This article is within the scope of WikiProject European Microstates, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of European Microstates on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.European MicrostatesWikipedia:WikiProject European MicrostatesTemplate:WikiProject European MicrostatesEuropean Microstates articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Better before: relations with Russian Empire are incomprehensible if its western (Polish) provinces are practically ignored (edit summary by Lima).
80 % of the content was about Poland, so it appeared unacceptable as it stood. The only alternative would be to rename the title in that case. The Russian Empire also included Ukraine, Lithuania, Siberia, etc, where Catholics were also found. But in this case, the term Russia refers to the old Russian State headquarters in Saint Petersburg, where distinct matters were negotiated, and not to every single province of the former Empire. ADM (talk) 22:45, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You mean, 80% was about the provinces of the Russian Empire that had a Polish population. Not about Poland. Poland, if it could be said to exist at all at that time - I suppose you know of the phrase with which Alfred Jarry presented his play Ubu Roi, saying that the action takes place "en Pologne, c'est-à-dire nulle part" - was much bigger: Prussia and Austria, as well as Russia, had incorporated parts of the pre-partition Poland that did exist. As for present-day Poland (if that's what you mean by Poland), you surely know that, since the end of the Second World War, it is much further west than before that war and does not at all correspond to the nineteenth-century Polish provinces of the Russian Empire.
At that time there was no Polish state for the Holy See to have "foreign relations" with. Matters concerning all the provinces (every single one of them) were negotiated not with the provinces themselves but with the headquarters of the Russian Empire, and that is what the article is about. Today too, there is an Apostolic Nuncio accredited to the United States government in Washington, but not to the governors of the individual states within the country.
It is surprising if the article presents only 80% of the discussions between the Holy See and the Tsarist Empire around 1860 as connected with the situation in the fractious provinces with a Polish population. I would have thought that bilateral relations between the two powers would have been taken up much less than one-fifth by questions concerning the other provinces. If you could find material about Holy See-Russian Empire discussions on all the other provinces together that would add up to anything like a quarter of the material that exists on their relations with regard to the Polish provinces (so as to justify an 80%-20% division), it would be a wonderful addition to this article and to the study of nineteenth-century history in general.
I see you have now eliminated from the article even more material that concerned the Poles under the Tsar. If you continue, there will be almost nothing left. When do you intend to remove mention of the closure of the 32 Polish monasteries in 1850 and of 114 later, and of the Austrian intervention concerning the persecution of the Poles?
No, the article makes no sense, if the Polish problem is excluded from a discussion of Holy See-Russian Empire relations at the time. Lima (talk) 11:19, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neither did Poland exist during Pius XII's reign, but we already do have an entry entitled Pope Pius XII and Poland. I suppose there could also be an article called Pope Paul VI and Poland if further historical sources were gathered. What is important to know is that during the entire time of Poland's loss of sovereignty, which some might call captivity, Poland maintained several forms of de facto separatist governments similar to Tibet's current government headed by the Dalai Lama. These separatist organizations literally sought international recognition and actively tried to cultivate relations with the Secretariate of State of the Holy See. The goal of such an entry is to properly retrace the history of these relations in order to improve documentation of the history of occupied Poland. ADM (talk) 12:33, 20 November 2009 (UTC)"|[reply]
I am sorry to have to say that I disbelieve every one of the statements just made. Poland did exist during Pius XII's 2 March 1939 - 9 October 1958 reign. The country was occupied by Germany and/or the Soviet Union only from 28 September 1939, when Warsaw capitulated, until July 1945, when even the Western Allies recognized the locally based government in Poland. Even between 1939 and 1945 there was an internationally recognized Polish government in exile that maintained diplomatic relations with, among others, Pius XII. The situation of this government could perhaps be compared with that of the Dalai Lama, except that, unlike the Dalai Lama, it was internationally recognized as the government of a country and it had an army actively engaged in war. In contrast to that situation, you know that the last king of Poland, Stanisław August Poniatowski, abdicated on 25 November 1795. So what were these "de facto separatist governments" that Poland "maintained" in the nineteenth century? Are you referring to the very few ephe|meral uprisings of Poles in Tsarist-ruled territory? Only a successful (emphasis added later) rebellion makes a country, as in the case of the United States rebellion against Britain. Short-lived rebellions within a country that fail to get any recognition whatever internationally do not make another country. Or were you referring to the Duchy of Warsaw that Napoleon earlier established with territory taken from Prussia, not Russia, and that he entrusted to a German ruler? The problems that troubled relations between the Holy See and the Russian Empire in the time of Pius IX were overwhelmingly about the population of that part of the Empire that you want to exclude from the article about those relations. If you continue to remove from the article about those relations all that concerned the Empire's Polish inhabitants, what if anything will remain? You also seem to identify "occupied Poland" with land ruled by the Tsar, though there were also Austrian-occupied and the Prussian-occupied lands that had been part of the pre-1795 Poland. Lima (talk) 17:36, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Poland was also occupied by Austria and Germany, not just Russia. It would help if you would stop ignoring the German and Austrian part of the question. The Polish question was indeed an important political question at the time, in the same that that Palestine, Abkhasia, Western Sahara, Nagorno-Karabakh or Kosovo might be today. The existence of a Polish resistance movement during the partitions is already documented in our historical articles by the way.
