18th Century Polish Strategic Dilemmas
It’s true that the old Polish system of government, requiring unanimity from an assembly of nobles, seems like a bad way to run a country. But I think the theory that this bad procedural rule was responsible for Poland’s elimination as a country isn’t all that well-supported by the evidence. Poland re-emerged as an independent country after World War I, but it found itself once again partitioned by Germany and Russia in 1939. Then after WWII it was formally independent, but in fact under Russian control.
Long story short, system of government aside, Poland is located in an unfavorably geographical position that makes conquest by Russia and/or Germany a very likely outcome. It’s a great triumph of that liberal international institution-building and norm-building has now created a situation where everyone can be very confident that Poland can stay independent. That’s a big win for Harry Truman and Jean Monnet and Helmut Kohl. But given the international situation that existed 200+ years ago, I think Poland was doomed one way or another.
92 Responses to “18th Century Polish Strategic Dilemmas”
Register
RSSLogin
Yglesias Tweets
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
February 6th, 2010 at 5:34 pm
A slight modification:
Why isn’t that true?
February 6th, 2010 at 5:49 pm
“Why isn’t that true?”
It was true for large portions of German History.
February 6th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
It was true for large portions of German History.
Exactly my point. So something beside being between other countries has to explain the recent fortunes of central European countries, because they are all between other countries.
February 6th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
That’s a big win for Harry Truman and Jean Monnet and Helmut Kohl.
And Ronald Reagan.
February 6th, 2010 at 5:59 pm
Yeah, but Matt is talking about that particular point in history.
His point was that Poland’s system of government wasn’t really the issue, they were probably going to get steamrolled one way or the other anyway.
February 6th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
Besides losing both world wars in spectacular fashion, near total destruction in the thirty years war, being Napoleons personal chess board, and spending half of this past century partitioned and garrisoned by the competing superpowers, Germany has spent most of its history as a collection of small principalities under varying degrees of rule by Hapsburgs.
February 6th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
So something beside being between other countries has to explain the recent fortunes of central European countries, because they are all between other countries.
It’s not just being “between other countries”. It’s being between other large, powerful, aggressive other countries that matters.
February 6th, 2010 at 6:01 pm
In the 17th century, Poland wasn’t sandwiched between a hostile Germany and Russia. Germany didn’t exist, Prussia was small and irrelevant, and Russia was so weak that it took 21 years to win a war with Sweden. Meanwhile, Poland controlled a massive area stretching nearly from Berlin to Smolensk. There’s no geographic reason Poland rather than Germany couldn’t have been the Central European Great Power.
February 6th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
Modern Poland is very different from its historic predecessors. It is much more mono-ethnic. The politics were different because the country was different.
February 6th, 2010 at 6:02 pm
In other words, France is between Andorra and Luxembourg. Something tells me that this doesn’t worry France.
February 6th, 2010 at 6:05 pm
Well the other factor is the USA, not those countries’ particular constitutions.
February 6th, 2010 at 6:09 pm
Having a unified, effective central government helps to overcome geopolitical disadvantage (for example, as was alluded to in previous comments, Seven-Years-War-era Prussia, which not only fought a much more powerful coalition to a draw, but was able to help gobble up the remnants of Poland when the time came).
February 6th, 2010 at 6:17 pm
In the fifteenth Century the Polish-Lithuanian Union dominated Eastern Europe. Moscovy, Brandenburg, & Austria were comparative non-entities. the ungovernability of that empire opened the way for the rise of Russia, Prussia,& Austria-Hungary.
February 6th, 2010 at 6:18 pm
This is just pitifully lazy. “Geography is destiny”? Really. As has already been pointed out, Prussia, whose geographical position was far, far, far worse in just about every way than Poland’s, managed to do alright for itself.
Even the most cursory reading of the history of partition (which Matt shows no signs of having done) makes it pretty clear that Poland’s internal weakness was one of the basic preconditions for events there. This is just an awful post.
February 6th, 2010 at 6:20 pm
It’s not just being “between other countries”. It’s being between other large, powerful, aggressive other countries that matters.
As other have noted, Poland was not between “other large, powerful, aggressive countries” in 1650. Brandenburg-Prussia was weak and exhausted from the Thirty Years War; Russia was still barely recovered from the Time of Troubles (when, it’s worth remembering, the Poles had held Moscow for a number of years).
The powerful aggressiveness of Prussia and Russia was only able to arise in response to Poland’s collapse as a great power.
February 6th, 2010 at 6:24 pm
Prussia did not do alright for itself.
February 6th, 2010 at 6:26 pm
Re: Germany is located in an unfavorable geographical position that makes conquest by Poland and/or France a very likely outcome.
Germany was invaded at various times by the French, and was completely overrun by Napoleon. Poland however never showed any interest in territorial gains to its west. Its main imperialist ambitions went east. By dynastic union with Lithuania it gained a huge area of modern Belarus and Ukraine, and in the 1600s the Poles also made a play for Russia itself during the Time of Troubles.
February 6th, 2010 at 6:27 pm
It’s not just being “between other countries”. It’s being between other large, powerful, aggressive other countries that matters.
