Talk:Cieszyn/Archive 1

Archive 1

Following the Czechoslovak invasion of Poland in January 1919, the city was divided in 1920 by the Conference of Ambassadors.

Czechoslovakia annexed the land, but "invasion" is too much. Xx236 13:40, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, there was a military invasion, with almost a week of fights, with several regiments of Poles defending the area against two Czechoslovak divisions and the Poles being pushed back almost to Wisła. If that is not an invasion then what was it? A friendly visit? Halibutt 13:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Halibucie, ni mosz tak na zajst rechtu ;) Pepiki dolozły pod Skoczów, a mój prastarzik się ta z nimi loł. D T G 18:05, 3 February 2006 (UTC) Ah, tobie chodziło o rzekę, a nie o miasto, teraz rozumię :)

Yes, here trully was an invasion in the past. D T G 18:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Zaolzie wasn't formally part of Poland, so Czechoslovakia eventually invided Zaolzie but not Poland. Xx236 12:20, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

After first World War there was an agreement between Polish Rada Narodowa Księstwa Cieszyńskiego and Czech Zemskym Narodnim Vyborem pro Slezsko that the part of Duchy of Cieszyn which was ethnically Polish should belong to Poland (76%) and rest (24%) which were more Czechs, the neighbourhood of Frydek and Silesian Ostrawa (the part of Ostrawa to the east of Ostravica river, Silesian Ostrawa was created, if I good remember from villages, one of them was so called Polish Ostrawa). Then in 23 January 1919 the Czechs invasioned that lands. They were stopped under Skoczów. There is a mistic legend in my family that my grandgrandfather fought in that battle ;) So, yes, Zaolzie belonged to Poland from the night between 5 XI 1918 to 28 VII 1920. D T G 10:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Citation needed in article about Czechoslovak invasion in 23 January 1919

Why sb add "Citation needed" to that info? Here truly was such an invasion. There were 30 polish prisoners of war killed with bayonets by Czechs, they are planted in Stonawa in Czech Republic. Czechs also dispatched injured captain Haller (brother of Józef Haller). You can go to Cieszyn, Mennicza Street, there is an archive were you can find all needed documents to citate that fact. Maybe it was a small conflict, Czechoslovaks attacked only a small land belonging to Poland (Cieszyn Silesia - my motherland), I can tell you that here still live people who remember exactly where Czechoslovak army drove, which roads they tooked. However nowadays we have good relationships with Czechs, and for us it's only a history, we must remember it, especially when some Czechs pass over conflict in 1919 and very loudly say about year 1938, and our pact with Hitler (untrue, but what can I do :S), however it is another story. D T G 19:23, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

My request for citation doesn't mean that I deny that Czechoslovaks took over the city militarily in 1919. I simply doubt the applicabiliuty of using the wording "Czechoslovak invasion of Poland" for this events. Strong terms are used too liberally around Wikipedia and I raise my objections when I see it. If someone can quote sources that call the '19 events the "Czechoslovak invasion of Poland", fine, and we can leave it then. I have not seen such phrasing that's all. Similarly, while it is correct to say that in '39 Poland participated in partitioning of Czechoslovakia, it is incorrect to say talk about "Polish invasion" in this respect. Please bring the citations or adjust the phrasing. Or I can do it myself, if others don't mind. --Irpen 00:06, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

As for the fact that Czechs took it by force in 1919, it's easy to find. e.g. in Piotr Wandycz, "Cena Wolności", p. 292 (which is a good synthetic book on history of central Europe BTW). As for "Czechoslovak invasion of Poland" maybe we could find better wording ? How about "Czech invasion of Cieszyn Silesia" instead ? Let me try this. Similarly, we would not be talking about 1938 "Polish invasion of Czechoslovakia", would we ? --_Lysy^talk 00:29, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

I believe we would. Otehrwise, why do you talk about "Soviet invasion of Poland" and not about "Soviet invasion of Western Belarus and Ukraine"? We should refrain from such a blatant double-dealing. Currently, every action by the Poles is termed "liberation" and every military action by the Soviets is either an "aggression" or "invasion". The Soviets saved Krakow from total destruction during the WWII, using a clever stratagem. Comparing the fate of their city with Dresden or Warsaw, the Cracovians should have been grateful to the Soviet soldiers forever. Instead, they refer to the liberation as "occupation" and sent the Marshal Konev statue back to Russia. When you chose to use such a vehement POV phrasing, please remember that Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. --Ghirla | talk 10:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

