
     
    It was bloody because Poles, unlike Czechs, had refused to cooperate.

    It was futile, you are right – without the cursed Red Army there would be no Poles left today
     
    The first correct thing you wrote.

    The mechanism is still there in the text, unaltered, so the EU can say it stayed firm. But it’s been been neutered with additional “interpretations”…

    May I introduce you to how it works? The “interpretation” depends on who is doing the “interpreting”
     
    You should have read further:

    In a first round of compromise, the wording was diluted so that the mechanism became almost useless. It now applies only to those rule-of-law breaches that directly corrupt the use of money from Brussels. It no longer has any bearing on all other violations, from cherry-picking judges to harassing journalists, academics or opponents.

    Even this gesture from Brussels, astonishingly, wasn’t enough to appease Budapest and Warsaw. Hence Merkel’s final fudge: On top of the mechanism’s previous dilution, there’s now also the prospect of indefinite delay. The clause won’t kick in until Hungary and Poland get a chance to take it to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Those judges will take their sweet time, and a decision isn’t expected until mid-2022. Conveniently, this will come after Hungary’s parliamentary election, slated for early 2022.

    Replies: @Beckow, @Gerard-Mandela

    …rule-of-law breaches that directly corrupt the use of money from Brussels…until Hungary and Poland get a chance to take it to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg

    Luxembourg? No kidding, so then it must all be ok, the judges in ‘Luxembourg’ are famous for their impartiality. Right. I almost wish you were right, but the history of those institutions doesn’t allow for it.

    All issues have to do with ‘use of money‘. EU money is everywhere, so that clarification is meaningless is practise. We will soon know what Luxembourg judges think about it. But I already know.

    “Poles naturally took lands inhabited by their own people

    So how come those lands are now in Czechia inhabited by Czechs? (The region was mixed.)

    In any case with that logic, can Russia take eastern Ukraine inhabited by Russians? Or Narva in Estonia? Or Riga that is plurality Russian speaking? Can Mexico take California or Arizona? Or is there a different set of rules depending on who you are? You should know that would not qualify as a ‘rule’.

    without the cursed Red Army there would be no Poles left today

    The first correct thing you wrote.

    We agree, good. But do you realize that is the single biggest overriding issue in all these discussions? That with ‘no Poles without Russia’s help’ all this other stuff is rather meaningless?

    • Replies: @utu
    @Beckow

    So how come those lands are now in Czechia inhabited by Czechs? - In 1919 when Czechoslovakia did the annexation of Teschen Silesia when Poland was fighting Bolsheviks the majority of inhabitants was Polish. As of 1910 Austrian census 70% of population was Polish. There were also Germans and Jews so Czechs were less than 25%. What happened next? No plebiscite was held because Poles would win it. Poland was outmaneuvered by Benes because at that time Poland was fighting for its life in 1920 Soviet-Polish war. From Wiki:


    "Czech envoy Edvard Beneš proposed a plebiscite. The Allies were shocked, arguing that the Czechs were bound to lose it. However, Beneš was insistent and a plebiscite was announced in September 1919. As it turned out, Beneš knew what he was doing. A plebiscite would take some time to set up, and a lot could happen in that time – particularly when a nation's affairs were conducted as cleverly as were Czechoslovakia's."
     

    Watt argues that Beneš strategically waited for Poland's moment of weakness, and moved in during the Polish-Soviet War crisis in July 1920. As Watt writes, "Over the dinner table, Beneš convinced the British and French that the plebiscite should not be held and that the Allies should simply impose their own decision in the Teschen matter. More than that, Beneš persuaded the French and the British to draw a frontier line that gave Czechoslovakia most of the territory of Teschen, the vital railroad and all the important coal fields. With this frontier, 139,000 Poles were to be left in Czech territory, whereas only 2,000 Czechs were left on the Polish side"
     

    "The next morning Beneš visited the Polish delegation at Spa. By giving the impression that the Czechs would accept a settlement favorable to the Poles without a plebiscite, Beneš got the Poles to sign an agreement that Poland would abide by any Allied decision regarding Teschen. The Poles, of course, had no way of knowing that Beneš had already persuaded the Allies to make a decision on Teschen. After a brief interval, to make it appear that due deliberation had taken place, the Allied Council of Ambassadors in Paris imposed its 'decision'. Only then did it dawn on the Poles that at Spa they had signed a blank check. To them, Beneš' stunning triumph was not diplomacy, it was a swindle (...) As Polish Prime Minister Wincenty Witos warned: 'The Polish nation has received a blow which will play an important role in our relations with the Czechoslovak Republic. The decision of the Council of Ambassadors has given the Czechs a piece of Polish land containing a population which is mostly Polish.... The decision has caused a rift between these two nations which are ordinarily politically and economically united'
     
    Now let's follow your dictum "As I pointed out before, sequence in history matters." When judging 1938 re-annexation of Teschen Silesia by Poland it should be viewed in the light of what occurred in 1919 when Czechoslovakia stabbed Poland in the back when Poland was fighting Bolsheviks and then in 1920 when Benes through a swindle at the international conference got the Teschen territory without a plebiscite. There was more stabbings. Czechoslovakia refused for trains with military supplies from France to pass. I think Hungary managed to send enough ammunition to Poland that were crucial at the Battle of Warsaw in 1920.

    And then settlers and workers from Moravia and Bohemia were encouraged to move to Teschen Silesia to dilute Polish population. The usual stuff you do when you try to solidify territorial gains with ethnically foreign population.

    What is interesting that Poles like Czechs and Slovaks along with Italians the most among foreign nations. This is interesting because the concept of Slavic solidarity was never popular in Poland because of the adherence to universal values while it was quite significant among Czech and Slovaks whose Slavic solidarity however never extend towards the Poles but to the big Brother Russia only. There is some magnanimity about Poles that some Czechs and Slovaks of small minds just won't get and will see it as stupidity. We talked about it before. Polish cultural ethos comes from aristocracy which includes chivalry and sacrifice while Czech and Slovak cultural ethos comes from peasant culture that is sly, cunning and small-minded.

    Replies: @Beckow

  23. @AnonGOGO
    @Beckow

    In terms of standards of living and production, Austria was not rich in 1945. It took until 1949 to reach the (rather meager) pre-annexation levels of 1937.

    Out of interest, what did the supposed Nazi loot in Austria consist of? On a side note, I'd wager that Czech "plunder" of ethnic German property was more significant in this regard. Expelling a third of the population while keeping most of their wealth must have led to a pretty significant per-capita wealth increase. Altough much of the beneficial effects of this were probably undone in the long term by voting communists in power.

    Replies: @Beckow

    …Nazi loot in Austria consist of?

    Six years of industrial production, materials, food…The looting of Czechia during WWII was very substantial (and not just of Czechia.)

    Czech “plunder” of ethnic German property

    As I pointed out before, sequence in history matters. Germans and Austrians started a genocide war against Czechs and lost. What you call ‘plunder‘ were simply consequences. There is no Eastern Prussia any more because Germans murdered millions of civilians in the east, and they did it first.

    Or would you prefer that the moment Germans lost all would be forgotten and forgiven? Why would the victims agree to that?

    • Replies: @utu
    @Beckow

    As I pointed out before, sequence in history matters. - Yes, so go 20 years back. Czechoslovakia ended up with too much territory after WWI and too much of Austrian/German property and too much of Austrian/German population. This was the reason that she was so well off in the inter war period because a lot of industry there was de facto Austrian/German in ownership and the critical staff like managers engineers were not Czechs but Austrian/ German. WWII was an attempt to rectify this injustice.

    Germans and Austrians started a genocide war against Czechs. - When did you heard about this for the first time? Grammar school when you were 7 years old, right? And 60 or 70 years later you are still repeating the communist propaganda? It is possible that at some point of your life you have learned it was a lie but now due to the old age dementia what you have learned is stripped layer by layer in the reverse order and you are back in the grammar school? What was true when you were seven years ago is true aging. It must be a very blissful state you are in.

    , @AnonGOGO
    @Beckow

    Czechia's industrial production mainly supported the German war effort rather than making Austrians (or Germans) "rich". Germany/Austria did benefit from food imports from occupied Europe during the war but that didn't make Austrians "rich" in 1945 either. And the Protectorate's food exports to Germany were marginal in any case, consequently its food rations were not much lower (actually equal in some years) than in Germany. There was a certain transfer of consumer goods from the Protectorate to the Reich though that hardly made Germans/Austrians "rich" in the individual let alone national sense (particularly considering that individual wealth losses in Germany/Austria through bombing were much more substantial than in Czechia).

    By contrast, the expropriation of Germans in Czecho-Slovakia seems a more substantial wealth transfer as it included land, houses, capital goods apart from other personal property. I merely wanted to highlight that, if anything, WWII and its immediate consequences resulted in a relative wealth gain for Czechs vis a vis Austrians rather than the reverse (altough Communist mismanagment was quick to undo this). The debate about the justification of the post-war expulsion is of no interest to me here.

    Replies: @Beckow

  24. @Beckow
    @AnonGOGO


    ...Nazi loot in Austria consist of?
     
    Six years of industrial production, materials, food...The looting of Czechia during WWII was very substantial (and not just of Czechia.)

    Czech “plunder” of ethnic German property
     
    As I pointed out before, sequence in history matters. Germans and Austrians started a genocide war against Czechs and lost. What you call 'plunder' were simply consequences. There is no Eastern Prussia any more because Germans murdered millions of civilians in the east, and they did it first.

    Or would you prefer that the moment Germans lost all would be forgotten and forgiven? Why would the victims agree to that?

    Replies: @utu, @AnonGOGO

    As I pointed out before, sequence in history matters. – Yes, so go 20 years back. Czechoslovakia ended up with too much territory after WWI and too much of Austrian/German property and too much of Austrian/German population. This was the reason that she was so well off in the inter war period because a lot of industry there was de facto Austrian/German in ownership and the critical staff like managers engineers were not Czechs but Austrian/ German. WWII was an attempt to rectify this injustice.

    Germans and Austrians started a genocide war against Czechs. – When did you heard about this for the first time? Grammar school when you were 7 years old, right? And 60 or 70 years later you are still repeating the communist propaganda? It is possible that at some point of your life you have learned it was a lie but now due to the old age dementia what you have learned is stripped layer by layer in the reverse order and you are back in the grammar school? What was true when you were seven years ago is true aging. It must be a very blissful state you are in.

  25. @Beckow
    @AP


    ...rule-of-law breaches that directly corrupt the use of money from Brussels...until Hungary and Poland get a chance to take it to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg
     
    Luxembourg? No kidding, so then it must all be ok, the judges in 'Luxembourg' are famous for their impartiality. Right. I almost wish you were right, but the history of those institutions doesn't allow for it.

    All issues have to do with 'use of money'. EU money is everywhere, so that clarification is meaningless is practise. We will soon know what Luxembourg judges think about it. But I already know.


    "Poles naturally took lands inhabited by their own people
     
    So how come those lands are now in Czechia inhabited by Czechs? (The region was mixed.)

    In any case with that logic, can Russia take eastern Ukraine inhabited by Russians? Or Narva in Estonia? Or Riga that is plurality Russian speaking? Can Mexico take California or Arizona? Or is there a different set of rules depending on who you are? You should know that would not qualify as a 'rule'.


    "without the cursed Red Army there would be no Poles left today"

    The first correct thing you wrote.

     

    We agree, good. But do you realize that is the single biggest overriding issue in all these discussions? That with 'no Poles without Russia's help' all this other stuff is rather meaningless?

    Replies: @utu

    So how come those lands are now in Czechia inhabited by Czechs? – In 1919 when Czechoslovakia did the annexation of Teschen Silesia when Poland was fighting Bolsheviks the majority of inhabitants was Polish. As of 1910 Austrian census 70% of population was Polish. There were also Germans and Jews so Czechs were less than 25%. What happened next? No plebiscite was held because Poles would win it. Poland was outmaneuvered by Benes because at that time Poland was fighting for its life in 1920 Soviet-Polish war. From Wiki:

    Czech envoy Edvard Beneš proposed a plebiscite. The Allies were shocked, arguing that the Czechs were bound to lose it. However, Beneš was insistent and a plebiscite was announced in September 1919. As it turned out, Beneš knew what he was doing. A plebiscite would take some time to set up, and a lot could happen in that time – particularly when a nation’s affairs were conducted as cleverly as were Czechoslovakia’s.”