Which raises the question of why some countries became large, powerful, and aggressive, and others less so, which is a question Matt’s simplistic betweenism hypothesis doesn’t answer.
February 6th, 2010 at 6:30 pm
Was Poland’s constitution designed by Rousseau, perchance?
February 6th, 2010 at 6:34 pm
Which raises the question of why some countries became large, powerful, and aggressive, and others less so, which is a question Matt’s simplistic betweenism hypothesis doesn’t answer.
Ah, right. I misunderstood what you were saying.
Seems to me that France was really the problem here. France was a large, powerful, politically cohesive country that did in Poland (via Napoleon).
But that doesn’t explain why Germany became an empire and Poland failed. (Krugman’s simplistic explanation doesn’t really work either.)
February 6th, 2010 at 6:40 pm
Poland also strove — like alot of countries — to take advantage of the collapse of empires after WWI to gain more territory. See http://www.blogotheque.net/Phoenix,5176 and “1919″ by Margaret McMillan.
February 6th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
The prospects for a newly independent country with the British, French, and Spanish empires on its borders would not be good.
February 6th, 2010 at 6:41 pm
Ha! That link to Phoenix will not tell you much about Poland after WWI. This will, though: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_Polish%E2%80%93Soviet_War
February 6th, 2010 at 6:43 pm
I think some of the commenters here have it right, Matt: to say that geography is unimportant in re: war/empire is clearly not right; but likewise, to say that a governing system doesn’t tell the whole story is missing the point–surely the governing system tells at least part of the story. The question then is how much is geography and how much politics/governance.
February 6th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
Yeah, I think another way of putting the point I was making is that all of Central Europe is between France and Russia. Which is not a great situation to be in, perhaps, but obviously that isn’t going to explain relative success among Central European countries.
February 6th, 2010 at 6:50 pm
Robert Farley over at LGM has a (short) take on this which seems worth reading: http://lefarkins.blogspot.com/2010/02/thus-because-we-make-it-thus.html
February 6th, 2010 at 6:51 pm
BORING DAY
[The 4th of July]
Well, this has been one of those boring days not there isn’t anything to really write about, there is a ton of things that could and should be written about going on but there is nothing being done about any of it as the Media Messiah Imperial President and his [D.C.] District of Clowns, Royal Court keep fighting about Healthcare, Healthcare, and Healthcare over and over and over again its like a broken record, but the [4th] of July is just around the corner and the beltway bunch will be in campaign mode, and its all stop on Healthcare, as they have to face trying to get re-elected by out of work voters.
[Leftie Chief of Staff Correct]
Now, were not fans of Rahm Emanuel at all, period, zip, nada, but when he’s right, sorry he’s a leftie, when the Mossad Agent, White House Chief of Staff said its time to re-prioritize things and get out of the rut of Healthcare, Healthcare, Healthcare, and the Clinton bunch almost took his head off, well the Leftie was [Correct]. But, when the Clinton bunch gets a bee in their bonnet, forget it. Rahm should sit his [AIPAC] puppet down and tell him its about time to stop lecturing everyone and start listening to someone for a change, even his [AIPAC] masters must have had enough of what’s going on, the faster the America-Israeli Empire, declines, the worse position it puts Israeli and [AIPAC] into. But, the countdown has begun, it’s not that far to the [4th] when the weather is hot, and Washington is not, as all the hot air idiots are at home, trying to be sent back to their real home in the Beltway.
[G’Day Mr. USA]
There were only [2] Two things that even made our day today an article in The Sydney Morning Herald, (www.SMH.Com.AU) G’day Mr. USA., written by (CWaterstreet@GMail.Com), and those Aussies they don’t mince words, and then on (www.TheDailyBeast.Com), The Week In Political Cartoons, Drawn & Quartered, Mike Lester, Rome (GA) News Tribune/United Syndicate (Comics.Com) had a pretty interesting cartoon about us Tea-Baggers which we sent a few E-mails to about it. But, it’s basically just another boring day the [NYSE] New York Stock Exchange continues its roller coaster ride up and down, up and down, the Wall St. boys bonus’s keep going up, as unemployment keep going up, the dollar keeps going down, the national debt will reach the moon before another giant step for mankind, but the cartoon by Mike Lester, and the article by C. Waterstreet, brightened up the day, along with my made in China, Garfield, Laminated Cutout, I’m Not Always Right, But I’m Never Wrong.
HERCULE TRIATHLON SAVINIEN
February 6th, 2010 at 7:00 pm
European history FAIL here from Matt: there’s all sorts of imposition of post-1815 (and post-1848) political geography on the pre-1792 map of Europe.
France was a large, powerful, politically cohesive country that did in Poland (via Napoleon).
Um, Poland was gone before Napoleon got involved. You have a slender point If you’re asserting that the decision of disenfranchised Poles to throw their lot in with France in return for one of his puppet states nixed any hope of doing well out of the Congress of Vienna. And the story of Kościuszko sets up an interesting contrast between the circumstances of American rebellion and Polish resistance in the late 18th century.