,'the Cracovians should have been grateful to the Soviet soldiers forever. Instead, they refer to the liberation as "occupation" and sent the Marshal Konev statue back to Russia. Maybe because they were subject to terror of NKVD, had their relatives deported to Gulags, or murdered in Katyn, and endured half of century without freedom and in communist induced poverty When you chose to use such a vehement POV phrasing, please remember that Wikipedia is not a propaganda machine. --Molobo 10:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Davies uses "Czechoslovak invasion of Ciescyn (Těšín)" and I suggest we stick to it. No, I don't think that "Polish invasion of Czechoslovakia" is appropriate unlike "complicity in partitioning of Czechoslovakia". But this would relate to a Cesky Tesin article raher than this one. --Irpen 01:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

And why won't we simply stick all of the region's history in the article on... History of Cieszyn and Těšín rather than here and there? One size fits all, I'd say.. :) Halibutt 12:58, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Moving Right Along

Is this the same area that Poland invaded and annexed following the Munich Agreement? If it is, could Colonel Beck and Marshal Rydz-Śmigły be that stupid as to take Hitler's bait? Hmm? Dr. Dan 03:52, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it had anything to do with the Munich Agreement. From the time perspective it seems stupid, even if this was more complicated then (as there were talks about returning the territory to Poland scheduled for autumn). --_Lysy^talk 06:43, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

My dear Lysy, a couple of observations about your remarks above. In the article Český Těšín, reference to the Munich agreement is made. Is it wrong? As to your comment "...From the time perspective it seems stupid, even if this was more complicated then..." You know, stupid is, as stupid does. I don't agree that a period in time creates stupidity, anymore than in time, stupidity lessens. Hitler offered the the bait, and they stupidly took it. If fact, it is known that in many countries, Poland was criticized for invading this part of Czechoslovakia. Dr. Dan 16:27, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

My dear Dr. Dan, if you would ask Poles leaving in that lands what they think about "inviding this part of Czechoslovakia" they would answer you: "we had been looking forward to this for years", and Polish army was some kind enthusiastically welcomed by them. However they would add: "we had never been imaging that it would look like it was :(". When Polish administration took control over it they started the same politic to Czechs as Czechs did to Poles earlier. In addition Polish civil servants were very arrogant etc. etc. Maybe for you invading (in itself) that part of Cieszyn Silesia to Poland was mistake, for Polish minority there the way in wich it was taken was mistake. The dream of independent Poland flew away very quickly. D T G 17:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What Hitler's bait do you have in mind, specifically ? --_Lysy^talk 17:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Dan, You are not the first one to wonder. Jerzy Urban even wrote in "Nie" Which generations of students (who study on Polish text books), instead of allowing themselves getting brainwashed will finally ask a question: Why in a hell those idiots Marshal Rydz-Smigly and minister Jozef Beck dared to fight Hitler?. --Irpen 04:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

When you're reading this, it is good to know that Urban was a de-facto minister of propaganda in Communist Poland and his paper "Nie" is known for cunningly presenting extreme pro-soviet views, usually with the intention to whitewash his communist government. Theoretically, it could be a good antidote for those reading extreme nationalist/conservative papers but I doubt if these groups of the readers intersect. This is not to say that Polish history textbooks are perfect. --_Lysy^talk 06:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Urban was also banned from writing in the Communist Poland at a different time. Anyway, read his article at wiki. In any case, I don't see how this is related to what he was writing in this article. Did he misquote the Polish textbooks there? Attacking the speaker instead of disproving him is a known Demagogy#Methods_of_demagogy. --Irpen 07:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course you can citate "Nie" and Jerzy Urban's essays, but you will never change the view of average Poles. Especially here, in Silesia, where Silesians where treated as a Germans by Red Army. I don't see sense of reminiscing story of my grandfather... or husband of his sister, or of many of members of our family or friends' ancestors, cause I've heard that you have closed eyes for such arguments. I will only tell you that, yes, here are strong reasons why average people consider year 1944 as a soviet invasion and years of communism as a years of soviet occupation. Many of people who say so don't need those school books mentioned in Urban's assay, I don't need them as well. For me are enough associations of my intimates. However I'm not historian and won't continue arguing with anybody who levers such views. Cheers. D T G 17:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC) I forgot to sorry for my English

