Poland and Lithuania
EZ
http://www.lithuaniatribune.com/2011/03/05/lithuania-is-yet-to-feel-the-wrath-of-radoslaw-sikorski/
Any opinions?
Best regards,
EZ
Jaksa
Poland and Lithuania, any opinion?
Well, Lithuania is one of historical provinces of Poland.
And my favorite one actually.
Jaksa
daniloff
"Jaksa" <Ja...@podole.pl> wrote in message
news:op.vrx9mg0d1j561p@atlantis...
Both Poland and Lithuania are Siamese twins separated by a clumsy barbaric
operation.
They need to unite to the new Rzeczpospolita, to become full-fledged state.
It is an paradox but such historical chimera as Rzeczpospolita was much more
viable then its parts.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Tadas Blinda
> "Jaksa" <Ja...@podole.pl> wrote in message
>
> news:op.vrx9mg0d1j561p@atlantis...
>
> > On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 16:50:29 +0100, EZ <zvi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Poland and Lithuania, any opinion?
>
> > Well, Lithuania is one of historical provinces of Poland.
> > And my favorite one actually.
>
> > Jaksa
>
> Both Poland and Lithuania are Siamese twins separated by a clumsy barbaric
> operation.
> They need to unite to the new Rzeczpospolita, to become full-fledged state.
> It is an paradox but such historical chimera as Rzeczpospolita was much more
> viable then its parts.
Yes, yes, and Paraguay should be united with Cameroon. Keep your nose
out of it, it's none of your business.
daniloff
"Tadas Blinda" <tadas....@lycos.es> wrote in message
news:247b9fd1-fe3e-4566...@l14g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
Paraguay and Cameroon is bad analogy.
They have not common history.
Dmitry
There is an insane politician in Russia called Rzirinowski, some of
your sentences remind me of his.
Dmitry
> "Tadas Blinda" <tadas.bli...@lycos.es> wrote in message
Many countries have common history, but it doesn't mean that they have
any need to re-unite.
Tadas Blinda
Precisely, Dmitry. Does anyone go around encouraging divorced couples
to re-marry each other? No – if they are divorced, it must be for
good reasons.
daniloff
"Dmitry" <dmitrijs...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
news:70f3ba36-27b8-4f23...@v31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
But Poland and Lithuania need.
Especially because they have already reunited.
Tadas Blinda
> "Dmitry" <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
Codswallop. How would you feel about suggestions that Russia should
reunite with Mongolia?
And
Jaksa
wrote:
Actually, Lithunia and Cameroon have a lot in common.
Just look to the national emblems of both countries,
they are almost identical.
Also, both country has a reach culture and heritage,
dating back to the late 19 century!
> Keep your nose
> out of it, it's none of your business.
Actually, it is more his business as you could ever expect,
dear Tadas.
Any true reconciliation between Poland and Russia, which
is in the best interest of both states, must take into account
undoing of the wrongs of the past.
Do you understand what that means?
That simply means, that there is no future for artificial entities
created by Tsarist Russia to weaken Poland, like independent Lithunia
or so called Western Ukraine (badly misnamed, as Ukraine starts good
few hundreds kilometer farther west from the gates of city of Lwow,
just check any map from 17 century to prove my words!).
Alas, the fake pseudo states between Poland and Russia must fade away
to make reconciliation between Poland and Russia possible.
It is that simple! Call me genius.
Jaksa
Jaksa
wrote:
You are the last person on this planet, whose opinion could matter,
dumbass.
Jaksa
Jaksa
wrote:
> On Mar 8, 10:26 am, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
I am glad you found a friend Tadas.
> Does anyone go around encouraging divorced couples
> to re-marry each other? No – if they are divorced, it must be for
> good reasons.
I know of no divorce.
Jaksa of Poland
Tadas Blinda
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 01:09:48 +0100, Tadas Blinda <tadas.bli...@lycos.es>
Tadas Blinda
> >> Many countries have common history, but it doesn't mean that they have
> >> any need to re-unite.
>
> > Precisely, Dmitry.
>
> I am glad you found a friend Tadas.
>
> > Does anyone go around encouraging divorced couples
> > to re-marry each other? No – if they are divorced, it must be for
> > good reasons.
>
> I know of no divorce.
21st anniversary coming up (March 11). Thanks for reminding me.
The Act of the Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania or Act of
March 11 (Lithuanian: Aktas dėl Lietuvos nepriklausomos valstybės
atstatymo) was an independence declaration by the Lithuanian Soviet
Socialist Republic adopted on 11 March 1990. Signed by all members of
the Supreme Soviet of the Lithuanian SSR, the act emphasised
restoration and legal continuity of the interwar-period Lithuania,
which was occupied by the USSR and lost independence in June 1940. It
was the first time that a Union Republic declared independence from
the dissolving Soviet Union.