February 6th, 2010 at 7:22 pm
The difference between Poland vs. Prussia and Russia is that Poland failed to transition to a centralized state in the 1700s. Which made the country very vulnerable to two neighboring militarized central states. The political system (Liberum Veto, elected King — sort of President-for-Life) certainly contributed to this failure. Note that Poland’s political system was probably nicer to live under for more people than Prussia’s or Russia’s. Just not capable of fighting those nations off.
February 6th, 2010 at 7:53 pm
Matthew’s post is much too simplistic. Why did Poland became so powerless in the XVIII century when not long before that it was the most powerful state of Eastern Europe? The establishment of the unanimity requirement was indeed a significant factor. Let’s remember that for many years Poland was one of Europe’s major powers. During the first half of the 1600’s it was stronger than Russia. As people here have already noted, Polish troops entered Moscow in 1619. In 1611, after a twenty month siege, Poland took the old Russian city of Smolensk. It was a long forty-four years before Russia recaptured Smolensk in 1654.
During its first two hundred years of formal existence the Polish Sejm did not have an unanimity requirement. It was only introduced by the end of the XVI century. A hundred years later the paralytic effects of the liberum veto became all too evident.
February 6th, 2010 at 8:00 pm
Germany became a world power in the latter half of the 19th century through the actions of its most formidable prime minister, Otto von Bismarck. Bismarck was far more clever then Napoleon because he took on one neighbor at a time. Prussia defeated Austria in the 1866 war and having eliminated the latter as a threat, defeated France in the 1871 war which allowed Prussia to unite all the German principalities under Prussian suzerainty. The rapid industrialization of the united Germany then allowed that country to surpass Britain and France in industrial production and become a world power.
February 6th, 2010 at 8:11 pm
It’s a great triumph of that liberal international institution-building and norm-building has now created a situation where everyone can be very confident that Poland can stay independent.
It helped that after WWII the major Central/Eastern European ethnic groups were generally moved into their corresponding nation states.
Funny how certain leftists who under other circumstances would call this “genocide” are not complaining about this “genocide”.
February 6th, 2010 at 8:29 pm
You have a slender point If you’re asserting that the decision of disenfranchised Poles to throw their lot in with France in return for one of his puppet states nixed any hope of doing well out of the Congress of Vienna.
My point would have been that Napoleon did away with the Polish-Lithuanian empire. Which point would have been wrong. So I’ll take your slender point instead.
February 6th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
“Polish troops entered Moscow in 1619.”
Typo. It was in 1610, not 1619.
February 6th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Luck and timing was definitely a major factor in the rise of a dominated-by-Prussia Germany (although we obviously shouldn’t sell the Prussians short, considering what they managed to do in the 18th century in spite of being much smaller than other major powers on the continent). Prussia made out like a bandit after the Congress of Vienna, getting control of the highly productive Rhineland area, and now facing a situation where they only had to deal with a smaller number of Germanic states post-Napoleon as opposed to the ginormous mish-mash of principalities before then.
February 6th, 2010 at 9:26 pm
Funny how certain leftists who under other circumstances would call this “genocide” are not complaining about this “genocide”.
“Victors’ justice” is funny that way.
February 6th, 2010 at 9:41 pm
It helped that after WWII the major Central/Eastern European ethnic groups were generally moved into their corresponding nation states.
I too am glad that the dissolution of Yugoslavia was a peaceful and bloodless process.
Oh, and I’m certain that my Greek-Cypriot math teacher in high school immigrated here because she got tired of the muggy Med weather.
February 6th, 2010 at 9:59 pm
Any of you liberals watching Palin at the TEA Party convention?
She gave a BARNBURNER of a speech and is taking unscripted questions submitted by TEA Party members. God, this woman is amazing! No teleprompter here.
February 6th, 2010 at 10:04 pm
What everybody said. Yglesias has a point: At the time of the first polnish partition it was already to late. Any attempt at reform was sabotaged by teh neighbours of the commonwealth,especially Russia who wanted to keep Poland weak.
But in the 17 century Poland was threatened by Sweden, Russia and the Ottoman Empire. It had also considerable problems with the cossacks and the tartars. There were no problems wiht “Germany”, though. The HRE didn’t threaten anybody being the one territory more decentralized then Poland. Brandenburg-Prussia was art best a minor nuisance and Austria was generally friendly.
But still, even during catastrophic periods like the deluge, Poland was able to fight its enemies off. At the siege of Vienna 1689 it was still a considerable power.
So powerful and agressive neieghbours alone can’t be an explanation and the further weakening of the King and the ever stricter interpretation of the liberum veto during the 18th century is a plausible explanation for the partitions.
Regarding Germany it did did not rise to world power either but was dissolved in 1806. The later confederation did not developed into a nation state either but rather one of the member states -Prussia – defeated the other big member state Austria and the middling member states.
February 6th, 2010 at 10:05 pm
No teleprompter here.
Having written remarks is useful when conveying complex ideas. Spouting content-less cliches doesn’t require one—though she used on anyway at the Republican convention. Go figure.
February 6th, 2010 at 10:07 pm
Also, Ed, principled conservatives see through this Palin fraud. Why can’t you?