    Watt argues that Beneš strategically waited for Poland’s moment of weakness, and moved in during the Polish-Soviet War crisis in July 1920. As Watt writes, “Over the dinner table, Beneš convinced the British and French that the plebiscite should not be held and that the Allies should simply impose their own decision in the Teschen matter. More than that, Beneš persuaded the French and the British to draw a frontier line that gave Czechoslovakia most of the territory of Teschen, the vital railroad and all the important coal fields. With this frontier, 139,000 Poles were to be left in Czech territory, whereas only 2,000 Czechs were left on the Polish side”

    “The next morning Beneš visited the Polish delegation at Spa. By giving the impression that the Czechs would accept a settlement favorable to the Poles without a plebiscite, Beneš got the Poles to sign an agreement that Poland would abide by any Allied decision regarding Teschen. The Poles, of course, had no way of knowing that Beneš had already persuaded the Allies to make a decision on Teschen. After a brief interval, to make it appear that due deliberation had taken place, the Allied Council of Ambassadors in Paris imposed its ‘decision’. Only then did it dawn on the Poles that at Spa they had signed a blank check. To them, Beneš’ stunning triumph was not diplomacy, it was a swindle (…) As Polish Prime Minister Wincenty Witos warned: ‘The Polish nation has received a blow which will play an important role in our relations with the Czechoslovak Republic. The decision of the Council of Ambassadors has given the Czechs a piece of Polish land containing a population which is mostly Polish…. The decision has caused a rift between these two nations which are ordinarily politically and economically united’

    Now let’s follow your dictum “As I pointed out before, sequence in history matters.” When judging 1938 re-annexation of Teschen Silesia by Poland it should be viewed in the light of what occurred in 1919 when Czechoslovakia stabbed Poland in the back when Poland was fighting Bolsheviks and then in 1920 when Benes through a swindle at the international conference got the Teschen territory without a plebiscite. There was more stabbings. Czechoslovakia refused for trains with military supplies from France to pass. I think Hungary managed to send enough ammunition to Poland that were crucial at the Battle of Warsaw in 1920.

    And then settlers and workers from Moravia and Bohemia were encouraged to move to Teschen Silesia to dilute Polish population. The usual stuff you do when you try to solidify territorial gains with ethnically foreign population.

    What is interesting that Poles like Czechs and Slovaks along with Italians the most among foreign nations. This is interesting because the concept of Slavic solidarity was never popular in Poland because of the adherence to universal values while it was quite significant among Czech and Slovaks whose Slavic solidarity however never extend towards the Poles but to the big Brother Russia only. There is some magnanimity about Poles that some Czechs and Slovaks of small minds just won’t get and will see it as stupidity. We talked about it before. Polish cultural ethos comes from aristocracy which includes chivalry and sacrifice while Czech and Slovak cultural ethos comes from peasant culture that is sly, cunning and small-minded.

    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @Beckow
    @utu

    You are way off and your ruminations on ethnic history and my 'education' are completely wrong. Don't speculate if you don't know.

    The basic principle that you use is that 'Poles have a right to grab land militarily if they are a majority in an area'. Leaving aside that wasn't true in Tesin - there was a large % who identified as 'Slezaks' or Silesians who preferred to live in richer Czechia to poorer and authoritarian Poland - the very same principle applies to Western Ukraine and Belarus. They were majority Ukrainians and Belorussians in 1939 and thus Soviet Union was, according to your logic, perfectly right in taking them over after Poland collapsed. Let me remind you that Polish government left on Sep 15-16, and Soviets didn't occupy the eastern Poland regions until Sep 17. All those regions are now in Ukraine and Belarus, so they are not 'Poland'.

    My point is that you cannot have a different rule for Poles-Czechs in Tesin than you have for Ukrainians-Poles in eastern 'Poland'. Those cases are identical, one cannot be right and the other wrong. If you claim that Poland's action in taking Tesin in 1938 was ok, and Soviets taking east in 1938 was wrong, you are simply a hypocrite. And hypocrites have no honour or courage, so stop preaching to us.

    Replies: @utu, @AP

  26. @Beckow
    @AnonGOGO


    ...Nazi loot in Austria consist of?
     
    Six years of industrial production, materials, food...The looting of Czechia during WWII was very substantial (and not just of Czechia.)

    Czech “plunder” of ethnic German property
     
    As I pointed out before, sequence in history matters. Germans and Austrians started a genocide war against Czechs and lost. What you call 'plunder' were simply consequences. There is no Eastern Prussia any more because Germans murdered millions of civilians in the east, and they did it first.

    Or would you prefer that the moment Germans lost all would be forgotten and forgiven? Why would the victims agree to that?

    Replies: @utu, @AnonGOGO

    Czechia’s industrial production mainly supported the German war effort rather than making Austrians (or Germans) “rich”. Germany/Austria did benefit from food imports from occupied Europe during the war but that didn’t make Austrians “rich” in 1945 either. And the Protectorate’s food exports to Germany were marginal in any case, consequently its food rations were not much lower (actually equal in some years) than in Germany. There was a certain transfer of consumer goods from the Protectorate to the Reich though that hardly made Germans/Austrians “rich” in the individual let alone national sense (particularly considering that individual wealth losses in Germany/Austria through bombing were much more substantial than in Czechia).

    By contrast, the expropriation of Germans in Czecho-Slovakia seems a more substantial wealth transfer as it included land, houses, capital goods apart from other personal property. I merely wanted to highlight that, if anything, WWII and its immediate consequences resulted in a relative wealth gain for Czechs vis a vis Austrians rather than the reverse (altough Communist mismanagment was quick to undo this). The debate about the justification of the post-war expulsion is of no interest to me here.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @AnonGOGO


    ...WWII and its immediate consequences resulted in a relative wealth gain for Czechs vis a vis Austrians
     
    If you focus only on WWII, Austrians significantly improved their relative wealth vis a vis the Czechs (you have to include the Sudeten among the beneficiaries who were actually Austrians). This happened via expropriation of Czech property in the Sudeten border areas - there were 600k Czechs living there, most were expelled in 1938-9. Austrian businesses benefitted while Czechs were mostly allowed to only to be workers. Jewish and Czech exile properties were confiscated and divided among Austrians-Germans. There were infinite number of other cases: Czechs murdered like in Lidice etc, tens of thousands executed and property confiscated, slave labor by hundreds of thousands Czechs for Germany (incl. Austria), educational opportunities, taxes, etc...

    In 1945-47 this was reversed and Czechs expelled about 3 million Sudetens, many went to Austria. They lost their houses and real estate, but kept many other assets (education, $ in Swiss and Viennese banks, gold and jewellery, etc...). In terms of killed the ratio is roughly 5 to 1 Czechs murdered by Germans (incl. Austrians) vs. Sudetens killed after the war.

    And there is the sequence issue - Germans and Austrians did it first. That matters. Don't kill and plunder others if you don't want to be killed and plundered. It would be nice if you could finally learn that lesson.

    Replies: @AnonGOGO

  27. @AnonGOGO
    @Beckow

    Czechia's industrial production mainly supported the German war effort rather than making Austrians (or Germans) "rich". Germany/Austria did benefit from food imports from occupied Europe during the war but that didn't make Austrians "rich" in 1945 either. And the Protectorate's food exports to Germany were marginal in any case, consequently its food rations were not much lower (actually equal in some years) than in Germany. There was a certain transfer of consumer goods from the Protectorate to the Reich though that hardly made Germans/Austrians "rich" in the individual let alone national sense (particularly considering that individual wealth losses in Germany/Austria through bombing were much more substantial than in Czechia).

    By contrast, the expropriation of Germans in Czecho-Slovakia seems a more substantial wealth transfer as it included land, houses, capital goods apart from other personal property. I merely wanted to highlight that, if anything, WWII and its immediate consequences resulted in a relative wealth gain for Czechs vis a vis Austrians rather than the reverse (altough Communist mismanagment was quick to undo this). The debate about the justification of the post-war expulsion is of no interest to me here.

    Replies: @Beckow

    …WWII and its immediate consequences resulted in a relative wealth gain for Czechs vis a vis Austrians

    If you focus only on WWII, Austrians significantly improved their relative wealth vis a vis the Czechs (you have to include the Sudeten among the beneficiaries who were actually Austrians). This happened via expropriation of Czech property in the Sudeten border areas – there were 600k Czechs living there, most were expelled in 1938-9. Austrian businesses benefitted while Czechs were mostly allowed to only to be workers. Jewish and Czech exile properties were confiscated and divided among Austrians-Germans. There were infinite number of other cases: Czechs murdered like in Lidice etc, tens of thousands executed and property confiscated, slave labor by hundreds of thousands Czechs for Germany (incl. Austria), educational opportunities, taxes, etc…

    In 1945-47 this was reversed and Czechs expelled about 3 million Sudetens, many went to Austria. They lost their houses and real estate, but kept many other assets (education, $ in Swiss and Viennese banks, gold and jewellery, etc…). In terms of killed the ratio is roughly 5 to 1 Czechs murdered by Germans (incl. Austrians) vs. Sudetens killed after the war.

    And there is the sequence issue – Germans and Austrians did it first. That matters. Don’t kill and plunder others if you don’t want to be killed and plundered. It would be nice if you could finally learn that lesson.

    • Replies: @AnonGOGO
    @Beckow

    [quote]If you focus only on WWII[/quote]
    I argued your claim that Austrians were rich in 1945 and that the source of this supposed wealth was looted, particularly from Czechs. In 1945, Austrians couldn't by anything from what the German state may confiscated in the Sudetenland or the protectorate. The $, gold and jewellery and which in your opionion the Sudeten Germans brought to Austria in 1945 and made Austria rich that way (amusing thought) likewise ended up in the German treasury to support the war effort rather than in private hands, apart from the occaisonal corrupt official.

    As for the staple point of the expulsion of Czechs from the Sudetenland in 1938, there was none in the strict sense: Czech officials and state employees who mostly went to the border regions after 1919 remigrated to the Czech interior after the Munich agreement. Furthermore, there was a flight of Jews and political opponents (including some Germans) from the Sudetenland. More than 300,000 Czechs remained in the Sudetenland (mostly those who had lived there longer), plus a number of binational individuals who switched their ethnicity to German in the 1939 census.

    [quote]In terms of killed the ratio is roughly 5 to 1 Czechs murdered by Germans (incl. Austrians) vs. Sudetens killed after the war.[/quote]

    I don't know if this supposed to include Czech Jews. If not, that ratio is nonsense, unless you base your claims on communist post-war "estimates" of Czech Non-Jewish war deaths which were of course inflated. See Pavel Škorpils post-communist estimate of Czechoslovak war-related deaths.

    Replies: @Beckow

  28. @utu
    @Beckow

    So how come those lands are now in Czechia inhabited by Czechs? - In 1919 when Czechoslovakia did the annexation of Teschen Silesia when Poland was fighting Bolsheviks the majority of inhabitants was Polish. As of 1910 Austrian census 70% of population was Polish. There were also Germans and Jews so Czechs were less than 25%. What happened next? No plebiscite was held because Poles would win it. Poland was outmaneuvered by Benes because at that time Poland was fighting for its life in 1920 Soviet-Polish war. From Wiki:


    "Czech envoy Edvard Beneš proposed a plebiscite. The Allies were shocked, arguing that the Czechs were bound to lose it. However, Beneš was insistent and a plebiscite was announced in September 1919. As it turned out, Beneš knew what he was doing. A plebiscite would take some time to set up, and a lot could happen in that time – particularly when a nation's affairs were conducted as cleverly as were Czechoslovakia's."
     

    Watt argues that Beneš strategically waited for Poland's moment of weakness, and moved in during the Polish-Soviet War crisis in July 1920. As Watt writes, "Over the dinner table, Beneš convinced the British and French that the plebiscite should not be held and that the Allies should simply impose their own decision in the Teschen matter. More than that, Beneš persuaded the French and the British to draw a frontier line that gave Czechoslovakia most of the territory of Teschen, the vital railroad and all the important coal fields. With this frontier, 139,000 Poles were to be left in Czech territory, whereas only 2,000 Czechs were left on the Polish side"
     

    "The next morning Beneš visited the Polish delegation at Spa. By giving the impression that the Czechs would accept a settlement favorable to the Poles without a plebiscite, Beneš got the Poles to sign an agreement that Poland would abide by any Allied decision regarding Teschen. The Poles, of course, had no way of knowing that Beneš had already persuaded the Allies to make a decision on Teschen. After a brief interval, to make it appear that due deliberation had taken place, the Allied Council of Ambassadors in Paris imposed its 'decision'. Only then did it dawn on the Poles that at Spa they had signed a blank check. To them, Beneš' stunning triumph was not diplomacy, it was a swindle (...) As Polish Prime Minister Wincenty Witos warned: 'The Polish nation has received a blow which will play an important role in our relations with the Czechoslovak Republic. The decision of the Council of Ambassadors has given the Czechs a piece of Polish land containing a population which is mostly Polish.... The decision has caused a rift between these two nations which are ordinarily politically and economically united'
     
    Now let's follow your dictum "As I pointed out before, sequence in history matters." When judging 1938 re-annexation of Teschen Silesia by Poland it should be viewed in the light of what occurred in 1919 when Czechoslovakia stabbed Poland in the back when Poland was fighting Bolsheviks and then in 1920 when Benes through a swindle at the international conference got the Teschen territory without a plebiscite. There was more stabbings. Czechoslovakia refused for trains with military supplies from France to pass. I think Hungary managed to send enough ammunition to Poland that were crucial at the Battle of Warsaw in 1920.

