What if Poles stayed loyal to the Tsar?

...

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=w58JD_AohNY
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>What if Poles stayed loyal to the Tsar?
>posts Poles fighting the Russians and their Tsar invading Poland

well, something from November or January Uprising would be better

I guess.

well, what about my question

Bizarre question.

Why would they ever do that? Poland has been a separate, continuous entity since at least the second half of the 10th century. Longer than Russia(Kievan Rus' is older than Poland but the Muscovy wasn't a direct and exclusive descendant). Poles will never agree to be subordinated, doesn't make sense from the cultural and historical point of view.

because Russia was better than G*rman and Austrian occupation combined

>What if Poles stayed loyal

Poles would have stayed loyal had the Tsar kept his promises given in 1815. The uprising rise from discontent caused by repeated violations of the Constitution and failure to extent Congress Poland's borders into other PLC's territories as agreed.

What did he promised? If I remember, Nikolaj I started some autism with replacing Poles in Polish government positions with Russians, but thats all i know.

>(Kievan Rus' is older than Poland but the Muscovy wasn't a direct and exclusive descendant).
You know the 966 date is just the Catholic baptism date and name change for Poland right? "Poland" is really older than 966. Rus official Orthodox baptism date is considered 988.

Who told you so? I'd say it was the worst one.

The political and cultural situation in the Prussian part was tough, and we were oppressed, but economically it was much more developed than the rest. Also, despite Kulturkampf, Prussia was still a country of law. Poles at least technically would be judged fairly, they could be elected to Reichstag, institutions weren't so corrupted, etc.

In the Austrian part, Poles would have a lot of freedoms and our culture somewhat could thrive. The thing is that region was really, really poor and undeveloped(Austria wasn't as "progressive" as Prussia).

On the other hand in the Russian part, we had to both face poverty and persecution. I guess foreigners look at the Kingdom of Poland and think "woah cool, the Poles had official autonomy, why would they rebel", but it was anything but that. One of the most important factors causing the November Uprising were the many violations of the Kingdom of Poland constitution by Tsar Nicholas I. And after it, the autonomy was harshly suppressed.

By the way, November Uprising is interesting in its own right, we've had a rather small but professional army back then, and initially, it managed to defeat the Russian Army quite a few times.

>What if Poles stayed loyal to the Tsar?
>implying they were ever loyal to anyone

I realise that "Poland" existed before 966, but here, for simplicity, I only use written records as the reference. We could start arguing when exactly the Polish statehood developed, without any concrete proofs, same with Kievan Rus', but it's not relevant to the subject.

Slavs arent capable of loyalty try a smarter beast like as dog.

>The political and cultural situation in the Prussian part was tough, and we were oppressed, but economically it was much more developed than the rest.

>i'd give up my nationality, language and culture just to be rich
>Poles at least technically would be judged fairly
lmao
>In the Austrian part, Poles would have a lot of freedoms and our culture somewhat could thrive.
maybe on the official level, but Germanization and Judaization was a big thing here
t. slave mentality Hun subhuman

>What did he promised?

First of all to respect the autonomous and constitutional nature of Congress Poland's, something Tsars violated basically since day one.

Secondly, to extend the borders of Congress Poland on other formerly PLC's lands under Russian rule. Poles were promised at least Lithuania (in broad sense, i.e. also Belarus) and Volhynia, with Tsar hinting that whole of former PLC would be under Congress Poland eventually.

>>implying they were ever loyal to anyone
>have never heard of Napoleon and his best and most loyal soldiers - the Poles
youtube.com/watch?v=w58JD_AohNY

>>i'd give up my nationality, language and culture just to be rich
I've never suggested that. (Btw, the United States is a great example that millions of people will actually do that in heartbeat)

What I meant is that in the Russian part you both had to give up your nationality and wealth, in the Prussian you at least could get well off.

>maybe on the official level, but Germanization and Judaization was a big thing here
Could you bring some examples? Anyway, do you claim that it was anywhere as bad as in the Russian and Prussian parts?

I know most about the Austrian part, that thing about Germanization and Judeization is based on biography of Stanislav Čeček and several other books written by colonel Metoděj Pleský. He describes opression of the Polish population by the Germans and Jews in Galicia that worked together in order to Germanize the region.

Could you refer to any historiographic source?

In the Austrian part we would be allowed to have a representation in the Parliament, could form Polish universities, Kraków and L'viv would become the centres of Polish culture and education, there would be Polish ministers in the Austrian government, two times Poles would even become the PMs.

Book Bratr generál
>In the Austrian part we would be allowed to have a representation in the Parliament, could form Polish universities, Kraków and L'viv would become the centres of Polish culture and education, there would be Polish ministers in the Austrian government, two times Poles would even become the PMs.
Thats nice, but 2 out of 42 PM isnt that much when you think about it and fact that Poles were 10% of the A-H population. And this cant be blamed on low literaccy or development of Polish part of A-H, since Czech part had also only 2 PMs and it was the most developed, literate and richest region of the Empire.