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/02/liveblogging-palin.html
and
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/02/liveblogging-palins-q-and-a.html
February 6th, 2010 at 10:09 pm
I still think Obama taking questions from republican congressmen is more impressive.
Palin reminds me of the second saxon King of Poland.
February 6th, 2010 at 10:21 pm
Andrew Sullivan isn’t conservative, he’s just a homo with man-crush on Hopey.
February 6th, 2010 at 10:32 pm
One aspect of “liberum veto” is that misbegotten constitutional ideas may take a long time to wreck havoc. Initially, veto was not used in extreme fashion. In a way, it was “one sabre, one vote” system, so would a smallish minority try to thwart the majority, it would have to take extra-legal consequences into account.
Another aspect is that it is surprisingly easy to deny the need for change if it is associated with raising taxes. The most obvious problems can be flatly denied, and a lot of people will believe the denial. And between the misbegotten constitution and shameless denialism, the system can get frozen and decay.
What was an extra specific problem in Poland was that once the foreign powers learn how to bribe Polish lords, no reform was possible, because of the veto. To raise the veto it was sufficient to secure one vote, but to “secure it”, you needed some private army, and effectively, a substantial coalition.
After ca. 100 years the foreign bribery lost its effectiveness, and then Poland was partitioned. Perhaps it was the case of a lobster being cooked very, very slowly.
Does corporate influence on American politics play a similar role? Plus unbounded myopia of conservatists, and the general feeling of invulnerability? To recap: big conservative minority is driven by myopic aversion of taxes and is fortified with extra fund, and most of the rest of the society does not feel particular urgent need, surely not on the level of constitutional change…
February 6th, 2010 at 10:44 pm
Conservative Ed,
If Andrew Sullivan isn’t conservative enough for your taste, try Daniel Larison. Larison is conservative enough to pine for the lost days of the Stuart Kings and the Emperor Justinian, and he has no more time for Sarah Palin then I do.
Of course, Larison may be a bit too, ahem, intellectually taxing for your brand of conservative.
February 6th, 2010 at 10:46 pm
As for Poland, one thing they do have going for them: Polish* women are super-hot. They tend to also be people of faith, which adds to the hotness factor in my book.
Or more specifically Polish-Americans; I don’t actually know any Polish Poles.
February 6th, 2010 at 10:51 pm
Also, Ed, principled conservatives see through this Palin fraud. Why can’t you?
He’s blinded by the starbursts. There are websites that specialize in MILF, soft core ones, hard core ones. Maybe he’ll get a Visa or Mastercard gift card for his birthday and can log onto one of those instead of getting all um um excited by Ms. ExGovernator. Either that or he’s to lazy to find the free MILF stuff all over the web.
It explains the rabid fascination they had during the Starr investigation. They ain’t getting any, they won’t do porn so they have to depend on exquisitely detailed descriptions in the news.
February 6th, 2010 at 11:00 pm
Germany became a world power in the latter half of the 19th century through the actions of its most formidable prime minister, Otto von Bismarck. Bismarck was far more clever then Napoleon because he took on one neighbor at a time.
This is a poor explanation of Bismarck’s success. Napoleon took on his neighbors one at a time, as well. He defeated Austria in 1805, Prussia in 1806, Russia in 1807, Austria again in 1809, then took on Russia, which had no allies, in 1812.
Rather, Bismarck succeeded because his goals were limited. He knew exactly what he wanted, and as soon as he got it in 1871, he declared Prussia a “sated” power and turned to a conservative policy of maintaining the status quo (Germany’s international position only collapsed when his successors abandoned this policy and instead pursued a goal of pursuing Germany’s “place in the sun”). Napoleon, on the other hand, ultimately had no limits to his ambition. As soon as he won, he continued to push his defeated enemies until they had little choice but to restart the war against him. Compare his treatment of defeated Austria after 1801, 1805, and 1809 with Bismarck’s treatment of the same power after 1866. Napoleon ultimately did not want there to be a Europe with other, independent great powers in it. He wanted the other monarchs of Europe to be his courtiers, and to do whatever he wanted them to do. Bismarck, once he had achieved his fairly limited goals, was happy to let the other powers do as they wish.
It might also be noted that where Britain was an inveterate enemy of Napoleon, always at war with him, the British were not at all hostile to Bismarck’s goals, and generally held aloof from continental politics through the whole period of unification.
February 6th, 2010 at 11:01 pm
The troll has indicated that he’s from Tennessee, and yet he’s not made the effort to join his Teabagging friends in Nashville. Was the name of the venue — the Gaylord Hotel — too off-putting?
Or is it that he’s just not got the $500 + room + travel to line the pockets of the GOP’s moneymen and the odd voluntarily redundant ex-governor, whose millionaire lifestyles are being supported on the back of populist rhetoric?
February 6th, 2010 at 11:05 pm
As for Poland, one thing they do have going for them: Polish* women are super-hot. They tend to also be people of faith, which adds to the hotness factor in my book.
This matches my extensive experience on the west and northwest sides of Chicago. Polish women tend to be more attractive than average — but they also tend to be very Catholic, and not in the dirty sense. More in the frigid, hates sex, unwilling to do anything more risque than woman-on-top sense.