    And then settlers and workers from Moravia and Bohemia were encouraged to move to Teschen Silesia to dilute Polish population. The usual stuff you do when you try to solidify territorial gains with ethnically foreign population.

    What is interesting that Poles like Czechs and Slovaks along with Italians the most among foreign nations. This is interesting because the concept of Slavic solidarity was never popular in Poland because of the adherence to universal values while it was quite significant among Czech and Slovaks whose Slavic solidarity however never extend towards the Poles but to the big Brother Russia only. There is some magnanimity about Poles that some Czechs and Slovaks of small minds just won't get and will see it as stupidity. We talked about it before. Polish cultural ethos comes from aristocracy which includes chivalry and sacrifice while Czech and Slovak cultural ethos comes from peasant culture that is sly, cunning and small-minded.

    Replies: @Beckow

    You are way off and your ruminations on ethnic history and my ‘education’ are completely wrong. Don’t speculate if you don’t know.

    The basic principle that you use is that ‘Poles have a right to grab land militarily if they are a majority in an area’. Leaving aside that wasn’t true in Tesin – there was a large % who identified as ‘Slezaks’ or Silesians who preferred to live in richer Czechia to poorer and authoritarian Poland – the very same principle applies to Western Ukraine and Belarus. They were majority Ukrainians and Belorussians in 1939 and thus Soviet Union was, according to your logic, perfectly right in taking them over after Poland collapsed. Let me remind you that Polish government left on Sep 15-16, and Soviets didn’t occupy the eastern Poland regions until Sep 17. All those regions are now in Ukraine and Belarus, so they are not ‘Poland’.

    My point is that you cannot have a different rule for Poles-Czechs in Tesin than you have for Ukrainians-Poles in eastern ‘Poland’. Those cases are identical, one cannot be right and the other wrong. If you claim that Poland’s action in taking Tesin in 1938 was ok, and Soviets taking east in 1938 was wrong, you are simply a hypocrite. And hypocrites have no honour or courage, so stop preaching to us.

    • Replies: @utu
    @Beckow


    there was a large % who identified as ‘Slezaks’ or Silesians who preferred to live in richer Czechia to poorer and authoritarian Poland
     
    You are making this up. There was no Silesian identity. It was not included in the 1910 census where 70% identified as Poles. In some areas there was more Germans than Czechs. Czechs constituted less than 25% of population.

    While Poland as a whole was poorer than Czechoslovakia the Polish part of Teschen Silesia and Upper Silesia were richer that Czechoslovakia as a whole. So no decisions could have been made on the economic basis as Poles from Teschen Silesia were not facing a threat of being deported somewhere to poor Galicia.

    Poles in Teshen Silesia under Czechoslovak rule were discriminated and persecuted and they welcomed the 1938's return to Poland rule.

    Replies: @Beckow

    , @AP
    @Beckow


    The basic principle that you use is that ‘Poles have a right to grab land militarily if they are a majority in an area’... – the very same principle applies to Western Ukraine and Belarus. They were majority Ukrainians and Belorussians in 1939 and thus Soviet Union was, according to your logic, perfectly right in taking them over after Poland collapsed
     
    I don’t recall utu ever defending the Polish conquest of the Western Ukrainian Peoples Republic.

    The Polish state indeed engaged in hypocrisy; it was wrong in western Ukraine but right in Silesia.

    My point is that you cannot have a different rule for Poles-Czechs in Tesin than you have for Ukrainians-Poles in eastern ‘Poland’. Those cases are identical, one cannot be right and the other wrong
     
    You are correct here. Unfortunately you contradict your other statements. Cases are indeed very similar: Ukrainians-Galicians were majority in Galicia which Poland seized, Poles-Silesians were majority in Tesin that Czechoslovaks seized. So your other claims denying Polish right to Tesin were false.
  29. The basic principle that you use is that ‘Poles have a right to grab land militarily if they are a majority in an area’.

    No, I did not use this principle and I did not express it. It was you who brought ethnicity into the conversation with AP: “So how come those lands are now in Czechia inhabited by Czechs? (The region was mixed.)”. I just pointed that it was a lie on your part because the region was 70% Polish and less than 25% Czech by ethnicity in 1919 and I brought up the circumstances of the annexation in 1919 and how Czechoslovakia ended up with the possession of that region in 1920.

    My point was that Poland had as much right if not more to grab that land as Czechoslovakia had in 1919. The circumstances were very similar. Both countries were weakened and in vicarious situations when the land was grabbed from them. Basically it was the principle of might makes right in both cases. Czechoslovakia did it in 1919 to secure access to coal mines and the railroad to Slovakia. Czechoslovakia could not use the ethnic argument while Poland in 1938 could use the ethnic argument because the majority of inhabitants were Polish.

    What were the other differences? In 1919 some Czech troops moved in while disguised in French uniforms to confuse and surprise Polish troops. In 1919 Czechs murdered several dozens of Polish POWs. While 1938 there was a communication between Polish and Czech governments. Benes was proposing to reopen negotiations and Poland issued an ultimatum. Everything was in the open, and there was no subterfuge. And the Czechoslovak foreign ministry called the Polish ambassador in Prague and told him that Poland could have what it wanted. Nobody died there.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Czechoslovak_border_conflicts
    On 28 September, Beneš composed a note to the Polish administration offering to reopen the debate surrounding the territorial demarcation in Těšínsko in the interest of mutual relations…

    At noon on 30 September, Poland gave an ultimatum to the Czechoslovak government. It demanded the immediate evacuation of Czechoslovak troops and police and gave Prague time until noon the following day. At 11:45 a.m. on 1 October the Czechoslovak foreign ministry called the Polish ambassador in Prague and told him that Poland could have what it wanted.

    But obviously the timing was bad creating bad optics because of Hitler. If Bolsheviks were defeated and destroyed and brought to justice for crimes agains humanity in 1920s the time and optics of Czechoslovak annexation of Teschen Silesia in 1919 would be equally bad or even worse because it was the economical grab of land grab w/o ethnic justification.

    • Thanks: AP
  30. @Beckow
    @utu

    You are way off and your ruminations on ethnic history and my 'education' are completely wrong. Don't speculate if you don't know.

    The basic principle that you use is that 'Poles have a right to grab land militarily if they are a majority in an area'. Leaving aside that wasn't true in Tesin - there was a large % who identified as 'Slezaks' or Silesians who preferred to live in richer Czechia to poorer and authoritarian Poland - the very same principle applies to Western Ukraine and Belarus. They were majority Ukrainians and Belorussians in 1939 and thus Soviet Union was, according to your logic, perfectly right in taking them over after Poland collapsed. Let me remind you that Polish government left on Sep 15-16, and Soviets didn't occupy the eastern Poland regions until Sep 17. All those regions are now in Ukraine and Belarus, so they are not 'Poland'.

    My point is that you cannot have a different rule for Poles-Czechs in Tesin than you have for Ukrainians-Poles in eastern 'Poland'. Those cases are identical, one cannot be right and the other wrong. If you claim that Poland's action in taking Tesin in 1938 was ok, and Soviets taking east in 1938 was wrong, you are simply a hypocrite. And hypocrites have no honour or courage, so stop preaching to us.

    Replies: @utu, @AP

    there was a large % who identified as ‘Slezaks’ or Silesians who preferred to live in richer Czechia to poorer and authoritarian Poland

    You are making this up. There was no Silesian identity. It was not included in the 1910 census where 70% identified as Poles. In some areas there was more Germans than Czechs. Czechs constituted less than 25% of population.

    While Poland as a whole was poorer than Czechoslovakia the Polish part of Teschen Silesia and Upper Silesia were richer that Czechoslovakia as a whole. So no decisions could have been made on the economic basis as Poles from Teschen Silesia were not facing a threat of being deported somewhere to poor Galicia.

    Poles in Teshen Silesia under Czechoslovak rule were discriminated and persecuted and they welcomed the 1938’s return to Poland rule.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @utu

    Your 'narrative' is wrong. Simply wrong, anyone who has ever been in that area knows that even today many people there identify as 'Slezak' (Silesian), there is a Slezak National theater there, TV station, etc... You seem to know nothing about it.

    But a bigger problem is you ignoring the main point I made: if Poland could take a region from Czechoslovakia in 1938 (in collaboration with Hitler) because of an ethnic principle, then Soviets had an equal right to take ("reunite") the Ukrainian and Belorussian regions as they did a year later. The same ethnic principle applies.

    One cannot be right and the other wrong. Unless you proudly embrace hypocrisy. Your choice.

    Replies: @utu, @AP

  31. @utu
    @Beckow


    there was a large % who identified as ‘Slezaks’ or Silesians who preferred to live in richer Czechia to poorer and authoritarian Poland
     
    You are making this up. There was no Silesian identity. It was not included in the 1910 census where 70% identified as Poles. In some areas there was more Germans than Czechs. Czechs constituted less than 25% of population.

    While Poland as a whole was poorer than Czechoslovakia the Polish part of Teschen Silesia and Upper Silesia were richer that Czechoslovakia as a whole. So no decisions could have been made on the economic basis as Poles from Teschen Silesia were not facing a threat of being deported somewhere to poor Galicia.

    Poles in Teshen Silesia under Czechoslovak rule were discriminated and persecuted and they welcomed the 1938's return to Poland rule.

    Replies: @Beckow

    Your ‘narrative’ is wrong. Simply wrong, anyone who has ever been in that area knows that even today many people there identify as ‘Slezak’ (Silesian), there is a Slezak National theater there, TV station, etc… You seem to know nothing about it.

    But a bigger problem is you ignoring the main point I made: if Poland could take a region from Czechoslovakia in 1938 (in collaboration with Hitler) because of an ethnic principle, then Soviets had an equal right to take (“reunite”) the Ukrainian and Belorussian regions as they did a year later. The same ethnic principle applies.

    One cannot be right and the other wrong. Unless you proudly embrace hypocrisy. Your choice.

    • Replies: @utu
    @Beckow

    Census of 1910 established that 75% selected their nationality as Polish. There was no Slezak nationality.

    Slezak National theater - There is no such animal. You are making this up again. There is Těšínské Divadlo in Český Těšín that was established in 1951 that play Czech and Polish plays. There are no Slezak plays to be played. The theater in the Polish part of Těšín was established in 1909 by German wealthy citizens. When opened it was called Deutsches Theater. Since 1920 Polish plays were performed in the theater. (from wiki)

    Slezak/Silesian identity is an invention to peel off Polish identity. One can imagine that Poland would be doing the same to the Czechs of Teschen Silesia if it remained under the Polish rule instead of the Czech rule trying to convince them that they were mistaken to think of themselves as Czechs because they are Silesians.

    The rationale for Poland taking back in 1938 what Czech took in 1919 and similarities and differences of the two annexations I have addressed here:


    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/maddison-project-2020-new-historical-gdp-estimates/#comment-4343154

    My point was that Poland had as much right if not more to grab that land as Czechoslovakia had in 1919. The circumstances were very similar. Both countries were weakened and in vicarious situations when the land was grabbed from them. Basically it was the principle of might makes right in both cases. Czechoslovakia did it in 1919 to secure access to coal mines and the railroad to Slovakia. Czechoslovakia could not use the ethnic argument while Poland in 1938 could use the ethnic argument because the majority of inhabitants were Polish.

    What were the other differences? In 1919 some Czech troops moved in while disguised in French uniforms to confuse and surprise Polish troops. In 1919 Czechs murdered several dozens of Polish POWs. While 1938 there was a communication between Polish and Czech governments. Benes was proposing to reopen negotiations and Poland issued an ultimatum. Everything was in the open, and there was no subterfuge. And the Czechoslovak foreign ministry called the Polish ambassador in Prague and told him that Poland could have what it wanted. Nobody died there.
     

    But obviously the timing was bad creating bad optics because of Hitler. If Bolsheviks were defeated and destroyed and brought to justice for crimes agains humanity in 1920s the timing and optics of Czechoslovak annexation of Teschen Silesia in 1919 would be equally bad or even worse because it was the economic grab of land w/o ethnic justification.
     

    Replies: @Beckow

    , @AP
    @Beckow


    Your ‘narrative’ is wrong. Simply wrong, anyone who has ever been in that area knows that even today many people there identify as ‘Slezak’ (Silesian), there is a Slezak National theater there, TV station, etc… You seem to know nothing about it.
     
    I strongly suspect that utu is himself a Silesian.

    My best friend is married to an ethnic Silesian girl; I visited this region for their wedding. These people are a subtype of Poles, like Galicians are to Ukrainians. Like Galicians, they enjoyed better relations with Germans. Czechoslovakia may have worked very hard to create a non-Polish identity but I doubt that such existed in 1919.
  32. @Beckow
    @utu

    Your 'narrative' is wrong. Simply wrong, anyone who has ever been in that area knows that even today many people there identify as 'Slezak' (Silesian), there is a Slezak National theater there, TV station, etc... You seem to know nothing about it.