Not banned from writing but from bulishing under his name, I'm sure you know what this meant. I'm not disputing the views presented in his newspaper at that time. Surprisingly, I might even agree with some of them. I only wanted to let you know that what he writes should be taken with a grain of salt. --_Lysy^talk 17:20, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

So let's move along, shall we? First of all, Poland was not invited to the Munich conference and did not take part in it. Secondly, Hitler did not offer Poland the return of Cieszyn Silesia. In short, the invasion of Czechoslovakia left the Polish government in quite a difficult position, as it wanted to protect the Polish majority living there and at the same time did not want to collaborate with Hitler, as it was already clear that he was the main enemy of Poland at that time. Finally, the "Polish invasion" of the region in 1938 was presented in the media as a huge success of the army and a great example of Polish military might, but in fact it had little to do with the military. If memory serves me right, the Polish plenipotentiary to Prague presented the Czech government with an ultimatum, which the Czechs accepted. The following day a conference was held during which it was agreed that the Czechoslovak forces abandon the area in three phases and that the Polish forces would not approach Czechoslovak positions in order to avoid bloodshed. No Hitler nor Chamberlain involved. Halibutt 17:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

No we can't move along without assessing the fact of Polish aggression properly. I believe the Soviets took a cue from the Poles, when they "invaded" Western Ukraine and Belarus in 1939. If Poland's desire "to protect the Polish majority" was legitimate, why do you reproach the USSR's desire to protect the Belarusian and Ukrainian majorities and call it the act of aggression? Before you jot down a single word of reproach to the Soviets, you should review and apologize for the Polish invasion of Czechoslovakia less than a year earlier. These actions were intimately linked. You can't call one "liberation" and another "aggression" the way you do. It is POV-pushing, pure and simple. --Ghirla | talk 10:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Wanted to get back to you, Halibutt, sooner, but Wikipedia was down for a long while today. Now it's late and I probably shouldn't start what I can't finish. No one said Poland was invited to the Munich Conference. I don't know everything discussed by Beck and Hitler, at New Years, 1939, at the Berghof, but I believe I will be able to produce that the Polish minority question in Czechoslovakia was discussed. So, Poland wanted to protect its countrymen, eh? Your quote "wanted to protect the Polish majority living there". Hmm? That's reminiscent of the Soviet explantion of their invasion of Poland on September 17, 1939. If memory serves ME right, this WAS indeed a time of Polish ultimatums not only to Czechoslovakia (which was down and out, betrayed, and abandoned by its allies, friends, and neighbors, as a result of Munich), but other small adjoining countries. The ultimatum to Lithuania in 1938, to resume diplomatic realtions or else, comes to mind. I think that the late Marshal Pilsudski, once gave the Lithuanians, a similar ultimatum some years earlier in Switzerland, but as he had forgotten his limited knowledge of Lithuanian (unlike Narutowicz and his brother), he rather "impressively" delivered it in French. You are entitled to your opinions, and I to mine. The Polish actions regarding this moment in its history were deplorable. Dr. Dan 06:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

That's reminiscent of the Soviet explantion of their invasion of Poland on September 17, 1939