Contrast this with Russian women, who are just as hot and willing to do ANYTHING.
February 6th, 2010 at 11:09 pm
Good comment (44), Piotr.
February 6th, 2010 at 11:19 pm
TMKS:
Or maybe it’s because I’m at the opposite end of the state? Moron. Unlike you liberals most conservatives have JOBS and don’t live in their mommy’s basements or on the government dole.
February 6th, 2010 at 11:31 pm
Bismark Heroe worship in 7 phases…
Phase I unifies the protestants in an alliance of hate against catholics to avoid progress towards democracy and civil liberties
Phase II unifies protestant and catholic bougeoisie in an alliance of hate against Social Democrats to avoid progres towards democracy and civil liberties
Phase III Conflict with incompetent Willhelm II over power. Now Bismarcks last chance to ally with the parliament against Wilhelm and the military. But no the way he tries to get rid of Willhelm is a military coup that makes him Dictator. Fails.
Phase IV Willhem II and the nobelman military elite, a bunch incompetent idiots gains complete power, make Bimarck look good in comparision.
Phase V Bismarck becomes the Reagan of his time right after his death, a mythical right wing heroe. Bismarck memorials get built all over Germany.
February 6th, 2010 at 11:42 pm
Or maybe it’s because I’m at the opposite end of the state?
Nashville is, um, in the middle of the state. Generally you would be at the opposite end of something if you’re at one end and it’s at the other end.
Regardless, both Knoxville and Memphis are ~3 hours away if I recall. Given how many of the attendants are from out of state, and given how closely you seem to align with their ideology and how much you’re enjoying the speech, I don’t know that I’d find “I live three hours away so I couldn’t go” a viable excuse. If you haven’t sufficiently pulled yourself up by your bootstraps to afford a $500 convention, just say so.
February 6th, 2010 at 11:43 pm
“Then after WWII it was formally independent, but in fact under Russian control.”
So complicated. My father’s father’s father’s father’s father’s father was born in a place called Saxony at a time that people still probably whipped horses but had also more or less stopped eating other people (reports of cannibalism in Germany into the seventeenth century, and all); they made things out of metal, and laws on the town council. Their overlords (the electors of Saxony) sided with the Bonaparte fellow over the Prussians and had to turn part of the place (the part my people happened to live in) over to them. I don’t think my people liked the Prussians. My 3rd great-grandfather went to Hanover (the Kingdom of) in 1848 but that place was a mess too. The Prussians were about to take it over and my people went to Massachusetts instead. Eventually, Russia got the old town. Then Germany again.
February 6th, 2010 at 11:55 pm
Poland’s precarious strategic situation is simple compared to Americas. America is isolated by the worlds two major oceans from any conceivable enemy. Well no matter. Huge portions of the population have lived in abject fear for the better part of a century that we are in immanent danger of instant takeover and domination. A threat so dire that we deploy vast technologically advanced military and intelligence forces to fight every threat. The current major threat, goat herders from near the Hindu Kush, often stoned on hashish. A threat that makes the Wehrmacht and the Red Army pathetic jokes.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:22 am
@ 46 Hector: “As for Poland, one thing they do have going for them: Polish* women are super-hot. They tend to also be people of faith, which adds to the hotness factor in my book.”
Ah, there is nothing quite like the sight of a devout, Roman Catholic, Polish-American girl at a Polish Festival — polka dancing in 2/4 time. So sensual.
Watching, my romantic fires are stoked so, I become a veritable overheated furnace of passion. Thank the Lord there is usually a Polish Fire Brigade at these type events…wink
@44 piotr: “What was an extra specific problem in Poland was that once the foreign powers learn how to bribe Polish lords, no reform was possible…”
Yup, that’s what makes the timing of Citizen United so devastating. International corporate power is being unleashed on an already bought system. Within one year, attempts at even mild reform will prove impossible.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:29 am
most conservatives have JOBS and don’t live in their mommy’s basements or on the government dole.
So the conservatives who did show up at the Gaylord for Teabagapalooza this weekend are basement-dwellers and/or dole-scroungers? Gotcha.
Adam has beat me to it on the geography, but let’s assume for sake of argument that Ed’s in Eastern Tennessee, that lovely part of the country where Unitarian Universalists get murdered at church, and African-Americans are still advised not to let the sun go down on them — it would account for the pretzel logic he showed over the connotations of the word “boy”.
That’s a straight easy ride down I-40, “Ed”, and for a self-proclaimed “small businessman” who’s supposedly pulling in a quarter-mill annually, a grand or so teabaggin’ is money well spent, and I’m sure your conservative friends would forgive you taking a Saturday off from… whatever it is you do.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:32 am
Very few Americans live in fear of anything. They support constant war because they like to feel powerful.
I’m going to repeat though, Prussian and in general German history is just a series of buildups towards cataclysmic destruction.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:43 am
America is isolated by the worlds two major oceans from any conceivable enemy.
Clearly someone is unaware of the growing Mountie threat.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:49 am
I live outside of Knoxville, and opposite in this case means far enough for me not to travel there without my family objecting.
