Why they allowed it to happen to their country?

Liberum Veto.
One guy could render entire meeting of Sejm void by saying those two words.
Bribe the right people and you can block country for quite a while.

union with żmudzins, elective monarchy and that whole pseudo-democracy were a mistake

Democracy (and lobbying traitors) + hawkish neighbors.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Liberty
youtube.com/watch?v=IwwXJ8u7eTM
Democracy is just shit.

You're a fucking idiot. One of the main reasons why the Commonwealth weakened (Chmielnicki Uprising and the Deluge) was because of the Protestant Calvinist Radziwill traitors.

Funny thing, Lithuanians used this law most out of Nobility in Commonwealth. Ruthenians were 2nd

>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Liberty
the best part of this is that this is what the kingdoms of germany did and they went from strength to strength, prussia fucking all of the mainland up

The HRE didn't come close to the liberalism of freedoms and rights of the Commonwealth.

"the Polish Commonwealth was also reffered to as the Jewish Paradise"

Its always the (((Jews)))

Because
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warsaw_Confederation

One of the most important and at the same time one of the most overlooked reasons was the fact they have never forced their commoners to fight their wars for them.

In an era of increasingly centralised absolute monarchies conscripting enormous numbers of troops, the Commonwealth remained a democratic state with only a professional/volunteer force. It couldn't possibly compete militarily, lagging behind in numbers by at least an order of magnitude.

For all the common but largely ignorant protestations about the treatment of peasantry and the harshness of the second serfdom (which existed in all three partitioning powers too...), even as the partitions slowly took place it was the partitioning powers who still had to post troops along their borders to prevent peasants from escaping en masse to the shrinking Commonwealth to avoid being drafted to fight and die for their emperors.

Kek

Russia controlled their politics and were even able to choose their leaders

thank goodness that doesn't happen nowadays

>For all the common but largely ignorant protestations about the treatment of peasantry and the harshness of the second serfdom (which existed in all three partitioning powers too...), even as the partitions slowly took place it was the partitioning powers who still had to post troops along their borders to prevent peasants from escaping en masse to the shrinking Commonwealth to avoid being drafted to fight and die for their emperors.

Sounds like bullshit. Do you have any sauce to back it up?

That's not BS, Poland was culturally, law and freedom wise a very attractive country, thus such huge migration to Poland from all over Europe throughout the centuries. Before the partitions, Catherine even wrote to Poniatowski, that he would do something about the Russian peasants escaping on mass to a more free Poland.
youtube.com/watch?v=IwwXJ8u7eTM

I'm sure there is an account of just that in Alphonse de Fortia de Piles' writings on of his travels in central Europe.

I can have a look for it but it's only in French.

books.google.com/books?id=rv0KAAAAYAAJ

Look to pages 106-107 for an account of how Austria needed a military cordon stationed at the border to prevent peasants fleeing to the Commonwealth.

It's hardly surprising considering that in the Commonwealth they had to work as serfs, while under the partitioning powers they still had to do that, plus they had to pay much higher taxes, plus they got conscripted en masse to the military for _lifetime_ service (i.e. until they were dead or crippled).

Hol up
*makes pierogi*
so uh
*curses Russia*
you be sayin
*rides pegasus cavalry*
I can call
*plays witcher*
liberum veto and shit?

t. Janusz of Masovia, 15th son, no land, no money, nobleman

>The liberum veto (Latin for "the free veto") was a parliamentary device in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. It was a form of unanimity voting rule that allowed any member of the Sejm (legislature) to force an immediate end to the current session and nullify any legislation that had already been passed at the session by shouting Sisto activitatem! (Latin: "I stop the activity!") or Nie pozwalam! (Polish: "I do not allow!").

>the principle of liberum veto was a major cause of the deterioration of the Commonwealth political system—particularly in the 18th century, when foreign powers bribed Sejm members to paralyze its proceedings—and the Commonwealth's eventual destruction in the partitions of Poland

> In the period of 1573–1763, about 150 sejms were held, out of which about a third failed to pass any legislation, mostly due to liberum veto.

>It's hardly surprising considering that in the Commonwealth they had to work as serfs,
No one "had to". Also serfdom in Poland worked different than in other countries, as the serfs were free to leave their host on a specific day each year by law. Also laws like not guilty until proven in court already in the 15th century or no taxation before representation in the 16th century. Or freedom of religion, writing and speech in the 16th centuries were not common at all. Again, ethnicities weren't persecuted, like the Jews or other religious sects of Catholicism like Protestantism. Plus the PLC was a commercial hub for trade and business in middle Europe with major trade routs from Asia going trough it, thus many merchants came there. Poland had also one of Europe's oldest universities so people came there to study as well.

>as the serfs were free to leave their host on a specific day each year by law
Only one serf per year. The serfs were effectively tied to the land, not free people.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutes_of_Piotrkow

Note that this isn't all bad, e.g. famines in the Commonwealth weren't as horrible as those in Western Europe. In France or England the free peasant was also free to starve. In the Commonwealth the lord had a very vital interest in the survival of his serfs, creating a sort of decentralised safety net for years of poor harvest.