    But a bigger problem is you ignoring the main point I made: if Poland could take a region from Czechoslovakia in 1938 (in collaboration with Hitler) because of an ethnic principle, then Soviets had an equal right to take ("reunite") the Ukrainian and Belorussian regions as they did a year later. The same ethnic principle applies.

    One cannot be right and the other wrong. Unless you proudly embrace hypocrisy. Your choice.

    Replies: @utu, @AP

    Census of 1910 established that 75% selected their nationality as Polish. There was no Slezak nationality.

    Slezak National theater – There is no such animal. You are making this up again. There is Těšínské Divadlo in Český Těšín that was established in 1951 that play Czech and Polish plays. There are no Slezak plays to be played. The theater in the Polish part of Těšín was established in 1909 by German wealthy citizens. When opened it was called Deutsches Theater. Since 1920 Polish plays were performed in the theater. (from wiki)

    Slezak/Silesian identity is an invention to peel off Polish identity. One can imagine that Poland would be doing the same to the Czechs of Teschen Silesia if it remained under the Polish rule instead of the Czech rule trying to convince them that they were mistaken to think of themselves as Czechs because they are Silesians.

    The rationale for Poland taking back in 1938 what Czech took in 1919 and similarities and differences of the two annexations I have addressed here:

    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/maddison-project-2020-new-historical-gdp-estimates/#comment-4343154

    My point was that Poland had as much right if not more to grab that land as Czechoslovakia had in 1919. The circumstances were very similar. Both countries were weakened and in vicarious situations when the land was grabbed from them. Basically it was the principle of might makes right in both cases. Czechoslovakia did it in 1919 to secure access to coal mines and the railroad to Slovakia. Czechoslovakia could not use the ethnic argument while Poland in 1938 could use the ethnic argument because the majority of inhabitants were Polish.

    What were the other differences? In 1919 some Czech troops moved in while disguised in French uniforms to confuse and surprise Polish troops. In 1919 Czechs murdered several dozens of Polish POWs. While 1938 there was a communication between Polish and Czech governments. Benes was proposing to reopen negotiations and Poland issued an ultimatum. Everything was in the open, and there was no subterfuge. And the Czechoslovak foreign ministry called the Polish ambassador in Prague and told him that Poland could have what it wanted. Nobody died there.

    But obviously the timing was bad creating bad optics because of Hitler. If Bolsheviks were defeated and destroyed and brought to justice for crimes agains humanity in 1920s the timing and optics of Czechoslovak annexation of Teschen Silesia in 1919 would be equally bad or even worse because it was the economic grab of land w/o ethnic justification.

    • Agree: AP
    • Replies: @Beckow
    @utu

    You stubbornly refuse to address my point that Polish taking of Tesin in 1938 was exactly the same as Soviets taking Western Ukraine-Belarus in 1939. I will take that as conceding that you lost the argument.

    Regarding Ceske Slezsko (or Czech Silesia), here is a good summary:

    https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Cesk%C3%A9_Slezsko#T%C4%9B%C5%A1%C3%ADnsko

    It is quite objective and non-ethnic. Silesian (Slezak) have always existed in Czechia, the 3rd largest city Ostrava used to be called Slezska Ostrava and the region is today called Moravsko-Slezsky Region. The people there have a distinct dialect (closer to Polish than Czech, but distinct) and some cultural institutions. You are right that historically the Silesian ethnic group identified closer with the local Germans. That's the main reason why after WWII their regional identity was pushed to the background, but if you go today to Tesin, Opava, even Ostrava, a large number of natives will say 'I am a Slezak', it's their identity, why does that bother you? Historically they much preferred to live in richer Czechia than in backward Poland, your silly 'local' arguments notwithstanding, people know that a richer state with better institutions is better for them.

    Here are the result of census in 1939 (done by Germans):


    Těšín: národnost Slezská 37 %, Czech 21 %, Polish 24 %, German 18 %
     
    Try to address the fundamental point that if Poland could use 'ethnic' principle to annex Tesin, why wouldn't the same principle apply to Soviets annexing Western Ukraine-Belarus. If you don't, you lost the argument.

    Replies: @AP, @utu

  33. @Beckow
    @utu

    You are way off and your ruminations on ethnic history and my 'education' are completely wrong. Don't speculate if you don't know.

    The basic principle that you use is that 'Poles have a right to grab land militarily if they are a majority in an area'. Leaving aside that wasn't true in Tesin - there was a large % who identified as 'Slezaks' or Silesians who preferred to live in richer Czechia to poorer and authoritarian Poland - the very same principle applies to Western Ukraine and Belarus. They were majority Ukrainians and Belorussians in 1939 and thus Soviet Union was, according to your logic, perfectly right in taking them over after Poland collapsed. Let me remind you that Polish government left on Sep 15-16, and Soviets didn't occupy the eastern Poland regions until Sep 17. All those regions are now in Ukraine and Belarus, so they are not 'Poland'.

    My point is that you cannot have a different rule for Poles-Czechs in Tesin than you have for Ukrainians-Poles in eastern 'Poland'. Those cases are identical, one cannot be right and the other wrong. If you claim that Poland's action in taking Tesin in 1938 was ok, and Soviets taking east in 1938 was wrong, you are simply a hypocrite. And hypocrites have no honour or courage, so stop preaching to us.

    Replies: @utu, @AP

    The basic principle that you use is that ‘Poles have a right to grab land militarily if they are a majority in an area’… – the very same principle applies to Western Ukraine and Belarus. They were majority Ukrainians and Belorussians in 1939 and thus Soviet Union was, according to your logic, perfectly right in taking them over after Poland collapsed

    I don’t recall utu ever defending the Polish conquest of the Western Ukrainian Peoples Republic.

    The Polish state indeed engaged in hypocrisy; it was wrong in western Ukraine but right in Silesia.

    My point is that you cannot have a different rule for Poles-Czechs in Tesin than you have for Ukrainians-Poles in eastern ‘Poland’. Those cases are identical, one cannot be right and the other wrong

    You are correct here. Unfortunately you contradict your other statements. Cases are indeed very similar: Ukrainians-Galicians were majority in Galicia which Poland seized, Poles-Silesians were majority in Tesin that Czechoslovaks seized. So your other claims denying Polish right to Tesin were false.

  34. @Beckow
    @utu

    Your 'narrative' is wrong. Simply wrong, anyone who has ever been in that area knows that even today many people there identify as 'Slezak' (Silesian), there is a Slezak National theater there, TV station, etc... You seem to know nothing about it.

    But a bigger problem is you ignoring the main point I made: if Poland could take a region from Czechoslovakia in 1938 (in collaboration with Hitler) because of an ethnic principle, then Soviets had an equal right to take ("reunite") the Ukrainian and Belorussian regions as they did a year later. The same ethnic principle applies.

    One cannot be right and the other wrong. Unless you proudly embrace hypocrisy. Your choice.

    Replies: @utu, @AP

    Your ‘narrative’ is wrong. Simply wrong, anyone who has ever been in that area knows that even today many people there identify as ‘Slezak’ (Silesian), there is a Slezak National theater there, TV station, etc… You seem to know nothing about it.

    I strongly suspect that utu is himself a Silesian.

    My best friend is married to an ethnic Silesian girl; I visited this region for their wedding. These people are a subtype of Poles, like Galicians are to Ukrainians. Like Galicians, they enjoyed better relations with Germans. Czechoslovakia may have worked very hard to create a non-Polish identity but I doubt that such existed in 1919.

  35. @AP
    @Beckow


    …Poland fought until it was taken over

    Yes, for two weeks. I said that above, what are you arguing with?
     
    You are wrong as usual, as above. Germans invaded September 1, last battle against Germans was October 6. Germany lost about 60% as many soldiers against Poland as they did against France.

    That was also less than a year after Poles enthusiastically attacked Czechia with Hitler after Munich agreement
     
    At Munich, Czechs proved they were giving their territory away without a fight. Piles naturally took lands inhabited by their own people.

    …then engaged in extremely bloody and futile resistance.

    It was bloody because the Germans were killing Polish untermensch with a gusto not seen since Ceasar went to France
     
    It was bloody because Poles, unlike Czechs, had refused to cooperate.

    It was futile, you are right – without the cursed Red Army there would be no Poles left today
     
    The first correct thing you wrote.

    The mechanism is still there in the text, unaltered, so the EU can say it stayed firm. But it’s been been neutered with additional “interpretations”…

    May I introduce you to how it works? The “interpretation” depends on who is doing the “interpreting”
     
    You should have read further:

    In a first round of compromise, the wording was diluted so that the mechanism became almost useless. It now applies only to those rule-of-law breaches that directly corrupt the use of money from Brussels. It no longer has any bearing on all other violations, from cherry-picking judges to harassing journalists, academics or opponents.

    Even this gesture from Brussels, astonishingly, wasn’t enough to appease Budapest and Warsaw. Hence Merkel’s final fudge: On top of the mechanism’s previous dilution, there’s now also the prospect of indefinite delay. The clause won’t kick in until Hungary and Poland get a chance to take it to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg. Those judges will take their sweet time, and a decision isn’t expected until mid-2022. Conveniently, this will come after Hungary’s parliamentary election, slated for early 2022.

    Replies: @Beckow, @Gerard-Mandela

    Poland fought until it was taken over, then engaged in extremely bloody and futile resistance. Czechia didn’t fight, and served very loyally. The differences were stark.

    You are wrong as usual, as above. Germans invaded September 1, last battle against Germans was October 6.

    HAHAHAHAHA! Seriously WTF?

    Polish state, the Polish government had collapsed and stopped functioning by September the 14th you idiot.
    That is 2 weeks as Beckow said. I suspect he is laughing his a** of too much to even bother replying with it to your instantaneous BS.

    September 14th to October 6th is basically non-resistance and completing formalities you cretin – thats the problem when a moron as yourself , desperate to create instantaneous BS, just copies the first nonsense listed on Wikipedia , when the sequence of events is well-known already.
    Maybe you want to include the dates of the holocaust to go until 1946, because the Poles were still massacring Jews even then, using your idiotic logic? LOL

    Red Army had bigger problems tying the laces of their boots than they did moving into and occupying their part of Poland you imbecile – because there was basically nothing or pitiful “resistance”

    So there it is – the Poles, with one of the largest Armies in history……got annihilated in the embarrassingly short time of 2 weeks by the Nazis, with the Soviets moving into a land of no functioning state and zero or pitiful organised state military resistance . Nobody bothers to even call it a war or battle with the Nazis or Soviets in Poland or with their main cities – it’s mostly called somewhere between an annexation and a invasion

    Now practically everybody interested in that part of history or that part of the world, every Pole knows these dates of 1st and 14th September. A severely f**ked up loser as yourself, even with all the abnormal time you are on here, copying and pasting corrupt edits from Wikipedia, spending millions of hours trying to timewaste on this same issue over several years………STILL isn’t even aware of these dates??!!! LOL

    Germany lost about 60% as many soldiers against Poland as they did against France.

    Another embarrassing and idiotic lie. France was a convincing but still far harder and more intense victory for the Nazis than the Polish “battle” was.. No serious person has ever tried to even think differently on this issue.

    Poland fought until it was taken over, then engaged in extremely bloody and futile resistance. Czechia didn’t fight, and served very loyally. The differences were stark.
    It was bloody because Poles, unlike Czechs, had refused to cooperate.

    Czechoslovakia was forced by every major power except USSR to give away parts of their land you imbecile. Cowardly , opportunistic and of course, impotent, Poles took advantage of this situation. No non-superpower country would have acted differently to Czechoslovakia if put in their position

    Poland on the other hand, did all it could to incite or provoke war – both whoring with the Nazi’s and hoping to lure the Nazis and Soviets into battle against eachother . Safe to say this “tactic” did not work well for them. It was inciting all this, because completely different to the Czechs , they had guarantees of protection from France and Britain …which those countries deservedly treated with the contempt it deserved. They were preparing for war, fully expecting French and British (maybe American) military with them…got slaughtered easily , didnt get direct foreign assistance…..and effectively gave up fighting properly after this

    So Czechs/Slovaks fully deserve to be seen as victims, Poles can merit absolutely zero sympathy.
    Czechoslovakia don’t have honour in their actions but they certainly don’t have any dishonour in their lack of military action . Poles have neither honour or sympathy for what happened to them in WW2.

    It is Merkel who backed down in the face of Polish resistance. She got some face-saving words that are useless in practice.

    LOL. Seriously any dumb American should be banned from having an atlas. By this idiot “logic” the “formidable” Estonia and Latvia were courageous in resisting EU “attempts” to stop the human rights abuses of not automatically allowing ethnic Russian citizenship or the language laws . Or Germany were “severely resistant” to Montenegro refusing “democracy reforms” before their 30 year long gangster ruler was allowed to take them into NATO recently…….or the failed, farcical bankrupt state of Banderastan was showing “brave resistance” to western attempts to create an “anti-c0rruption court” there and “isn’t” a severely, weak, prostitute-client state under control of the west. LOL.
    These disputes are superficial in nation you imbecile and have no impact on the power dynamics in Europe or the west.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Gerard-Mandela

    You are just clearly desperate (judging by your histrionics) and upset at Poles because Poland is opposing the rights of trans like you.