SUPREME COUNCIL OF THE REPUBLIC OF LITHUANIA
Declaration of the Re-establishment of the State of Lithuania
The Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania, expressing the will
of the nation, decrees and solemnly proclaims that the execution of
the sovereign powers of the State of Lithuania abolished by foreign
forces in 1940, is re-established, and henceforth Lithuania is again
an independent state.
The Act of Independence of 16 February 1918 of the Council of
Lithuania and the Constituent Assembly decree of 15 May 1920 on the re-
established democratic State of Lithuania never lost their legal
effect and comprise the constitutional foundation of the State of
Lithuania.
The territory of Lithuania is whole and indivisible, and the
constitution of no other State is valid on it.
The State of Lithuania stresses its adherence to universally
recognised principles of international law. It recognises the
principle of inviolability of borders as formulated in the Final Act
of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in Helsinki
in 1975 and guarantees human, civil, and ethnic community rights.
The Supreme Council of the Republic of Lithuania, expressing sovereign
power, by this Act begins to realize the complete sovereignty of the
state.[2]
A. Filip
Have not you head version that Poland is one of historical provinces of
Lithuania? :-) The first "common king" was from Poland?
--
[pl>en Andrew] Andrzej A. Filip : an...@onet.eu : Andrze...@gmail.com
Yes, we will be going to OSI, Mars, and Pluto, but not necessarily in
that order.
-- George Michaelson
Tadas Blinda
> Jaksa <Ja...@podole.pl> wrote:
> > On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 16:50:29 +0100, EZ <zvi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Poland and Lithuania, any opinion?
>
> > Well, Lithuania is one of historical provinces of Poland.
> > And my favorite one actually.
>
> Have not you head version that Poland is one of historical provinces of
> Lithuania? :-) The first "common king" was from Poland?
Poland certainly grew big by stealing territory that had been
conquered by Lithuania. Especially in 1919-20, Poland's shameless
grab of territory in Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine – all territory
that had been part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. There was Poland
claiming it wanted to revive the Wretch-pospolita. And how did it go
about it? Well, first thing was to ban all non-Polish schools in the
Polished-occupied parts of Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine – all
territory that had been part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, where
tolerance had reigned.
Thank God for EU, making all sorts of other unions right off the
agenda and pointless to talk about. And what if there were a
Lithuanian President crazy enough to entertain notions of a 'union' of
some sort with Poland? What's the first thing that Poles would
demand? of course, it would be that Polish be made an official
language in Lithuania, alongside Lithuanian. (But no such offer for
Lithuanian in Poland.) That means all the Vilnius Poles would never
have to speak a word of Lithuanian again: their dream come true.
Meanwhile, in Poland – speak Polish or starve to death and die in the
gutter without medical treatment.
In other words, they would want to turn Lithuania into Poland's
Québec.
That's why the only response to any deluded Polish dreams of revive
Wretch-pospolita is ... „Eikite velniop.“
daniloff
"Tadas Blinda" сообщил(а) в новостях
следующее:b2f92f55-4c17-46c7...@a21g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
What country is Mongolia in case of Poland and Lithuania? Poland?
And
daniloff
"Jaksa" сообщил(а) в новостях следующее:op.vr1y2ejk1j561p@atlantis...
You both, Jaksa and Tadas are too outdated.
You are fighting against windmills, against the ghosts of past centuries.
Poland and Lithuania have united already.
They are part of new Recz Pospolita - European Union.
If the union survives, it will be the new prosperous Pax Romana.
But you need integrate Ukraine too.
vello
>
> You both, Jaksa and Tadas are too outdated.
> You are fighting against windmills, against the ghosts of past centuries.
> Poland and Lithuania have united already.
> They are part of new Recz Pospolita - European Union.
> If the union survives, it will be the new prosperous Pax Romana.
> But you need integrate Ukraine too.
Well to become a Roman Empire, EU must develop into one country. For
today it ia a loose union of countries agreering about some things
(and forgotting those agreements immediately if it seems good for a
country). More, 90% of european countries don't want to develop EU
towards "United States of Europe".
The Black Monk
> On Mar 9, 6:29 pm, "A. Filip" <a...@xl.wp.pl> wrote:
>
> > Jaksa <Ja...@podole.pl> wrote:
> > > On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 16:50:29 +0100, EZ <zvi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> Poland and Lithuania, any opinion?
>
> > > Well, Lithuania is one of historical provinces of Poland.
> > > And my favorite one actually.
>
> > Have not you head version that Poland is one of historical provinces of
> > Lithuania? :-) The first "common king" was from Poland?
>
> Poland certainly grew big by stealing territory that had been
> conquered by Lithuania. Especially in 1919-20, Poland's shameless
> grab of territory in Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine – all territory
> that had been part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania. There was Poland
> claiming it wanted to revive the Wretch-pospolita. And how did it go
> about it? Well, first thing was to ban all non-Polish schools in the
> Polished-occupied parts of Lithuania, Belarus and Ukraine – all
> territory that had been part of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, where
> tolerance had reigned.