>Also serfdom in Poland worked different than in other countries

It was second serfdom very similar to what was practised in neighbouring Russia, Hungary, German states and so on. The entire region had this sort of system, though it was most widespread (if not the harshest - that goes to Russia...) in the Commonwealth.

>no taxation before representation
The serfs paid taxes; where was their representation? Same with burghers.

Again, a central issue for both the collapse of the state and the well-being of the average inhabitant was the fact that the Commonwealth never introduced conscription. It only had a professional and volunteer military to the bitter end.

You could be cheeky and argue that the Commonwealth was simply not oppressive enough to survive in 18th century Europe.

>MUH FREEDOMS
>MUH TRADITION
Mostly due to dixie-tier retards

Weakness and general decadence.
16th century was the golden age, 17th was the "silver" age; glorious but with plenty of enemies and lack of any political vision. and arrogance of the elite also did its thing. More powerful neighbors already had great influence on Polish politics so for many nobles the partitions wasn't anything other than them protecting their rights. Maria Teresa of Austria honestly adored Poland for example. The others not so much.
Also Poland elected their monarchs following the death of Sigmund August in 1572. Big mistake.

Btw don't believe the "liberum veto" meme. It's just an oversimplification that originated in 19th century historiography.

Being surrounded by rapacious neighbors and not having good diplomacy to play them off will do that.

The only practical way for Poland to survive is by neutralizing Prussia as a threat, gain the friendship of Austria, and be prepared for Russia. Make alliances with Sweden, France, and anyone else that could help Polish defense.

That feel when Russians proposed polish king to take their crown, but guy was more interested in Sweden instead.

a) after the somewhat successful reigns of Sigmundus III and Vladislav IV, elected was John Casimir, the brother of the late king (and the husband of his wife). Poland suffered an attack from three enemies. First was semi-independent cossacks of Zaporozhe, led by a man with strong personal motivation against the state. During the war, they asked for protection of Russia, dragging them into the war. Third was Sweden, with the casus belli being John Casimir's claim on Swedish throne. Even though the republic survived, it was heavily destroyed.

b) After that, a string of bad kings led them to stagnation. John Casimir abdicated and the throne passed to Michał Korybut Wiśniowiecki, who was elected solely due to the fact his father was a fantastic general. His son's only accomplishments were losing a large part of the country to Turkey and dying early.

Next came John III Sobieski, who at least scored two decent victories over the Turks, but could not use them for any gains. He fought Ottomans for over 15 years, wanting mostly to secure Moldavia for his son (to help him get elected as the king after John's death). He failed and his internal politics consisted of giving every major office to his allies.

c) Elector of Saxony, August II, next king, decided to ally with Russia and attack Sweden (in order to conquer Livonia for his son), but Karl XII rekt him and installed his king upon the throne, laying waste all around PLC. This king was later deposed (and imposed again, but it's irrelevant). All in all, it was another costly war, where none of the strategic objectives were accomplished.

d) The democratic system was hijacked by the powerful aristocratic families to keep a status quo, that could let them maintain their influence over politics.

e) By 1763 PLC was a Russian protectorate, with a miniscule army and a class of landowners that held vast power in their hands. Three powerful neighbours were very keen on keeping Poland weak. (cont.)

They conspired to enthrone an irrelevant Portuguese prince, but Catherine II the Great was persuaded by one of the Noble families to support her former lover, Sigmundus Augustus.

f) Shortly after coronation, a law was passed that gave political rights to non-catholics. This would be of no consequence, if not for the fact that some reactionary nobles decided it was an attack upon THE FAITH and protested. Russian ambassador fueled their raged and pointed fingers on the new king. Part of the nobility revolted, but they were hilariously incompetent, at one time kidnapppimg the king and letting them escape. One of the notable leaders of the rebellion was Casimir Pulaski. The revolt was put down. Prussians and Austrians in the meantime managed to occupy large swathes of land and forced Catherine to recognize their annexation of them. She was reluctant (because that meant it would be no longer under her control), but eventually agreeded.

g) Sometime in 1788, king managed to start a reform movement that would turn the country into something semi-functional. The end result was the passing (in absence of near half of the MPs) of May 3rd Constitution, which would be groundbreaking, had it happened 60 years earlier. Still, it was somewhat of a good framework that turned the political system into a modern constitutional monarchy. However, some nobles decided it would infringe THE RIGHTS and asked Catherine II to intervene. She obliged, seeing the constitution as a threat to Russian influence. After the betrayal by the Lithuanian armies, king was faced with the possibility of Warsaw being stormed. His advisors voted in favour of seeking an agreement with Russia and hopimg for mercy. There was no mercy and the second partition happened.

h) in 1794 Tadeusz Kościuszko (yeah the fucker, whose satue is in West Point) mounted an insurrection in hopes of restoring the 1772 borders. However the insurrection had failed, because scythes are a bad weapon against artillery.