Those at the TEA Party Convention aren’t “dole scroungers” or “basement dwellers” but rather successful capitalist who have built their wealth up far enough to spend their week at a convention (including the $500) and I salute them for that.
Unlike you silly liberals, I don’t engage in class warfare.
BTW, “President Palin” are the two words that make liberals shit their pants!
February 7th, 2010 at 12:55 am
BTW I love how how unemployment will be SKY HIGH until the Repblicans are ready to take back the White House with a (Palin/Brown?) ticket!
Either there will be high unemployment, or only “McJobs” in 2012. you can’t win, libs!
February 7th, 2010 at 12:57 am
Unlike you silly liberals, I don’t engage in class warfare.
Unlike you liberals most conservatives have JOBS and don’t live in their mommy’s basements or on the government dole.
No, no class warfare whatsoever. You clearly feel no animus whatsoever towards those “leechers” and “government parasites”.
But it’s good to know that you feel so little devotion to your movement that you couldn’t be bothered to travel a few hours to its biggest event ever because, uh, your family would be upset if you spent a couple days out of town for such a significant event. Maybe you should have offered to take them to Opryland.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:59 am
BTW I love how how unemployment will be SKY HIGH until the Repblicans are ready to take back the White House with a (Palin/Brown?) ticket!
It’s amusing that you so readily admit that if you were to win, it would be not at all because of any actual policy proposals you have (since you have none) but because of the anti-incumbent sentiment that always happens in a bad economy. I mean, we’ve all known this for a long time, which was why we pushed for a larger stimulus, but I didn’t think people like yourself would actually admit that your path to victory has nothing to do with any actual ideas or solutions.
February 7th, 2010 at 1:15 am
[...] resulting government nightmare led to the disappearance of Poland as an independent nation. See link; Also see previous blog articles here and here. I disagree. While the decline of [...]
February 7th, 2010 at 1:26 am
Well, that’s how Hopey McChange got elected, ribht?
February 7th, 2010 at 1:27 am
I mean, “right”? (before you make fun of some cheap typo like a typical lefty).
February 7th, 2010 at 1:29 am
…but rather successful capitalist who have built their wealth up far enough to spend their week at a convention (including the $500) and I salute them for that.
So you’re admitting that you’re not one of those successful capitalist [sic]? And please, tell us more about your family’s objections to a cause that you appear to consider vital to the long-term interests of the nation.
Do they object to you spending hours each day — even weekends! — posting on liberal websites? Surely the time you’ve devoted here today could have been gainfully spent trying to sneak a peek at Palin’s underwear among like-minded patriots in Knoxville.
February 7th, 2010 at 1:31 am
Or Nashville, even. I shouldn’t be confused, really.
East Tennessee: racists and bitter losers and Glenn Reynolds, but I repeat myself; West Tennessee: Elvis and Sun Studios; Middle Tennessee: corporate country and Teabagapalooza.
February 7th, 2010 at 1:34 am
Well, that’s how Hopey McChange got elected, ribht?
Any Democrat (except John Edwards) would have won in 2008 due to the utter and complete failures of the incumbent administration, if that’s what you mean. It had little to do with the economy – the partisan advantage was very clear long before the recession started (see 2006).
But as I’m sure we’ll both admit, the pendulum constantly swings both ways. The difference is which party tries to do some good for the American people when in power, and which party just tries to give rich people more money and bomb brown people.
February 7th, 2010 at 1:40 am
Tell me, TMKF*, what sate are you from? btw, it’s called “multitasking”, moron.
*You should realize that Fascism is LEFT wing! So you’re killing your own brethren–especially Hopey McChange.
February 7th, 2010 at 1:48 am
I’ll take that non-response to mean that your family thinks you’re a weird loser who stays up late shouting at the internets.
February 7th, 2010 at 4:01 am
Matt
There is actually a very good book on this which you would enjoy:
Brian Downing on the Military Revolution, discussing Poland, Prussia and others:
http://www.amazon.com/Military-Revolution-Political-Change/dp/0691024758/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1265533121&sr=8-1
February 7th, 2010 at 5:24 am
You have to give Ed his props–he is a surprisingly effective troll given his obviousness.
February 7th, 2010 at 8:23 am
I too am glad that the dissolution of Yugoslavia was a peaceful and bloodless process.
Oh, and I’m certain that my Greek-Cypriot math teacher in high school immigrated here because she got tired of the muggy Med weather. – Joe
These are as the trite sayings go the exceptions that prove the rule. What did not happen on Cyprus and in Yugoslavia?
In other parts of Central/Eastern Europe, Poles were moved into the boundaries of Poland, Germans were moved into the boundaries of one of the two Germanies, etc.
In Yugoslavia, were Bosnians moved into Bosnia, Serbians moved out of Bosnia and into Serbia, Croatians into Croatia? No. IIRC, there were some mass population transfers in Cyprus, but they weren’t so complete or accepted as they were in Eastern Europe.
But my point still stands — saying “but location [X] was not peaceful post-WWII/post-collapse of Communism (when location [X] was one where mass population transfers were not tried or at least the transfer was not accepted and the transferred population not fully integrated into their new homeland)” hardly disproves the point that mass population transfers helped stabilize much of Europe.
