«

[kajjj]

Originally posted by a1s+Mar 26 2006, 05:07 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (a1s @ Mar 26 2006, 05:07 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Sebatianos@Mar 26 2006, 07:33 PM
Latvia was one of those places, that were the target of both Polish and Soviet army before WW2. It was one of the countries that actually was occupied by the soviet regime and was made a part of the Soviet Union (with other countries there were other scenarion, but with the three baltic states this was the case).

I hope you mean the Nazis, because it's pretty wierd to know that ploes wnated to invade us (allthough as far as I can tell we used to be part of Reczpospolita back when, so they could rpobably have territorial calims too).

as for making it soviet, that happened before WWII, in 1940 (why just 2 days ago we had 'deportation day', which was the day that either the day that first or last train with Latvians was sent to siberia in 1940). [/b][/quote]
Poland did not invade any other country during the WWII. And yes, Latvia used to be a part of Poland a long, long time ago. Not part of Rzeczpospolita - this word is the same as republic.
Both of these countries were fighting for independency, and thankfully succeeded.
And no, Poland had no teritorial claims back then. Everything they wanted was changed western border (a territory called Slask) and some Baltic ports that were under German goverment although in Polish territory.

[Sebatianos]

I never said during WW2 - I said in the 20s. When the English and French supported the Polish army as the part of the counter-revolution... Poland and the Soviet Union had different confrontations - they were at war with each other. They fought among other things also over the Baltic states.

[a1s]

Originally posted by Sebatianos@Mar 26 2006, 08:19 PM
And as for the Nazis goes - they had a pact with the Soviets at that time remember.

Nope. The Moltov-Ribentrop pact gave Latvia to USSR (which is why it was ocupied in the first place).


I know what Rzeczpospolita means in modern Polish, but I thought it was what they called themselves...
so what was the Lithuanian-Polish alianced called then?

[kajjj]

Originally posted by a1s+Mar 26 2006, 09:12 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (a1s @ Mar 26 2006, 09:12 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Sebatianos@Mar 26 2006, 08:19 PM
And as for the Nazis goes - they had a pact with the Soviets at that time remember.

Nope. The Moltov-Ribentrop pact gave Latvia to USSR (which is why it was ocupied in the first place).


I know what Rzeczpospolita means in modern Polish, but I thought it was what they called themselves...
so what was the Lithuanian-Polish alianced called then? [/b][/quote]
Long long time ago, when both of these countries were united it was a Principality (księstwo is the Polish word for it).

And Rzeczpospolita is not a modern-Polish word by the way. It is still being used with the name Poland together: Polish Republic.

[#BlakhOle#]

Wow, why go to school when i could just read the discussions going on in abandonia? Ive probably learned more in this topic than I have so far this year. sorry do carry on on. (sits with head in palm, listening intently)

[Aristharus]

I've been to Riga! Visited there with my band. A very nice place (and really cheap beer!), as far as I can remember... We might've been a bit drunk..

[a1s]

Originally posted by kajjj@Mar 27 2006, 12:28 AM
Long long time ago, when both of these countries were united it was a Principality (księstwo is the Polish word for it).

no, the one I was refering to was a kind of semi-democracy (only the nobles could vote). here is an article about it: Rzeczpospolita szlachecka (for some reason they just called it "Rzeczpospolita" in history class...). I mostly just know about it, becaue they sent one of the false Dmitriis into Russia during so called 'troubled times' (a 15 year period between the death of the last Rurik tzar (Ivan the Terible) and the first Romanov Tzar (Mishka), during which many people tried to claim the throne and russi was an interesting, but very unsafe place)

[kajjj]

It still had been ruled by a prince (or king in some point). The name was because of the parliament where nobles were to decide on everything. The whole republic thing was onle to spread some power, which was in one hand anyway, as only the most influential hetmans had the power and they were strictly connected to the present ruler.

[a1s]

it's kind of a mixed point: these 'kings' were people of noble blood, elected for life, but still elected.
as for the connections- I think it was the other way around: the most influential hetmans would push their candidate into rulership.

[Sebatianos]

Well, this goes back to the old Slavic tradition. In Karantania (the first country of Slovenians) there were KOSEZI (the nobility) and they elected their KNEZ (grand duke). But he was only elected for 5 years (some French and US historians even claim this was the first democracy after the Roman republic). It was only later under Franks that the KNEZ was elected for life. I'm guessing that Poland had the same tradition (being a Slavic nation as well), but I'm not familiar with the Polish medieval history to really tell you about it.