United States of Europe...?

Edited by ataman - 04-May-2007 at 02:00

Originally posted by Jagiello I never said such thing.It's one thing to say a territory belongs to a nation and other to start planing how to retake those territories.Yes,they are now either ukrainian or belarussian and i can't do anything about it.This doesn't matter however that we should forget how unfair they've been taken from us and given to a nation without a history.You say-those terrytories are now theirs,we can't do anything about it than why disscus.Well,this is a FORUM.We are supposed to disscus.If we leave each situation that can't be changed just like that and don't mention it there wouldn't be anything to talk about.

true, this would not be a righteouss way of acting. However, these regions wer enot Polish because they simply once belonged to Poland; Kamieniec Podolski once also belonged to Poland but there isn't much arguement of attaching that to Poland today. LWOW, and WILNO were and to some extent will always be "Polish" because of how Polish people influenced the places. The Buildings, architecture, they all are reminisent of a Polish city. AND at the time of the secod world war Polish people had a 60% majority in both cities. It is not fair to bring them back under Polish rule today true. But it was also not fair for those cities to be taken away also.

The problem I have with this sort of discussion is that it leads to some sense of being "cheated" by History. To be honest, Poland has a dark history and has been honoured by History. To think of nations that have not been aided by foreign states or have had their influence completely erradicated by treaties, Poland should be GREATFUL for the land that it does have. Take Austria for example - does it still have a right to Bohemia, Moravia, Lusatia and, yes, Silesia? It has a long history of "ownership" to these lands.

Silesia is more German than it is Polish - based on the Historical development - Its modern formation was based on German Culture - not Polish.

As for Vilnius. Vilnius was part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. Not part of Poland. So now you are laying claim to non Historically Polish lands. Unless you are calling for the reformation of the commonwealth? The Polish nation actually TOOK THE CITY BY FORCE, in the 1920's.

So if you want a debate, lets start it on the right grounds. By what factors do you lay claim to these lands. Not History, clearly. Are you talking demographics? They had more "Poles"? Then Krakow shouldn't be Polish? Nor vast areas of Poland. You cannot have it all ways.

Originally posted by Majkes Originally posted by Jagiello Originally posted by Majkes Originally posted by Jagiello Originally posted by Majkes Originally posted by Jagiello Originally posted by Dan Carkner Originally posted by Jagiello Not only Silesia and kaszubian are deffinetly polish but a lot of other territories that unfortunately are now either belorussian or ukrainian. Why unfortunate?� They have as much right to be there as anyone else. Who has as much right to be where?The ucranians have right to be on territories that have been polish for centuries or maybe the bellorusians have right over a land where never in history such a country existed? � The same can be said about Polish land. E.g.�Silesia was more time German than Polish. Ucrainian have a right to their territories the same as we�have to ours. The same goes�with Belarous. And can you tell me when did in the history of Earth exist a country called Belorus,when was it created and what history does it have?Because as i know(obviously i'm wrong as you say) Belorus is an artificial country that was created by the USSR in order to keep their influence in the region.With the same purpose Ukraina has been given such ennormous terriotories that absolutely never in history were recalled as "Ukraina"- including Lwow region and the Crimean peninsula.I wonder what do children in Belorus learn in their history lessons when they simply don't have a history!The probably must be learning the polish history as most of the time those lands were polish , lithunian or russian.Just as with the language which is a dialekt between russian,lithunian and polish. � Belarous was independent shortly after WWI. I don't care what they learn on history but knowing Lukashenko probably USSR glorious past. I also don't care whose was Lvov. Now it is Ukrainian and it should stay like this. Well, then we come to a conclusion.You don't care.End of the debate. � Histroricaly or not Lvov and Vilinus are now Ukrainian and Lithuanian. Most of people who live there are Ukrainians and Lithuanians. Do You suggest we should throw them away and move Polish there because it used to belong to Poland for some time?

I never said such thing.It's one thing to say a territory belongs to a nation and other to start planing how to retake those territories.Yes,they are now either ukrainian or belarussian and i can't do anything about it.This doesn't matter however that we should forget how unfair they've been taken from us and given to a nation without a history.You say-those terrytories are now theirs,we can't do anything about it than why disscus.Well,this is a FORUM.We are supposed to disscus.If we leave each situation that can't be changed just like that and don't mention it there wouldn't be anything to talk about.