February 7th, 2010 at 8:32 am
In re the attractiveness of Polish women and their being sticks in the mud in sexual matters because of their religiosity: I’ve never slept with a Polish gal, but I can say I happen to know a very attractive Polish-American gal … she has a toungue piercing which kinda mitagates against the whole “stick in the mud” concept — after all, what would one do with one of those knobs on your toungue.
OTOH, she’s one of those earnest sorts for whom even the mention of sex is outrageous.
Sometimes that earnestness hides things … so who knows?
February 7th, 2010 at 8:52 am
This is shockingly ignorant history, Matt. It’s mostly been covered, but 1.) Poland was one of the dominant states in eastern Europe up to the 18th century, 2.) Prussia was not even the dominant power among German states, let along among Europe, and 3.) the lack of strong leadership CAN be convincingly linked to partition. One can envision a scenario where Poland and Austria team up to disassemble Prussia, if Poland had a centralized state and a strong monarch, or work with Russia and Austria to do the same. There’s no such thing as inevitable, least of all due to geographic reasons.
February 7th, 2010 at 9:48 am
If we’re going to go all Poland, we should start with a modern-day Krewo and elect Stephen Harper majority leader of the Senate.
February 7th, 2010 at 10:48 am
No teleprompter here, libs!
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2010/02/palins-cheatsheet.html
he’s just a homo
For a guy who claims that no one cares about gay people, you’re a pretty nasty little homophobe. Call any black men “boy” lately?
February 7th, 2010 at 12:14 pm
Re: France was a large, powerful, politically cohesive country that did in Poland (via Napoleon).
Napoelon restored Polish independence (lost in the 1790s) as the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, supposedly at the behest of his Polish mistress. The Congress of Vienna eliminated Poland again, giving most of it to Russia.
Re: Let’s remember that for many years Poland was one of Europe’s major powers.
Yet the Poles never had much to do with affairs to their west. They sat out the Thirty Year War when everyone else was trying to tear of chunks off German territory, purportedly for the sake of their preferred church. They did come to the aid of Austria when the Turks besieged Vienna, but asked nothing in return.
Re: Andrew Sullivan isn’t conservative
Sullivan is a British Tory. American and British conservatism have never been entirely on the same page, but for a while in the 80s they harmonized, and Sullivan could sing the praises of Ms Thatcher and Mr Reagan together. Nowadays the Tories have become more like a European Christian Democratic party, and the Republicans resemble nothing more than a party of Third World reactionary oligarchs.
Re: . As soon as he won, he continued to push his defeated enemies until they had little choice but to restart the war against him.
Napoleon’s power relied on continuing military spoils for his supporters. He had no legimitacy that success did not grant him. He had to keep winning; on domestic issues he had no program apart from using war profits to paper over the deep chasms opened by the Revolution.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:30 pm
he is a surprisingly effective troll given his obviousness.
True, and the marginal amusement of getting him to chase his tail should be sacrificed for the general good by pie-filtering or simply ignoring him.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:33 pm
In Yugoslavia, were Bosnians moved into Bosnia, Serbians moved out of Bosnia and into Serbia, Croatians into Croatia?
Er…yes? All the Serbs of Croatia were forced out, for example. In Bosnia, most of the movement was within the country, but where previously the whole region was a mixture of Serb, Croat, and Bosniak, the Serbs now basically all live in the Republika Srpska part of the country, and the Croats and Bosniaks in the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina part. Serbs have also largely been ethnic cleansed from Kosovo.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:40 pm
Exactly my point. So something beside being between other countries has to explain the recent fortunes of central European countries, because they are all between other countries.
A point must be made as to German-speaking linguistic areas, as opposed to just Germany de jure. Culturally speaking, German culture and language was the dominant cultural force in Central Europe, even when Germany was broken up in hundreds of principalities. That was never in doubt. At no point in time could the Poles assert themselves to have the dominant culture in the region. Thus the natural tendency of a large Polish realm was defensive (given that its territory exceeds its cultural hegemony), and the natural tendency of a large German realm was expansive (given that its territory is smaller than its cultural hegemony). This also explains why Austria-Hungary, whose territory far exceeded its cultural remit (of Vienna and perhaps Budapest), was pretty much doomed.
Recall that in Bohemia, the middle classes by the turn of the century were thoroughly Germanized (it also happened to be the most advanced Eastern European country), as German culture had proved paramount in the region.
Another thing: by the time of the partitions, the Poles had come up with a solution to the liberum veto through the mechanism of the confederated sejm, in which there was no veto (sort of like a modified Committee of the Whole to expedite parliamentary business). The liberum veto was the cause of Poland’s downfall is largely a myth.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:44 pm
They did come to the aid of Austria when the Turks besieged Vienna, but asked nothing in return.
I am not sure what exactly you could ask in return from someone who was just pillaged to the ground by the Turks. It was a call to save the West from the Turks, and John III Sobieski answered it.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:45 pm
Napoleon’s power relied on continuing military spoils for his supporters. He had no legimitacy that success did not grant him. He had to keep winning; on domestic issues he had no program apart from using war profits to paper over the deep chasms opened by the Revolution.