    , @Beckow
    @Gerard-Mandela

    When someone disputes an obvious fact - as AP did with the 2-week war that Poland managed to fight in 1939 - it is more of a psychiatric issue than anything else. There is something deeply hurtful for AP in what happened and he will lie to himself and autistically try to find something, anything, to make himself feel better. He does the same with his 'Ukraine is blossoming, blabla...' argument, although lately he has been rather quiet on that front, maybe denying the reality is too painful even for him.


    ...Poles, with one of the largest Armies in history……got annihilated in the embarrassingly short time of 2 weeks by the Nazis
     
    Precisely. As they did in 1812 when Poles were the second largest contingent in the Napoleon invasion of Russia. One wonders what is in store in the near future, how many Poles would survive if Poland decides to go for it and have a war with Russia again? Even more relevant, would anyone in London-Berlin-Washington really care?

    Replies: @AP

  36. @Gerard-Mandela
    @AP


    Poland fought until it was taken over, then engaged in extremely bloody and futile resistance. Czechia didn’t fight, and served very loyally. The differences were stark.

    You are wrong as usual, as above. Germans invaded September 1, last battle against Germans was October 6.
     

    HAHAHAHAHA! Seriously WTF?

    Polish state, the Polish government had collapsed and stopped functioning by September the 14th you idiot.
    That is 2 weeks as Beckow said. I suspect he is laughing his a** of too much to even bother replying with it to your instantaneous BS.

    September 14th to October 6th is basically non-resistance and completing formalities you cretin - thats the problem when a moron as yourself , desperate to create instantaneous BS, just copies the first nonsense listed on Wikipedia , when the sequence of events is well-known already.
    Maybe you want to include the dates of the holocaust to go until 1946, because the Poles were still massacring Jews even then, using your idiotic logic? LOL


    Red Army had bigger problems tying the laces of their boots than they did moving into and occupying their part of Poland you imbecile - because there was basically nothing or pitiful "resistance"

    So there it is - the Poles, with one of the largest Armies in history......got annihilated in the embarrassingly short time of 2 weeks by the Nazis, with the Soviets moving into a land of no functioning state and zero or pitiful organised state military resistance . Nobody bothers to even call it a war or battle with the Nazis or Soviets in Poland or with their main cities - it's mostly called somewhere between an annexation and a invasion

    Now practically everybody interested in that part of history or that part of the world, every Pole knows these dates of 1st and 14th September. A severely f**ked up loser as yourself, even with all the abnormal time you are on here, copying and pasting corrupt edits from Wikipedia, spending millions of hours trying to timewaste on this same issue over several years.........STILL isn't even aware of these dates??!!! LOL


    Germany lost about 60% as many soldiers against Poland as they did against France.
     
    Another embarrassing and idiotic lie. France was a convincing but still far harder and more intense victory for the Nazis than the Polish "battle" was.. No serious person has ever tried to even think differently on this issue.

    Poland fought until it was taken over, then engaged in extremely bloody and futile resistance. Czechia didn’t fight, and served very loyally. The differences were stark.
    It was bloody because Poles, unlike Czechs, had refused to cooperate.
     
    Czechoslovakia was forced by every major power except USSR to give away parts of their land you imbecile. Cowardly , opportunistic and of course, impotent, Poles took advantage of this situation. No non-superpower country would have acted differently to Czechoslovakia if put in their position

    Poland on the other hand, did all it could to incite or provoke war - both whoring with the Nazi's and hoping to lure the Nazis and Soviets into battle against eachother . Safe to say this "tactic" did not work well for them. It was inciting all this, because completely different to the Czechs , they had guarantees of protection from France and Britain ...which those countries deservedly treated with the contempt it deserved. They were preparing for war, fully expecting French and British (maybe American) military with them...got slaughtered easily , didnt get direct foreign assistance.....and effectively gave up fighting properly after this

    So Czechs/Slovaks fully deserve to be seen as victims, Poles can merit absolutely zero sympathy.
    Czechoslovakia don't have honour in their actions but they certainly don't have any dishonour in their lack of military action . Poles have neither honour or sympathy for what happened to them in WW2.


    It is Merkel who backed down in the face of Polish resistance. She got some face-saving words that are useless in practice.
     
    LOL. Seriously any dumb American should be banned from having an atlas. By this idiot "logic" the "formidable" Estonia and Latvia were courageous in resisting EU "attempts" to stop the human rights abuses of not automatically allowing ethnic Russian citizenship or the language laws . Or Germany were "severely resistant" to Montenegro refusing "democracy reforms" before their 30 year long gangster ruler was allowed to take them into NATO recently.......or the failed, farcical bankrupt state of Banderastan was showing "brave resistance" to western attempts to create an "anti-c0rruption court" there and "isn't" a severely, weak, prostitute-client state under control of the west. LOL.
    These disputes are superficial in nation you imbecile and have no impact on the power dynamics in Europe or the west.

    Replies: @AP, @Beckow

    You are just clearly desperate (judging by your histrionics) and upset at Poles because Poland is opposing the rights of trans like you.

  37. @Beckow
    @AnonGOGO


    ...WWII and its immediate consequences resulted in a relative wealth gain for Czechs vis a vis Austrians
     
    If you focus only on WWII, Austrians significantly improved their relative wealth vis a vis the Czechs (you have to include the Sudeten among the beneficiaries who were actually Austrians). This happened via expropriation of Czech property in the Sudeten border areas - there were 600k Czechs living there, most were expelled in 1938-9. Austrian businesses benefitted while Czechs were mostly allowed to only to be workers. Jewish and Czech exile properties were confiscated and divided among Austrians-Germans. There were infinite number of other cases: Czechs murdered like in Lidice etc, tens of thousands executed and property confiscated, slave labor by hundreds of thousands Czechs for Germany (incl. Austria), educational opportunities, taxes, etc...

    In 1945-47 this was reversed and Czechs expelled about 3 million Sudetens, many went to Austria. They lost their houses and real estate, but kept many other assets (education, $ in Swiss and Viennese banks, gold and jewellery, etc...). In terms of killed the ratio is roughly 5 to 1 Czechs murdered by Germans (incl. Austrians) vs. Sudetens killed after the war.

    And there is the sequence issue - Germans and Austrians did it first. That matters. Don't kill and plunder others if you don't want to be killed and plundered. It would be nice if you could finally learn that lesson.

    Replies: @AnonGOGO

    [quote]If you focus only on WWII[/quote]
    I argued your claim that Austrians were rich in 1945 and that the source of this supposed wealth was looted, particularly from Czechs. In 1945, Austrians couldn’t by anything from what the German state may confiscated in the Sudetenland or the protectorate. The $, gold and jewellery and which in your opionion the Sudeten Germans brought to Austria in 1945 and made Austria rich that way (amusing thought) likewise ended up in the German treasury to support the war effort rather than in private hands, apart from the occaisonal corrupt official.

    As for the staple point of the expulsion of Czechs from the Sudetenland in 1938, there was none in the strict sense: Czech officials and state employees who mostly went to the border regions after 1919 remigrated to the Czech interior after the Munich agreement. Furthermore, there was a flight of Jews and political opponents (including some Germans) from the Sudetenland. More than 300,000 Czechs remained in the Sudetenland (mostly those who had lived there longer), plus a number of binational individuals who switched their ethnicity to German in the 1939 census.

    [quote]In terms of killed the ratio is roughly 5 to 1 Czechs murdered by Germans (incl. Austrians) vs. Sudetens killed after the war.[/quote]

    I don’t know if this supposed to include Czech Jews. If not, that ratio is nonsense, unless you base your claims on communist post-war “estimates” of Czech Non-Jewish war deaths which were of course inflated. See Pavel Škorpils post-communist estimate of Czechoslovak war-related deaths.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @AnonGOGO


    ...post-war “estimates” of Czech Non-Jewish war deaths which were of course inflated
     
    A lot of numbers thrown around about WWII are 'inflated'. That doesn't mean that they are an order of magnitude off as you imply. If you seriously want to compare the killing by Germans in Czechia in WWII with revenge killing that happened after WWII, well, you are one sick puppy. Are you upset that the likes of the local Gestapo chief were executed? Or that a lot of previously Nazi local Germans were killed in anger? That happened everywhere, from France to Norway.

    If you start a murderous war on your neighbours and lose, don't be surprised if they take revenge. What happened after WWII were simply consequences.

    Your are cherry-picking my argument that Germany (and Austria that was a core part of Germany during WWII) economically benefitted from occupying Czechia. I listed a number of way they did this and you can find numerous other examples - 6 years of ruling is a long time. To say that it all ended up in 'German Treasury' is silly, try to be serious.

    The number of Czechs expelled from Sudetenland after 1938 was 500-600,000. You seem to justify expelling government employees, but many of those were also long-time local Czech residents. The rule was simple: "declare German nationality or leave". In 1945-47 Czechs simply followed the same script and expelled Sudeten Germans. What goes around, comes around. If you don't think sequence matters I can't help you. It just does.

    Replies: @AP, @AnonGOGO

  38. @utu
    @Beckow

    Census of 1910 established that 75% selected their nationality as Polish. There was no Slezak nationality.

    Slezak National theater - There is no such animal. You are making this up again. There is Těšínské Divadlo in Český Těšín that was established in 1951 that play Czech and Polish plays. There are no Slezak plays to be played. The theater in the Polish part of Těšín was established in 1909 by German wealthy citizens. When opened it was called Deutsches Theater. Since 1920 Polish plays were performed in the theater. (from wiki)

    Slezak/Silesian identity is an invention to peel off Polish identity. One can imagine that Poland would be doing the same to the Czechs of Teschen Silesia if it remained under the Polish rule instead of the Czech rule trying to convince them that they were mistaken to think of themselves as Czechs because they are Silesians.

    The rationale for Poland taking back in 1938 what Czech took in 1919 and similarities and differences of the two annexations I have addressed here:


    https://www.unz.com/akarlin/maddison-project-2020-new-historical-gdp-estimates/#comment-4343154

    My point was that Poland had as much right if not more to grab that land as Czechoslovakia had in 1919. The circumstances were very similar. Both countries were weakened and in vicarious situations when the land was grabbed from them. Basically it was the principle of might makes right in both cases. Czechoslovakia did it in 1919 to secure access to coal mines and the railroad to Slovakia. Czechoslovakia could not use the ethnic argument while Poland in 1938 could use the ethnic argument because the majority of inhabitants were Polish.

    What were the other differences? In 1919 some Czech troops moved in while disguised in French uniforms to confuse and surprise Polish troops. In 1919 Czechs murdered several dozens of Polish POWs. While 1938 there was a communication between Polish and Czech governments. Benes was proposing to reopen negotiations and Poland issued an ultimatum. Everything was in the open, and there was no subterfuge. And the Czechoslovak foreign ministry called the Polish ambassador in Prague and told him that Poland could have what it wanted. Nobody died there.
     

    But obviously the timing was bad creating bad optics because of Hitler. If Bolsheviks were defeated and destroyed and brought to justice for crimes agains humanity in 1920s the timing and optics of Czechoslovak annexation of Teschen Silesia in 1919 would be equally bad or even worse because it was the economic grab of land w/o ethnic justification.
     

    Replies: @Beckow

    You stubbornly refuse to address my point that Polish taking of Tesin in 1938 was exactly the same as Soviets taking Western Ukraine-Belarus in 1939. I will take that as conceding that you lost the argument.

    Regarding Ceske Slezsko (or Czech Silesia), here is a good summary:

    https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Cesk%C3%A9_Slezsko#T%C4%9B%C5%A1%C3%ADnsko

    It is quite objective and non-ethnic. Silesian (Slezak) have always existed in Czechia, the 3rd largest city Ostrava used to be called Slezska Ostrava and the region is today called Moravsko-Slezsky Region. The people there have a distinct dialect (closer to Polish than Czech, but distinct) and some cultural institutions. You are right that historically the Silesian ethnic group identified closer with the local Germans. That’s the main reason why after WWII their regional identity was pushed to the background, but if you go today to Tesin, Opava, even Ostrava, a large number of natives will say ‘I am a Slezak‘, it’s their identity, why does that bother you? Historically they much preferred to live in richer Czechia than in backward Poland, your silly ‘local’ arguments notwithstanding, people know that a richer state with better institutions is better for them.

    Here are the result of census in 1939 (done by Germans):

    Těšín: národnost Slezská 37 %, Czech 21 %, Polish 24 %, German 18 %

    Try to address the fundamental point that if Poland could use ‘ethnic’ principle to annex Tesin, why wouldn’t the same principle apply to Soviets annexing Western Ukraine-Belarus. If you don’t, you lost the argument.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Beckow

    So to summarise, even according to the 1939 German census, there were more Poles than Czechs there, and even according to you Silesians are closer to Poles than they are to Czechs.