Originally posted by Majkes Originally posted by Jagiello Originally posted by Majkes Originally posted by Jagiello Originally posted by Dan Carkner Originally posted by Jagiello Not only Silesia and kaszubian are deffinetly polish but a lot of other territories that unfortunately are now either belorussian or ukrainian. Why unfortunate?� They have as much right to be there as anyone else. Who has as much right to be where?The ucranians have right to be on territories that have been polish for centuries or maybe the bellorusians have right over a land where never in history such a country existed? � The same can be said about Polish land. E.g.�Silesia was more time German than Polish. Ucrainian have a right to their territories the same as we�have to ours. The same goes�with Belarous. And can you tell me when did in the history of Earth exist a country called Belorus,when was it created and what history does it have?Because as i know(obviously i'm wrong as you say) Belorus is an artificial country that was created by the USSR in order to keep their influence in the region.With the same purpose Ukraina has been given such ennormous terriotories that absolutely never in history were recalled as "Ukraina"- including Lwow region and the Crimean peninsula.I wonder what do children in Belorus learn in their history lessons when they simply don't have a history!The probably must be learning the polish history as most of the time those lands were polish , lithunian or russian.Just as with the language which is a dialekt between russian,lithunian and polish. � Belarous was independent shortly after WWI. I don't care what they learn on history but knowing Lukashenko probably USSR glorious past. I also don't care whose was Lvov. Now it is Ukrainian and it should stay like this.

Well, then we come to a conclusion.You don't care.End of the debate.

Originally posted by Majkes Originally posted by Jagiello Originally posted by Dan Carkner Originally posted by Jagiello Not only Silesia and kaszubian are deffinetly polish but a lot of other territories that unfortunately are now either belorussian or ukrainian. Why unfortunate?� They have as much right to be there as anyone else. Who has as much right to be where?The ucranians have right to be on territories that have been polish for centuries or maybe the bellorusians have right over a land where never in history such a country existed? � The same can be said about Polish land. E.g.�Silesia was more time German than Polish. Ucrainian have a right to their territories the same as we�have to ours. The same goes�with Belarous.

And can you tell me when did in the history of Earth exist a country called Belorus,when was it created and what history does it have?Because as i know(obviously i'm wrong as you say) Belorus is an artificial country that was created by the USSR in order to keep their influence in the region.With the same purpose Ukraina has been given such ennormous terriotories that absolutely never in history were recalled as "Ukraina"- including Lwow region and the Crimean peninsula.I wonder what do children in Belorus learn in their history lessons when they simply don't have a history!The probably must be learning the polish history as most of the time those lands were polish , lithunian or russian.Just as with the language which is a dialekt between russian,lithunian and polish.

Originally posted by Majkes Originally posted by Jagiello Originally posted by Dan Carkner Originally posted by Jagiello Not only Silesia and kaszubian are deffinetly polish but a lot of other territories that unfortunately are now either belorussian or ukrainian. Why unfortunate? They have as much right to be there as anyone else. Who has as much right to be where?The ucranians have right to be on territories that have been polish for centuries or maybe the bellorusians have right over a land where never in history such a country existed? The same can be said about Polish land. E.g. Silesia was more time German than Polish. Ucrainian have a right to their territories the same as we have to ours. The same goes with Belarous.

Depends what we're calling Slask. Poland always had some of Slask for a longer period than Germany.

Originally posted by Jagiello Originally posted by Dan Carkner Originally posted by Jagiello Not only Silesia and kaszubian are deffinetly polish but a lot of other territories that unfortunately are now either belorussian or ukrainian. Why unfortunate?  They have as much right to be there as anyone else. Who has as much right to be where?The ucranians have right to be on territories that have been polish for centuries or maybe the bellorusians have right over a land where never in history such a country existed?

Originally posted by sreenivasarao s Originally posted by Sarmata Yes, it is irrelevant  . We have strayed away from Europe. Let us get back to the question whether Europe could be a model for the future? Whether the European attempt to create a multi-lingual, multi-religious, multi-ethnic, political and economic community will succeed? I can say from my Indian experience, Indian society, to some extent, anticipated Europe by a few decades, in the matter of pluralism in religion, language, culture etc.

Yet India is slipping away from that ideal and has done since the beginning. Depending on the region, Muslims are quite often treated unfairly within your system. You also have a fairly unequal culture too - the Rich get it all, the poor get nothing.

I think Europe is a better example of a working economic union than india, basically because it is benefitial to the masses - workers from nearly all sectors.

However, it is the political unity within a federal system that is difficult to found within the european experiment. Basically because Europe gave up on that idea, using the idea of expantionism instead. Probably because it was more profitable to include tiny economic states and reap the benefits from the inequality of the system.

Originally posted by Jagiello Not only Silesia and kaszubian are deffinetly polish but a lot of other territories that unfortunately are now either belorussian or ukrainian.

Why unfortunate?  They have as much right to be there as anyone else.

Originally posted by Jagiello Not only Silesia and kaszubian are deffinetly polish but a lot of other territories that unfortunately are now either belorussian or ukrainian.

"Litwa to dalszy ciag Polski"

"Lwow! - ktorez polskie serce nie drgnie na to miano"

- Jozef Pilsudski