I think this is dubious. France did very well internally during the Napoleonic period, and Napoleon was very popular before the perpetual war started in 1805. What lost him popular support was the disastrous defeats he suffered after 1812. His successes up to 1800 would have been sufficient to let him rule an expanded France until his death, if he’d been satisfied with that. But he had no conception of limits. So after the peace he kept pushing in Italy, in Switzerland, in Germany, and brought together a new coalition. There was no internal unrest or economic difficulty to justify that. And then, after winning at Austerlitz, he still wasn’t willing to come to terms, refusing to negotiate in good faith with the British and then provoking a new war with Prussia. After 1806, maybe it was too late – the British were implacable from that point, and maybe everything else followed from that. But even after his Russian disaster, he had a number of chances to draw back – in early 1813, in the summer, after Leipzig. And note that even after repeated disasters, there was basically no internal dissent in France. Napoleon was easily able to raise new armies in both 1813 and 1814 without any revolts or anything. He only lost control when France was actually conquered and his own elites abandoned him because they believed he could never make peace.
Whatever his legitimacy, from 1799 to 1814 there was basically never any real internal opposition to Napoleon within France. A few royalist and jacobin assassination plots in the early years, and that’s about it. Napoleon certainly acted as if his regime could not survive a defeat, but his actions made this a self-fulfilling prophecy. Even after Leipzig he could have easily gotten peace on the basis of the Rhine frontier. But he wasn’t interested.
Of course, it’s a counterfactual, so we can never know for sure, but I think accepting the idea that Napoleon had no choice but to act as he did is to buy into his own self mythologizing, even if you put a quasi-Marxist sheen on it.
February 7th, 2010 at 12:53 pm
and the natural tendency of a large German realm was expansive (given that its territory is smaller than its cultural hegemony).
I’m not sure how this is a plusible claim. What large German realms were there in the 17th century? Small German states were always trying to expand, certainly, and one of them succeeded in turning itself into a large one, but I’m not sure what modern nationalism has to do with any of it.
Another thing: by the time of the partitions, the Poles had come up with a solution to the liberum veto through the mechanism of the confederated sejm, in which there was no veto (sort of like a modified Committee of the Whole to expedite parliamentary business). The liberum veto was the cause of Poland’s downfall is largely a myth.
By 1764, the damage had already been done, surely? The liberum veto was obviously only one part of a much larger problem, but it was an important part, because for a long time it prevented the central government from doing anything to fix other problems. By the time they figured out a workaround, it was too late – the whole country was under Russian domination, and the Russians were strong enough to prevent any useful reforms even without the liberum veto.
February 7th, 2010 at 2:21 pm
It’s not. I think he’s trying to draw a line between the Iron Age Germanic expansion and the Kaiser using a few cognates and a love of sausages.
The Jordanians love bagpipes, does that mean they’re destined to unite with the Scots? Maybe there’s a simpler explanation.
February 7th, 2010 at 2:23 pm
You should realize that Fascism is LEFT wing!
Heh, good one. Just because that renowned scholar Jonah Goldberg says so doesn’t make it so.
February 7th, 2010 at 11:30 pm
I’m not sure how this is a plusible claim. What large German realms were there in the 17th century? Small German states were always trying to expand, certainly, and one of them succeeded in turning itself into a large one, but I’m not sure what modern nationalism has to do with any of it.
It’s got very little to do with nationalism, and a lot to do with the fact that what we know as Central Europe is really pretty much the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation (Heiliges Römisches Reich Deutscher Nation). There is no comparable engrained basis of Polish pre-eminence.
February 8th, 2010 at 6:41 am
Re: Napoleon was very popular before the perpetual war started in 1805.
General war started in Europe in 1793, with one significant truce in 1803. Napoleon’s reputation was made by his generalship in the late 1790s. Domestically he had numerous critics on both the Left and the Right and his popularity depended on his successes abroad. And even many of his marshalls and ministers were only loyal to him insofar as they enjoyed advancement. A number of them went right on serving the Borubons after 1815.
Re: there was basically no internal dissent in France.
Due to censorship, yes. Napoleon was a dictator after all. His more strident critics ended up either in prison or exiled abroad. You may wish to look up Mme de Stael on Wikipedia.
Re: I am not sure what exactly you could ask in return from someone who was just pillaged to the ground by the Turks. It was a call to save the West from the Turks, and John III Sobieski answered it.
Nations have interests, not friends. Sentiment is not the basis for foreign policy. And no, there was no question of ” saving the West” at that point. It was rather a matter of saving the Hapsburgs from a major embarrassment. The Ottoman Empire was already far gone into decay and could not have held Vienna long nor expanded further if they had taken the city.
February 8th, 2010 at 9:50 am
[...] procedural pitfalls as the cause for Poland’s periodic dissolution. As Matt Yglesias points out, “Poland is located in an unfavorably geographical position that makes conquest by Russia [...]
February 9th, 2010 at 12:57 pm
[...] Lemos at MYDD has me reconsidering my position on the role of Poland’s odd political institutions in its disappearance as a state at the end [...]