    Now you might ponder why Silesians would declare a separate non-Polish identity under German rule, given that Germans treated Silesians rather well and Poles rather poorly. But perhaps such thoughts will bring you too close to reality?

    , @utu
    @Beckow

    The two annexations of Teschin Silesia, that by Czechoslovakia in 1919 and by Poland in 1938 have similarities, parallels, symmetries and some differences (see my previous comments). You can't asses the latter without the context created by the former.

    The greatest difference was that the overwhelming majority of the population was Polish, so Poland could use the ethnic argument while Czechoslovakia could not argue on ethnic grounds neither in 1919 nor in 1938.

    There would be no 1938 without 1919. If in 1919 a plebiscite was conducted and the border was drawn according to wishes of population living there there would be no 1938.

    The issue is closed. Under the pressure from the USSR Poland agreed to sign the border treaty recognizing the border at the line of January 1, 1938 13 years after WWII in 1958.

    Replies: @Beckow, @Gerard-Mandela

  39. @AnonGOGO
    @Beckow

    [quote]If you focus only on WWII[/quote]
    I argued your claim that Austrians were rich in 1945 and that the source of this supposed wealth was looted, particularly from Czechs. In 1945, Austrians couldn't by anything from what the German state may confiscated in the Sudetenland or the protectorate. The $, gold and jewellery and which in your opionion the Sudeten Germans brought to Austria in 1945 and made Austria rich that way (amusing thought) likewise ended up in the German treasury to support the war effort rather than in private hands, apart from the occaisonal corrupt official.

    As for the staple point of the expulsion of Czechs from the Sudetenland in 1938, there was none in the strict sense: Czech officials and state employees who mostly went to the border regions after 1919 remigrated to the Czech interior after the Munich agreement. Furthermore, there was a flight of Jews and political opponents (including some Germans) from the Sudetenland. More than 300,000 Czechs remained in the Sudetenland (mostly those who had lived there longer), plus a number of binational individuals who switched their ethnicity to German in the 1939 census.

    [quote]In terms of killed the ratio is roughly 5 to 1 Czechs murdered by Germans (incl. Austrians) vs. Sudetens killed after the war.[/quote]

    I don't know if this supposed to include Czech Jews. If not, that ratio is nonsense, unless you base your claims on communist post-war "estimates" of Czech Non-Jewish war deaths which were of course inflated. See Pavel Škorpils post-communist estimate of Czechoslovak war-related deaths.

    Replies: @Beckow

    …post-war “estimates” of Czech Non-Jewish war deaths which were of course inflated

    A lot of numbers thrown around about WWII are ‘inflated‘. That doesn’t mean that they are an order of magnitude off as you imply. If you seriously want to compare the killing by Germans in Czechia in WWII with revenge killing that happened after WWII, well, you are one sick puppy. Are you upset that the likes of the local Gestapo chief were executed? Or that a lot of previously Nazi local Germans were killed in anger? That happened everywhere, from France to Norway.

    If you start a murderous war on your neighbours and lose, don’t be surprised if they take revenge. What happened after WWII were simply consequences.

    Your are cherry-picking my argument that Germany (and Austria that was a core part of Germany during WWII) economically benefitted from occupying Czechia. I listed a number of way they did this and you can find numerous other examples – 6 years of ruling is a long time. To say that it all ended up in ‘German Treasury’ is silly, try to be serious.

    The number of Czechs expelled from Sudetenland after 1938 was 500-600,000. You seem to justify expelling government employees, but many of those were also long-time local Czech residents. The rule was simple: “declare German nationality or leave“. In 1945-47 Czechs simply followed the same script and expelled Sudeten Germans. What goes around, comes around. If you don’t think sequence matters I can’t help you. It just does.

    • Replies: @AP
    @Beckow


    If you don’t think sequence matters I can’t help you. It just does
     
    Utu explained sequence to you. You conveniently ignored him:

    Now let’s follow your dictum “As I pointed out before, sequence in history matters.” When judging 1938 re-annexation of Teschen Silesia by Poland it should be viewed in the light of what occurred in 1919 when Czechoslovakia stabbed Poland in the back when Poland was fighting Bolsheviks and then in 1920 when Benes through a swindle at the international conference got the Teschen territory without a plebiscite. There was more stabbings. Czechoslovakia refused for trains with military supplies from France to pass. I think Hungary managed to send enough ammunition to Poland that were crucial at the Battle of Warsaw in 1920.

    And then settlers and workers from Moravia and Bohemia were encouraged to move to Teschen Silesia to dilute Polish population. The usual stuff you do when you try to solidify territorial gains with ethnically foreign population
     
    , @AnonGOGO
    @Beckow


    I listed a number of way they did this and you can find numerous other examples

     

    Other than some nebulous claims about gold and bank notes (those would be of mostly Jewish origin since Czechs weren't expropriated in general). Apart from the fact that the expropriated property in form of gold and bank notes was indeed collected by the German state, this exhibits a rather childish notion of wealth. Austrians apparently had pockets full of gold in 1945 and thus -POOF- became rich. Notwithstanding that I've never heard of anyone here getting his share of the Jew gold, I think the land, houses, capital goods (I ignore the other movable property that was confiscated) constitute a more tangible source of wealth.

    The rule was simple: “declare German nationality or leave“. In 1945-47 Czechs simply followed the same script and expelled Sudeten Germans.
     
    You live in your own world, of course there was no option for Germans to just declare Czecho-Slovak nationality and stay. Therefore, I think it's futile to try to argue your other fantasy facts like the "500-600k expelled Czechs". If you're actually interested in the issue (which you aren't), consulting the newer Czech literature should be sufficient.
  40. @Gerard-Mandela
    @AP


    Poland fought until it was taken over, then engaged in extremely bloody and futile resistance. Czechia didn’t fight, and served very loyally. The differences were stark.

    You are wrong as usual, as above. Germans invaded September 1, last battle against Germans was October 6.
     

    HAHAHAHAHA! Seriously WTF?

    Polish state, the Polish government had collapsed and stopped functioning by September the 14th you idiot.
    That is 2 weeks as Beckow said. I suspect he is laughing his a** of too much to even bother replying with it to your instantaneous BS.

    September 14th to October 6th is basically non-resistance and completing formalities you cretin - thats the problem when a moron as yourself , desperate to create instantaneous BS, just copies the first nonsense listed on Wikipedia , when the sequence of events is well-known already.
    Maybe you want to include the dates of the holocaust to go until 1946, because the Poles were still massacring Jews even then, using your idiotic logic? LOL


    Red Army had bigger problems tying the laces of their boots than they did moving into and occupying their part of Poland you imbecile - because there was basically nothing or pitiful "resistance"

    So there it is - the Poles, with one of the largest Armies in history......got annihilated in the embarrassingly short time of 2 weeks by the Nazis, with the Soviets moving into a land of no functioning state and zero or pitiful organised state military resistance . Nobody bothers to even call it a war or battle with the Nazis or Soviets in Poland or with their main cities - it's mostly called somewhere between an annexation and a invasion

    Now practically everybody interested in that part of history or that part of the world, every Pole knows these dates of 1st and 14th September. A severely f**ked up loser as yourself, even with all the abnormal time you are on here, copying and pasting corrupt edits from Wikipedia, spending millions of hours trying to timewaste on this same issue over several years.........STILL isn't even aware of these dates??!!! LOL


    Germany lost about 60% as many soldiers against Poland as they did against France.
     
    Another embarrassing and idiotic lie. France was a convincing but still far harder and more intense victory for the Nazis than the Polish "battle" was.. No serious person has ever tried to even think differently on this issue.

    Poland fought until it was taken over, then engaged in extremely bloody and futile resistance. Czechia didn’t fight, and served very loyally. The differences were stark.
    It was bloody because Poles, unlike Czechs, had refused to cooperate.
     
    Czechoslovakia was forced by every major power except USSR to give away parts of their land you imbecile. Cowardly , opportunistic and of course, impotent, Poles took advantage of this situation. No non-superpower country would have acted differently to Czechoslovakia if put in their position

    Poland on the other hand, did all it could to incite or provoke war - both whoring with the Nazi's and hoping to lure the Nazis and Soviets into battle against eachother . Safe to say this "tactic" did not work well for them. It was inciting all this, because completely different to the Czechs , they had guarantees of protection from France and Britain ...which those countries deservedly treated with the contempt it deserved. They were preparing for war, fully expecting French and British (maybe American) military with them...got slaughtered easily , didnt get direct foreign assistance.....and effectively gave up fighting properly after this

    So Czechs/Slovaks fully deserve to be seen as victims, Poles can merit absolutely zero sympathy.
    Czechoslovakia don't have honour in their actions but they certainly don't have any dishonour in their lack of military action . Poles have neither honour or sympathy for what happened to them in WW2.


    It is Merkel who backed down in the face of Polish resistance. She got some face-saving words that are useless in practice.
     
    LOL. Seriously any dumb American should be banned from having an atlas. By this idiot "logic" the "formidable" Estonia and Latvia were courageous in resisting EU "attempts" to stop the human rights abuses of not automatically allowing ethnic Russian citizenship or the language laws . Or Germany were "severely resistant" to Montenegro refusing "democracy reforms" before their 30 year long gangster ruler was allowed to take them into NATO recently.......or the failed, farcical bankrupt state of Banderastan was showing "brave resistance" to western attempts to create an "anti-c0rruption court" there and "isn't" a severely, weak, prostitute-client state under control of the west. LOL.
    These disputes are superficial in nation you imbecile and have no impact on the power dynamics in Europe or the west.

    Replies: @AP, @Beckow

    When someone disputes an obvious fact – as AP did with the 2-week war that Poland managed to fight in 1939 – it is more of a psychiatric issue than anything else. There is something deeply hurtful for AP in what happened and he will lie to himself and autistically try to find something, anything, to make himself feel better. He does the same with his ‘Ukraine is blossoming, blabla…‘ argument, although lately he has been rather quiet on that front, maybe denying the reality is too painful even for him.

    …Poles, with one of the largest Armies in history……got annihilated in the embarrassingly short time of 2 weeks by the Nazis

    Precisely. As they did in 1812 when Poles were the second largest contingent in the Napoleon invasion of Russia. One wonders what is in store in the near future, how many Poles would survive if Poland decides to go for it and have a war with Russia again? Even more relevant, would anyone in London-Berlin-Washington really care?

    • Replies: @AP
    @Beckow


    When someone disputes an obvious fact – as AP did with the 2-week war that Poland managed to fight in 1939
     
    Repeating a falsehood doesn’t make it true. Most significant battle (Bzura) ended in September 19:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bzura

    but significant fighting went on until October 6th:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kock_(1939)

    So you turn a one month war into a 2 week war. Your approach to reality.

    he will lie to himself
     
    We see above exactly who has been lying to himself.

    ‘Ukraine is blossoming, blabla…‘ argument, although lately he has been rather quiet on that front
     
    Due to Covid everything is in flux. In early 2020 it was doing the best it has been doing since the early 90s collapse.

    Replies: @Beckow

  41. @Beckow
    @Gerard-Mandela

    When someone disputes an obvious fact - as AP did with the 2-week war that Poland managed to fight in 1939 - it is more of a psychiatric issue than anything else. There is something deeply hurtful for AP in what happened and he will lie to himself and autistically try to find something, anything, to make himself feel better. He does the same with his 'Ukraine is blossoming, blabla...' argument, although lately he has been rather quiet on that front, maybe denying the reality is too painful even for him.


    ...Poles, with one of the largest Armies in history……got annihilated in the embarrassingly short time of 2 weeks by the Nazis
     
    Precisely. As they did in 1812 when Poles were the second largest contingent in the Napoleon invasion of Russia. One wonders what is in store in the near future, how many Poles would survive if Poland decides to go for it and have a war with Russia again? Even more relevant, would anyone in London-Berlin-Washington really care?

    Replies: @AP

    When someone disputes an obvious fact – as AP did with the 2-week war that Poland managed to fight in 1939

    Repeating a falsehood doesn’t make it true. Most significant battle (Bzura) ended in September 19:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bzura

    but significant fighting went on until October 6th:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kock_(1939)

    So you turn a one month war into a 2 week war. Your approach to reality.

    he will lie to himself

    We see above exactly who has been lying to himself.

    ‘Ukraine is blossoming, blabla…‘ argument, although lately he has been rather quiet on that front

    Due to Covid everything is in flux. In early 2020 it was doing the best it has been doing since the early 90s collapse.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @AP


    ...So you turn a one month war into a 2 week war.
     
    Ok, I am in a generous mood, let's call it a 19-day war. Happy?

    Due to Covid everything is in flux. In early 2020 it was doing the best it has been doing since the early 90s collapse.
     
    Well, sh..t happens, smart people are usually ready. In any case, Ukraine had much better numbers a few times before, last time in 2010-12 period. What now?