Nope, Soviets admitted they were lying. Here : http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/ns073.htm Molotov added that he would present my communication to his Government but he believed that a joint communiqu� was no longer needed; the Soviet Government intended to motivate its procedure as follows: the Polish State had collapsed and no longer existed; therefore all agreements concluded with Poland were void; third powers might try to profit by the chaos which had arisen; the Soviet Union considered itself obligated to intervene to protect its Ukrainian and White Russian brothers and make it possible for these unfortunate people to work in peace. The Soviet Government intended to publicize the above train of thought by the radio, press, etc., immediately after the Red Army had crossed the border, and at the same time communicate it in an official note to the Polish Ambassador here and to all the missions here. Molotov conceded that the projected argument of the Soviet Government contained a note that was jarring to German sensibilities but asked that in view of the difficult situation of the Soviet Government we not let a trifle like this stand in our way. The Soviet Government unfortunately saw no possibility of any other motivation, since the Soviet Union had thus far not concerned itself about the plight of its minorities in Poland and had to justify abroad, in some way or other, its present intervention. --Molobo 11:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As well as Pilsudki's ill concieved Kiev Offensive aimed at installing a puppet government in Kiev to create a Poland-dominated megastate, that followed brutal suppression of the patriotic uprising in the Western Ukraine for self-determination, which in WP is conveniently called a Polish-Ukrainian War, an article for which I still fail to find time. --Irpen 06:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Irpen, please, let's stick to the topic, shall we? Nobody spoke of a Poland-dominated megastate with Ukraine in 1920 and even less with Czechoslovakia in 1938, so let's stick to some more related matters.

Dan, of course the actions of the Polish government were deplorable. No less than the actions of UK, France or Czechoslovakia back in 1919. With the difference that the Polish recapture of Cieszyn Silesia was purely peaceful and settled by diplomatical means, contrary to the Czechoslovakian invasion of 1919, which was a purely military operation, with significant forces engaged on both sides. Furthermore, I admit I never heard of Beck's presence at a new years party at Berghof. However, he was a frequent guest there in 1939 during the Polish-German crisis and he visited Obersalzberg several times. Interestingly though the German proposals of border concessions to Poland did not include Czechoslovakia and were not given by Hitler to Beck. Since 1936 Goering frequently visited Poland, as well as numerous lower-ranking officials. They repeated many times that Poland could exchange Danzig for Odessa, but their proposals were never made officially and the issue was never pressed by Poland.

As to the reason why Czechoslovakia invaded the area and then Poland got it back, the matter is quite complex. And this is precisely why I decided to divide a single article onto the series of articles linked from {{Cieszyn}} template. Please, do not assume anyone's bad will. Instead, let's focus on some more constructive edits. Escalation of arguments of "who was worse" leads nowhere.

As an interesting off-topic, the Piłsudski's "ultimatum", as you call it, was rather a funny example on how the USSR could be toned down a little. The problem was that the USSR, quite unhappy with the treaty of Riga and with Poland's position, was doing its best to meddle in Polish affairs by supporting all possible enemies of the state. This included sponsoring a semi-terrorist communist party of Poland, but also playing the Lithuanian card. After Voldemaras reached Switzerland armed with a Soviet note in which the government of the USSR suggested that the terms of the treaty of Riga did not include the Polish-Lithuanian border, he started quite a long speech. In it he repeated his arguments of Polish occupation, international inratitude and similar things. After the diplomats started leaving the hall, Piłsudski rose up from his seat, interrupted Voldemaras and asked him loudly "You want peace or war, mr. Voldermaras?". Which effectively ended the crisis, as Voldemaras didn't know what to say. Also, the 1938 ultimatum was rather a special case. Following a death of one of Polish border guards shot by a Lithuanian soldier, the Poles simply demanded resolution of diplomatic relations in order to avoid such accidents in the future. No shots fired, no pacts broken. Halibutt 08:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't think that the Polish recapture of Cieszyn Silesia was that "purely peaceful". I believe there were some minor skirmishes, and maybe even several soldiers wounded or killed but I don't have the sources for this at hand. However this is noted and I'll try to check out. As for Beck, I doubt very much if he discussed the issue with Hitler. Some sources to support this theory would be useful as well. As for Polish-Lithuanian or Polish-Ukraininan relations, I think they would be better discusses in the relevant articles, not here. --_Lysy^talk 09:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Now that would be a major discovery to me. Any sources for the PL-CZ skirmishes in 1938? Halibutt 09:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Maybe here is sth written about it? D_T_G 11:26, 14 lut 2006 (CET)