International law doesn't only involve relations between independent States, but also between various types of quasi-States and other political entities. For instance, the Palestinian Authority could choose to engage in political relations with Abkhasia and these would be of documentary value.
It is not true that only a rebellion can provoke international recognition, since a country like Kazakhstan wanted to stay in the Soviet Union but was the last political entity to be forced to leave the Union. The Order of Malta is likewise recognized by several dozens of states even though it did not rebel against anyone. A country like Montenegro did declare its independence through a referendum and without a rebellion per se.
Finally, the question of the the political independence of the Holy See is also relevant in this discussion. Did the Holy See exist from 1870 to 1929 ? Yes, it did, through its own Secretariate of State, even though it was deprived of the papal states and had limited diplomatic relations with only about twenty countries. Taiwan still exists today even though it has about the same limited diplomatic recognition as the Holy See did back then.
I am greatly surprised at the suggestion that I am ignoring the part of Austria and Prussia in the situation of the Poles in the nineteenth century. I have been insisting on their part since my first words on this page!
The Palestinian Authority does exist and is internationally recognized. It even has a representative to the Holy See. What corresponding body representing "Poland" (including the Austrian- and Prussian-held lands of pre-partition Poland, not just the part within the Russian Empire) existed in the nineteenth century?
I did not claim that the only way to get international recognition is by a rebellion. For lack of italicization to make the meaning clearer, you misunderstood what I wrote. International recognition shows that a rebellion has been successful; but if the rebellion fails, there is no new state or country to recognize.
Examples of failed rebellions are those few nineteenth-century rebellions by Poles against the Tsar's government (not against Austria and Prussia).
As you say, the Holy See is distinct from the historical Papal States and the present-day Vatican City State. Contrary to what you say, diplomatic recognition of the Holy See actually increased during the 59 years when it had no territorial possessions. What Polish entity existed in the nineteenth century that can be compared with the Holy See during that period, or with the Republic of China (Taiwan) today?
All the above is somewhat beside the point. Surely you cannot deny that it is nonsense to write about the relations between the Holy See and the Russian Empire in the time of Pope Pius IX (what this article is about) as if they had almost nothing to do with problems concerning the Tsar's Polish subjects. Do you actually deny it? Lima (talk) 10:14, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind mentioning the Polish problem a bit in the Russia article, but I would only support this as long as there is a proper distinction between what concerns Russia properly and what concerns the Polish people, without any assimilation or confusion. It is also good to remember that the term Poland at the time still conserved an important ecclesiastical, ethnological or geographical understanding, in the sense that Poland was a nation in the eyes of many writers, philosophers, bishops and local artists. It was included within the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria, the Congress Poland and the Province of Posen, political entities which were refered to as partitioned Poland during most of the 19th century. These territories each had their own customs, laws and nationalist movements, some of which adopted relatively liberal organic constitutions for their own administrative autonomy. ADM (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You can of course have another article on the Holy See's relations with the Polish people (the Polish people continued to exist, decidedly so, even if the Polish state did not) in the time of Pius IX. That other article would be defective if it ignored those members of the Polish people who were not subject to the Tsar. And the present article on the Holy See's relations with the Russian Empire in the time of Pius IX would be defective if it ignored those of the Tsar's subjects who were Poles. In other words, the present article concerns "the Polish problem" much more than just "a bit". Lima (talk) 15:46, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