    I am still waiting for a coherent answer to my basic point: what Poland did by occupying Tesin on ethnic grounds in 1938 was identical to what Soviets did in 1939 when they occupied Western Ukraine-Belarus, also on ethnic grounds. Right or wrong?

    Replies: @AP

  42. @Beckow
    @utu

    You stubbornly refuse to address my point that Polish taking of Tesin in 1938 was exactly the same as Soviets taking Western Ukraine-Belarus in 1939. I will take that as conceding that you lost the argument.

    Regarding Ceske Slezsko (or Czech Silesia), here is a good summary:

    https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Cesk%C3%A9_Slezsko#T%C4%9B%C5%A1%C3%ADnsko

    It is quite objective and non-ethnic. Silesian (Slezak) have always existed in Czechia, the 3rd largest city Ostrava used to be called Slezska Ostrava and the region is today called Moravsko-Slezsky Region. The people there have a distinct dialect (closer to Polish than Czech, but distinct) and some cultural institutions. You are right that historically the Silesian ethnic group identified closer with the local Germans. That's the main reason why after WWII their regional identity was pushed to the background, but if you go today to Tesin, Opava, even Ostrava, a large number of natives will say 'I am a Slezak', it's their identity, why does that bother you? Historically they much preferred to live in richer Czechia than in backward Poland, your silly 'local' arguments notwithstanding, people know that a richer state with better institutions is better for them.

    Here are the result of census in 1939 (done by Germans):


    Těšín: národnost Slezská 37 %, Czech 21 %, Polish 24 %, German 18 %
     
    Try to address the fundamental point that if Poland could use 'ethnic' principle to annex Tesin, why wouldn't the same principle apply to Soviets annexing Western Ukraine-Belarus. If you don't, you lost the argument.

    Replies: @AP, @utu

    So to summarise, even according to the 1939 German census, there were more Poles than Czechs there, and even according to you Silesians are closer to Poles than they are to Czechs.

    Now you might ponder why Silesians would declare a separate non-Polish identity under German rule, given that Germans treated Silesians rather well and Poles rather poorly. But perhaps such thoughts will bring you too close to reality?

  43. @Beckow
    @AnonGOGO


    ...post-war “estimates” of Czech Non-Jewish war deaths which were of course inflated
     
    A lot of numbers thrown around about WWII are 'inflated'. That doesn't mean that they are an order of magnitude off as you imply. If you seriously want to compare the killing by Germans in Czechia in WWII with revenge killing that happened after WWII, well, you are one sick puppy. Are you upset that the likes of the local Gestapo chief were executed? Or that a lot of previously Nazi local Germans were killed in anger? That happened everywhere, from France to Norway.

    If you start a murderous war on your neighbours and lose, don't be surprised if they take revenge. What happened after WWII were simply consequences.

    Your are cherry-picking my argument that Germany (and Austria that was a core part of Germany during WWII) economically benefitted from occupying Czechia. I listed a number of way they did this and you can find numerous other examples - 6 years of ruling is a long time. To say that it all ended up in 'German Treasury' is silly, try to be serious.

    The number of Czechs expelled from Sudetenland after 1938 was 500-600,000. You seem to justify expelling government employees, but many of those were also long-time local Czech residents. The rule was simple: "declare German nationality or leave". In 1945-47 Czechs simply followed the same script and expelled Sudeten Germans. What goes around, comes around. If you don't think sequence matters I can't help you. It just does.

    Replies: @AP, @AnonGOGO

    If you don’t think sequence matters I can’t help you. It just does

    Utu explained sequence to you. You conveniently ignored him:

    Now let’s follow your dictum “As I pointed out before, sequence in history matters.” When judging 1938 re-annexation of Teschen Silesia by Poland it should be viewed in the light of what occurred in 1919 when Czechoslovakia stabbed Poland in the back when Poland was fighting Bolsheviks and then in 1920 when Benes through a swindle at the international conference got the Teschen territory without a plebiscite. There was more stabbings. Czechoslovakia refused for trains with military supplies from France to pass. I think Hungary managed to send enough ammunition to Poland that were crucial at the Battle of Warsaw in 1920.

    And then settlers and workers from Moravia and Bohemia were encouraged to move to Teschen Silesia to dilute Polish population. The usual stuff you do when you try to solidify territorial gains with ethnically foreign population

  44. @AP
    @Beckow


    When someone disputes an obvious fact – as AP did with the 2-week war that Poland managed to fight in 1939
     
    Repeating a falsehood doesn’t make it true. Most significant battle (Bzura) ended in September 19:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Bzura

    but significant fighting went on until October 6th:

    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Kock_(1939)

    So you turn a one month war into a 2 week war. Your approach to reality.

    he will lie to himself
     
    We see above exactly who has been lying to himself.

    ‘Ukraine is blossoming, blabla…‘ argument, although lately he has been rather quiet on that front
     
    Due to Covid everything is in flux. In early 2020 it was doing the best it has been doing since the early 90s collapse.

    Replies: @Beckow

    …So you turn a one month war into a 2 week war.

    Ok, I am in a generous mood, let’s call it a 19-day war. Happy?

    Due to Covid everything is in flux. In early 2020 it was doing the best it has been doing since the early 90s collapse.

    Well, sh..t happens, smart people are usually ready. In any case, Ukraine had much better numbers a few times before, last time in 2010-12 period. What now?

    I am still waiting for a coherent answer to my basic point: what Poland did by occupying Tesin on ethnic grounds in 1938 was identical to what Soviets did in 1939 when they occupied Western Ukraine-Belarus, also on ethnic grounds. Right or wrong?

    • Replies: @AP
    @Beckow


    …So you turn a one month war into a 2 week war.

    Ok, I am in a generous mood, let’s call it a 19-day war. Happy?
     
    Last battle ended October 6.

    To place this in perspective, France had much longer to prepare and was a larger and more powerful country, yet Germany lost 60% as many troops invading Poland as it did invading France.

    Well, sh..t happens, smart people are usually ready. In any case, Ukraine had much better numbers a few times before, last time in 2010-12 period
     
    Ukrainian wages and per capita GDP were lower in 2010-2012 than in early 2020. So reality is the opposite of your claim.

    Tesin on ethnic grounds in 1938 was identical to what Soviets did in 1939 when they occupied Western Ukraine-Belarus, also on ethnic grounds. Right or wrong
     
    1. Did utu ever defend Polish conquest of western Ukraine? If not, then no hypocrisy by him. Hypocrisy by Polish state, but this just means occupation of Western Ukraine was wrong while liberation of Tesin was not.

    2. No evidence that the laid back, non-nationalistic
    people of Belarus minded rule from Warsaw any more than they did rule from Moscow.

    3. Soviets were much worse towards the people of Western Ukraine than Poles were towards the people of Tesin.
  45. …So you turn a one month war into a 2 week war.

    Ok, I am in a generous mood, let’s call it a 19-day war. Happy?

    Last battle ended October 6.

    To place this in perspective, France had much longer to prepare and was a larger and more powerful country, yet Germany lost 60% as many troops invading Poland as it did invading France.

    Well, sh..t happens, smart people are usually ready. In any case, Ukraine had much better numbers a few times before, last time in 2010-12 period

    Ukrainian wages and per capita GDP were lower in 2010-2012 than in early 2020.

    Tesin on ethnic grounds in 1938 was identical to what Soviets did in 1939 when they occupied Western Ukraine-Belarus, also on ethnic grounds. Right or wrong

    1. Did utu ever defend Polish conquest of western Ukraine? If not, then no hypocrisy by him. Hypocrisy by Polish state, but this just means occupation of Western Ukraine was wrong while liberation of Tesin was not.

    2. No evidence that the laid back, non-nationalistic
    people of Belarus minded rule from Warsaw any more than they did rule from Moscow.

    3. Soviets were much worse towards the people of Western Ukraine than Poles were towards the people of Tesin.

  46. @Beckow
    @AP


    ...So you turn a one month war into a 2 week war.
     
    Ok, I am in a generous mood, let's call it a 19-day war. Happy?

    Due to Covid everything is in flux. In early 2020 it was doing the best it has been doing since the early 90s collapse.
     
    Well, sh..t happens, smart people are usually ready. In any case, Ukraine had much better numbers a few times before, last time in 2010-12 period. What now?

    I am still waiting for a coherent answer to my basic point: what Poland did by occupying Tesin on ethnic grounds in 1938 was identical to what Soviets did in 1939 when they occupied Western Ukraine-Belarus, also on ethnic grounds. Right or wrong?

    Replies: @AP

    …So you turn a one month war into a 2 week war.

    Ok, I am in a generous mood, let’s call it a 19-day war. Happy?

    Last battle ended October 6.

    To place this in perspective, France had much longer to prepare and was a larger and more powerful country, yet Germany lost 60% as many troops invading Poland as it did invading France.

    Well, sh..t happens, smart people are usually ready. In any case, Ukraine had much better numbers a few times before, last time in 2010-12 period

    Ukrainian wages and per capita GDP were lower in 2010-2012 than in early 2020. So reality is the opposite of your claim.

    Tesin on ethnic grounds in 1938 was identical to what Soviets did in 1939 when they occupied Western Ukraine-Belarus, also on ethnic grounds. Right or wrong

    1. Did utu ever defend Polish conquest of western Ukraine? If not, then no hypocrisy by him. Hypocrisy by Polish state, but this just means occupation of Western Ukraine was wrong while liberation of Tesin was not.

    2. No evidence that the laid back, non-nationalistic
    people of Belarus minded rule from Warsaw any more than they did rule from Moscow.

    3. Soviets were much worse towards the people of Western Ukraine than Poles were towards the people of Tesin.

  47. @Beckow
    @utu

    You stubbornly refuse to address my point that Polish taking of Tesin in 1938 was exactly the same as Soviets taking Western Ukraine-Belarus in 1939. I will take that as conceding that you lost the argument.

    Regarding Ceske Slezsko (or Czech Silesia), here is a good summary:

    https://cs.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%8Cesk%C3%A9_Slezsko#T%C4%9B%C5%A1%C3%ADnsko

    It is quite objective and non-ethnic. Silesian (Slezak) have always existed in Czechia, the 3rd largest city Ostrava used to be called Slezska Ostrava and the region is today called Moravsko-Slezsky Region. The people there have a distinct dialect (closer to Polish than Czech, but distinct) and some cultural institutions. You are right that historically the Silesian ethnic group identified closer with the local Germans. That's the main reason why after WWII their regional identity was pushed to the background, but if you go today to Tesin, Opava, even Ostrava, a large number of natives will say 'I am a Slezak', it's their identity, why does that bother you? Historically they much preferred to live in richer Czechia than in backward Poland, your silly 'local' arguments notwithstanding, people know that a richer state with better institutions is better for them.

    Here are the result of census in 1939 (done by Germans):


    Těšín: národnost Slezská 37 %, Czech 21 %, Polish 24 %, German 18 %
     
    Try to address the fundamental point that if Poland could use 'ethnic' principle to annex Tesin, why wouldn't the same principle apply to Soviets annexing Western Ukraine-Belarus. If you don't, you lost the argument.

    Replies: @AP, @utu

    The two annexations of Teschin Silesia, that by Czechoslovakia in 1919 and by Poland in 1938 have similarities, parallels, symmetries and some differences (see my previous comments). You can’t asses the latter without the context created by the former.

    The greatest difference was that the overwhelming majority of the population was Polish, so Poland could use the ethnic argument while Czechoslovakia could not argue on ethnic grounds neither in 1919 nor in 1938.

    There would be no 1938 without 1919. If in 1919 a plebiscite was conducted and the border was drawn according to wishes of population living there there would be no 1938.

    The issue is closed. Under the pressure from the USSR Poland agreed to sign the border treaty recognizing the border at the line of January 1, 1938 13 years after WWII in 1958.

    • Replies: @Beckow
    @utu

    Again:


    My point above:

    You stubbornly refuse to address my point that Polish taking of Tesin in 1938 was exactly the same as Soviets taking Western Ukraine-Belarus in 1939. I will take that as conceding that you lost the argument.
     

    Thank you for conceding. Your seeming inability to even acknowledge the 1938-9 realities is puzzling. And good luck with that 1919 stuff, you know there was a Spanish flu happening then too, why don't you work it in?

    Replies: @AP

    , @Gerard-Mandela
    @utu

    Cretinous reasoning by yourself ( I should add that you are a smart guy, so this is unnecessary).

    Both countries, 3 definite peoples and true cultures, were created from the fall of other empires. Czechoslovakia was created by some actual process, some national movement that at least occurred before the Armistice.........Polish Republic was created by default at the direct end of WW1. Where are Poles in Brest-Litovsk treaty half a year before the end of WW1? Nowhere.....now that's an embarrassment.

    Woodrow Wilson and the other allies effectively gave Czechoslovakian state a very good deal ( correct me if I am wrong, Beckow), but Poles have absolute f**k all to complain with as they were given a state without doing any fighting at all for it. Criminal to complain about any false annexation.

    Cowardly Poles actually celebrate their independence day on 11th November (LOL).