This one http://raven.cc.ku.edu/~eceurope/hist557/lect15.htm exactly. However it does not support my supposition, but Halibutt's version. As I said, I'll try to find some more sources about it, but it will take some time. I may be wrong as well, since I've not been looking into these issues for a long time. --_Lysy^talk 10:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The argument should stop right here. Lysy provided the conclusive evidence by linking us to a university lecture by Anna M. Cieciala. Please refer to her in the future as Hanka, afterall, she uses her diminutive in her email address. BTW, most academics (from my personal experience), have a rather snobbish and condescending attitude towards Wikipedians anyway. Dr. Dan 03:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

This might help you-an extensive documentation of the effort. It includes large number of photos as well. http://www.kc-cieszyn.pl/zaolzie1938/zaolzie/ramka4.php?autor=dokumenty&autor2=dokumentymini&idx=47 --Molobo 11:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Simply when Hitler told Lipski that he would annex Sudentland, he also implied that he won't stop at the ethnic line(of German settlement), which made Polish government make demands towards Polish inhabited lines http://www.kc-cieszyn.pl/zaolzie1938/zaolzie/jpg/dokumenty/32b.jpg --Molobo 11:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)--Molobo 11:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

They were some small scale skirmishes but not even between soldiers but Polish sponsored militia on minimal scale: http://www.kc-cieszyn.pl/zaolzie1938/zaolzie/jpg/dokumenty/34b.jpg --Molobo 11:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Bzdura, small scale and minimal scale. I'll say it again, Poland's actions were deplorable. Agression and military violence kills, wounds, and destroys whether it's 10 people, or 100,000, people. Its morality has nothing to do with its numbers or scale. And you're always trying to "whitewash" these maters when your nationalist biases are challenged. I'm sorry, but that's my position. Let me quote Churchill from The Gathering Storm, (like you probably, I don't care for him terribly much, but he writes very well), writing about Poland "...In 1938, over a question as minor as Teschen, they sundered themselves from friends in France and Britain and the United States...we see them hurrying, while the might of Germany glowered up against them, to grasp their share of the pillage and ruin of Czechoslovakia." Maybe just maybe thoughts like these crossed his mind at Yalta and Potsdam. Dr. Dan 03:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Please concentrate on the issue and stick to subject. Poland's actions were deplorable.Yes we already know you find Poland deplorable especially when it tries to regain independence, territory or protect its citizens. If you believe Churchill thought about Poland regaining its territory in 1938 that Czechs took during Bolshevik Invasion, at the time of dealing with Soviets, provide scholary sources instead of your POV. --Molobo 08:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please cool down, will you. We're here to prepare encyclopedia and not to wage endless wars on who was worse. Also, Dr. Dan misses a point that we're not here to decide the moral value of the actions by anyone. We're here to present the actions in as NPOV way as possible. Whether deplorable or not, the actions in themselves have their factographical value here. Moral value is for authors of prose, not for wikipedians.

As to skirmishes in 1938, prior to the ultimatum and the annexation (or rather re-annexation) of the area, there were some Polish resistance (terrorist, if you prefer) groups operating on both sides of the frontier. And the fotocopy of the report provided by the Cieszyn Library shows that there were some actos of violence on both sides. However, I have yet to see that there were some victims of the actions of armed forces of both sides during the take-over. Halibutt 12:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Good old Molobo, can always depend on you. "Yes we already know you find Poland deplorable especially when it tries to regain independence, territory or protect its citizens". Yada, yada, yada. When all else fails, try the personal attack. Churchill wrote the statement, not me. That was Churchill's opinion about Poland's annexation of this area. And that my friend is not POV. He is not the only non-Pole, besides myself, who thought or thinks that Poland's actions in this case, were deplorable. You on the other hand, must think that all of Poland's acts of aggression (whenever they occur), are always tied into their desire to regain independence, territory, or protect its citizens. For sure!! Halibutt, please remember that my position has always been, that debate on the discussion page is dfferent than editing the article page. Everybody puts in a lot of personal opinion on the Talk Pages. It doesn't bother me at all. Even when it comes from Molobo. I wish he would tell me where the accent on Molobo should be placed, sometimes. Is it MOlobo, MoLObo, or MoloBO? Dr. Dan 03:16, 19 February 2006 (UTC)