    Polish annexation of part of Czechoslovakia is just a cowardly, opportunistic and aggressive act.
    Czechoslovakia "annexation" in 1919, is a reasoned, internationally supported decision (Munich 1938 the allies at least felt pushed into this decision) that should be seen in the fallout against the end of WW1 and the previous 100+ years before that.......not some ridiculous nonsensical 1918 vs 1919 "betrayal" argument that you are making that completely eliminates the true background to that decision - which is WW1 and the previous empires there.

    Replies: @Gerard-Mandela

  48. @utu
    @Beckow

    The two annexations of Teschin Silesia, that by Czechoslovakia in 1919 and by Poland in 1938 have similarities, parallels, symmetries and some differences (see my previous comments). You can't asses the latter without the context created by the former.

    The greatest difference was that the overwhelming majority of the population was Polish, so Poland could use the ethnic argument while Czechoslovakia could not argue on ethnic grounds neither in 1919 nor in 1938.

    There would be no 1938 without 1919. If in 1919 a plebiscite was conducted and the border was drawn according to wishes of population living there there would be no 1938.

    The issue is closed. Under the pressure from the USSR Poland agreed to sign the border treaty recognizing the border at the line of January 1, 1938 13 years after WWII in 1958.

    Replies: @Beckow, @Gerard-Mandela

    Again:

    My point above:

    You stubbornly refuse to address my point that Polish taking of Tesin in 1938 was exactly the same as Soviets taking Western Ukraine-Belarus in 1939. I will take that as conceding that you lost the argument.

    Thank you for conceding. Your seeming inability to even acknowledge the 1938-9 realities is puzzling. And good luck with that 1919 stuff, you know there was a Spanish flu happening then too, why don’t you work it in?

    • Replies: @AP
    @Beckow


    You stubbornly refuse to address my point that Polish taking of Tesin in 1938 was exactly the same as Soviets taking Western Ukraine-Belarus in 1939. I will take that as conceding that you lost the argument.
     
    You, not he, made the claim about his argument, that in your words “ The basic principle that you use is that ‘Poles have a right to grab land militarily if they are a majority in an area.”

    When he has clearly stated that in addition to Poles being a majority of this territory, Poland had the right to take it because it was stolen from Poland in the first place when Poland was stabbed in the back as it was defending itself and Europe from the Bolshevik invasion in 1919.

    So the basic principle was, “Poles have the right to grab land militarily that had been grabbed from them militarily, from those who had grabbed it from them.”

    Try to be honest, please.

    The fact that this land was also populated mostly by Poles just further supports the Polish claim, but it wasn’t the basic principle that utu was following.

    I am sorry that for a second I had taken your word for it and assumed that 1938 and 1939 were the same, when they were not.

    As for comparisons with the annexation of Western Ukraine. Well, it was done by Moscow not by a Ukrainian State. Ukrainians there went from being subjugated by Warsaw to being subjugated by Moscow. But sure, a Ukrainian state would have had the right to take this territory based on ethnic composition. So? This in no way invalidates Polish claims on Tesin.

    Replies: @utu

  49. @Beckow
    @utu

    Again:


    My point above:

    You stubbornly refuse to address my point that Polish taking of Tesin in 1938 was exactly the same as Soviets taking Western Ukraine-Belarus in 1939. I will take that as conceding that you lost the argument.
     

    Thank you for conceding. Your seeming inability to even acknowledge the 1938-9 realities is puzzling. And good luck with that 1919 stuff, you know there was a Spanish flu happening then too, why don't you work it in?

    Replies: @AP

    You stubbornly refuse to address my point that Polish taking of Tesin in 1938 was exactly the same as Soviets taking Western Ukraine-Belarus in 1939. I will take that as conceding that you lost the argument.

    You, not he, made the claim about his argument, that in your words “ The basic principle that you use is that ‘Poles have a right to grab land militarily if they are a majority in an area.”

    When he has clearly stated that in addition to Poles being a majority of this territory, Poland had the right to take it because it was stolen from Poland in the first place when Poland was stabbed in the back as it was defending itself and Europe from the Bolshevik invasion in 1919.

    So the basic principle was, “Poles have the right to grab land militarily that had been grabbed from them militarily, from those who had grabbed it from them.”

    Try to be honest, please.

    The fact that this land was also populated mostly by Poles just further supports the Polish claim, but it wasn’t the basic principle that utu was following.

    I am sorry that for a second I had taken your word for it and assumed that 1938 and 1939 were the same, when they were not.

    As for comparisons with the annexation of Western Ukraine. Well, it was done by Moscow not by a Ukrainian State. Ukrainians there went from being subjugated by Warsaw to being subjugated by Moscow. But sure, a Ukrainian state would have had the right to take this territory based on ethnic composition. So? This in no way invalidates Polish claims on Tesin.

    • Replies: @utu
    @AP

    "Try to be honest, please." - To implore for honesty is futile in his case. Note that he can't bring himself to address the 1919 annexation by Czechoslovakia even once except for the red herring of the Spanish flu in his parting shot.

    I have spent some time in Czechoslovakia and I haven't met a single person consumed by hate towards any specific nation or country. Even the communists I met were not very ideological but mostly opportunistic. In his case we are witnessing a serious pathology. He is an outstanding outlier. A certifiable lunatic by Czech and and even Slovak standards.

  50. @AP
    @Beckow


    You stubbornly refuse to address my point that Polish taking of Tesin in 1938 was exactly the same as Soviets taking Western Ukraine-Belarus in 1939. I will take that as conceding that you lost the argument.
     
    You, not he, made the claim about his argument, that in your words “ The basic principle that you use is that ‘Poles have a right to grab land militarily if they are a majority in an area.”

    When he has clearly stated that in addition to Poles being a majority of this territory, Poland had the right to take it because it was stolen from Poland in the first place when Poland was stabbed in the back as it was defending itself and Europe from the Bolshevik invasion in 1919.

    So the basic principle was, “Poles have the right to grab land militarily that had been grabbed from them militarily, from those who had grabbed it from them.”

    Try to be honest, please.

    The fact that this land was also populated mostly by Poles just further supports the Polish claim, but it wasn’t the basic principle that utu was following.

    I am sorry that for a second I had taken your word for it and assumed that 1938 and 1939 were the same, when they were not.

    As for comparisons with the annexation of Western Ukraine. Well, it was done by Moscow not by a Ukrainian State. Ukrainians there went from being subjugated by Warsaw to being subjugated by Moscow. But sure, a Ukrainian state would have had the right to take this territory based on ethnic composition. So? This in no way invalidates Polish claims on Tesin.

    Replies: @utu

    “Try to be honest, please.” – To implore for honesty is futile in his case. Note that he can’t bring himself to address the 1919 annexation by Czechoslovakia even once except for the red herring of the Spanish flu in his parting shot.

    I have spent some time in Czechoslovakia and I haven’t met a single person consumed by hate towards any specific nation or country. Even the communists I met were not very ideological but mostly opportunistic. In his case we are witnessing a serious pathology. He is an outstanding outlier. A certifiable lunatic by Czech and and even Slovak standards.

    • Agree: AP
  51. Well, Italy was hilariously wealthy for a bunch of disunited cringe countrylets. I think it was mostly due to the merchant republics

  52. @utu
    @Beckow

    The two annexations of Teschin Silesia, that by Czechoslovakia in 1919 and by Poland in 1938 have similarities, parallels, symmetries and some differences (see my previous comments). You can't asses the latter without the context created by the former.

    The greatest difference was that the overwhelming majority of the population was Polish, so Poland could use the ethnic argument while Czechoslovakia could not argue on ethnic grounds neither in 1919 nor in 1938.

    There would be no 1938 without 1919. If in 1919 a plebiscite was conducted and the border was drawn according to wishes of population living there there would be no 1938.

    The issue is closed. Under the pressure from the USSR Poland agreed to sign the border treaty recognizing the border at the line of January 1, 1938 13 years after WWII in 1958.

    Replies: @Beckow, @Gerard-Mandela

    Cretinous reasoning by yourself ( I should add that you are a smart guy, so this is unnecessary).

    Both countries, 3 definite peoples and true cultures, were created from the fall of other empires. Czechoslovakia was created by some actual process, some national movement that at least occurred before the Armistice………Polish Republic was created by default at the direct end of WW1. Where are Poles in Brest-Litovsk treaty half a year before the end of WW1? Nowhere…..now that’s an embarrassment.

    Woodrow Wilson and the other allies effectively gave Czechoslovakian state a very good deal ( correct me if I am wrong, Beckow), but Poles have absolute f**k all to complain with as they were given a state without doing any fighting at all for it. Criminal to complain about any false annexation.

    Cowardly Poles actually celebrate their independence day on 11th November (LOL).

    Polish annexation of part of Czechoslovakia is just a cowardly, opportunistic and aggressive act.
    Czechoslovakia “annexation” in 1919, is a reasoned, internationally supported decision (Munich 1938 the allies at least felt pushed into this decision) that should be seen in the fallout against the end of WW1 and the previous 100+ years before that…….not some ridiculous nonsensical 1918 vs 1919 “betrayal” argument that you are making that completely eliminates the true background to that decision – which is WW1 and the previous empires there.

    • Replies: @Gerard-Mandela
    @Gerard-Mandela

    Brest-Litovsk - 1,5 years before.

  53. @Gerard-Mandela
    @utu

    Cretinous reasoning by yourself ( I should add that you are a smart guy, so this is unnecessary).

    Both countries, 3 definite peoples and true cultures, were created from the fall of other empires. Czechoslovakia was created by some actual process, some national movement that at least occurred before the Armistice.........Polish Republic was created by default at the direct end of WW1. Where are Poles in Brest-Litovsk treaty half a year before the end of WW1? Nowhere.....now that's an embarrassment.

    Woodrow Wilson and the other allies effectively gave Czechoslovakian state a very good deal ( correct me if I am wrong, Beckow), but Poles have absolute f**k all to complain with as they were given a state without doing any fighting at all for it. Criminal to complain about any false annexation.

    Cowardly Poles actually celebrate their independence day on 11th November (LOL).

    Polish annexation of part of Czechoslovakia is just a cowardly, opportunistic and aggressive act.
    Czechoslovakia "annexation" in 1919, is a reasoned, internationally supported decision (Munich 1938 the allies at least felt pushed into this decision) that should be seen in the fallout against the end of WW1 and the previous 100+ years before that.......not some ridiculous nonsensical 1918 vs 1919 "betrayal" argument that you are making that completely eliminates the true background to that decision - which is WW1 and the previous empires there.

    Replies: @Gerard-Mandela

    Brest-Litovsk – 1,5 years before.

  54. @Beckow
    @AnonGOGO


    ...post-war “estimates” of Czech Non-Jewish war deaths which were of course inflated
     
    A lot of numbers thrown around about WWII are 'inflated'. That doesn't mean that they are an order of magnitude off as you imply. If you seriously want to compare the killing by Germans in Czechia in WWII with revenge killing that happened after WWII, well, you are one sick puppy. Are you upset that the likes of the local Gestapo chief were executed? Or that a lot of previously Nazi local Germans were killed in anger? That happened everywhere, from France to Norway.

    If you start a murderous war on your neighbours and lose, don't be surprised if they take revenge. What happened after WWII were simply consequences.

    Your are cherry-picking my argument that Germany (and Austria that was a core part of Germany during WWII) economically benefitted from occupying Czechia. I listed a number of way they did this and you can find numerous other examples - 6 years of ruling is a long time. To say that it all ended up in 'German Treasury' is silly, try to be serious.

    The number of Czechs expelled from Sudetenland after 1938 was 500-600,000. You seem to justify expelling government employees, but many of those were also long-time local Czech residents. The rule was simple: "declare German nationality or leave". In 1945-47 Czechs simply followed the same script and expelled Sudeten Germans. What goes around, comes around. If you don't think sequence matters I can't help you. It just does.

    Replies: @AP, @AnonGOGO

    I listed a number of way they did this and you can find numerous other examples

    Other than some nebulous claims about gold and bank notes (those would be of mostly Jewish origin since Czechs weren’t expropriated in general). Apart from the fact that the expropriated property in form of gold and bank notes was indeed collected by the German state, this exhibits a rather childish notion of wealth. Austrians apparently had pockets full of gold in 1945 and thus -POOF- became rich. Notwithstanding that I’ve never heard of anyone here getting his share of the Jew gold, I think the land, houses, capital goods (I ignore the other movable property that was confiscated) constitute a more tangible source of wealth.

    The rule was simple: “declare German nationality or leave“. In 1945-47 Czechs simply followed the same script and expelled Sudeten Germans.

    You live in your own world, of course there was no option for Germans to just declare Czecho-Slovak nationality and stay. Therefore, I think it’s futile to try to argue your other fantasy facts like the “500-600k expelled Czechs”. If you’re actually interested in the issue (which you aren’t), consulting the newer Czech literature should be sufficient.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Anatoly Karlin Comments via RSS