Yes. You probably disagree, but IMO Pilsudski was a brilliant and
intelligent man whose ideas would have given the countries between
Germany and Russia the best chance of a decent existence.
Unfortunately the Polish nation of his time was so infected by
virulent modern nationalism that the Polish state he ruled ended up
being as similar to the old Polish Commonwealth as Zhuganov's modern
Russian nationalist, Russian Orthodox Communist party is to the
interntionalist party of Lenin and Trotsky. Poland followed not
Pilsidski but Dmowski, who came from Polish "white trash." It thus
proved itself unworthy of Pilsudski and suffered accordingly.
Pilsudski hated Dmowski, and vice versa, but Dmowski was stronger
thanks to democracy.
> Thank God for EU, making all sorts of other unions right off the
> agenda and pointless to talk about. And what if there were a
> Lithuanian President crazy enough to entertain notions of a 'union' of
> some sort with Poland? What's the first thing that Poles would
> demand? of course, it would be that Polish be made an official
> language in Lithuania, alongside Lithuanian. (But no such offer for
> Lithuanian in Poland.) That means all the Vilnius Poles would never
> have to speak a word of Lithuanian again: their dream come true.
Since the end fo communism the Polish elite have generally been
opposed to all Polish pretensions in the east. They deliberately
snubbed the Polonized Lithuanians of Vilnius who had asked Poland for
helped. The very recent scanadals seem to be anomalies. As Timothy
Snyder wrote in 2001, "Poles in Poland saw Poles in Lithuanian as
backward hicks and Soviet dupes. Kostrzewa-Korbas, Polish patriot and
contributor to Polish eastern policy called Polish autonomists in
Lithuania 'Soviet people of Lithuanian descent.' An exclusion from the
n ational community could hardly be more explicit than that!"..the
leading Polish daily newspaper mocked the Polish minority's
declarations of territorial autonomy by asking if Russia's Pacific
coast was also Polish." 90% of Poles favored Lithuanian independence
in 1991 (the same proportion as voted for Lithuanian independence in
Lithuania) and Solidarity strongly supported Lithuanian independence.
> Meanwhile, in Poland – speak Polish or starve to death and die in the
> gutter without medical treatment.
??
>
> In other words, they would want to turn Lithuania into Poland's
> Québec.
I doubt this happens in Quebec.
regards,
BM
The Black Monk
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 10:07:50 +0100, Tadas Blinda <tadas.bli...@lycos.es>
Russia would never have to dealw ith aPoland that consists only of
Poland and (in your dreams) Lithuania. It would be below Russia to do
so. Rather than deal with such a Poland, Russia would only need to
deal directly with such a Poland's master, Germany.
> Do you understand what that means?
>
> That simply means, that there is no future for artificial entities
> created by Tsarist Russia to weaken Poland, like independent Lithunia
> or so called Western Ukraine
In which case there is no future for Poland as an actor on the
historical stage. It alone is not strong or large or rich enough to
even come close to competing against Russia and Germany. Lithuania's 2
million people or so wouldn't make a difference. So Poland would be
condemned to be a puppet/buffer/colony of ither Russia or Germany,
nothing more. Poland's entry into the EU and NATO guerantees that it
will be Germany's, not Russia's, colony/buffer state.
> (badly misnamed, as Ukraine starts good
> few hundreds kilometer farther west from the gates of city of Lwow,
> just check any map from 17 century to prove my words!).
That Poland had nothing to do with modern Poland.
> Alas, the fake pseudo states between Poland and Russia must fade away
> to make reconciliation between Poland and Russia possible.
You mean Germany and Russia.
regards,
BM
> It is that simple! Call me genius.
>
> Jaksa- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
daniloff
"vello" <vell...@hot.ee> wrote in message
news:213f4409-7145-419a...@p24g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
It was such kind of szlachcic democracy that has ruined Rzecz Pospolita.
vello
> "vello" <vellok...@hot.ee> wrote in message
a club.
daniloff
"vello" <vell...@hot.ee> wrote in message
news:f8ac2a34-2411-4eab...@p12g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
You are wrong, EU is totalitarian state comparing with Rzeczpospolita.
EU has not Liberum Veto.
Ostap Bender
Sure. Most people in the US State Department want North and South
Korea to re-unite. I do too.
vello
> "vello" <vellok...@hot.ee> wrote in message
>
> news:f8ac2a34-2411-4eab...@p12g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 9, 8:02 pm, "daniloff" <mdanil...@yandex.ru> wrote:
> >> "vello" <vellok...@hot.ee> wrote in message
>
> >>news:213f4409-7145-419a...@p24g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > On Mar 9, 11:51 am, "daniloff" <mdanil...@yandex.ru> wrote:
>
> >> >> You both, Jaksa and Tadas are too outdated.
> >> >> You are fighting against windmills, against the ghosts of past
> >> >> centuries.
> >> >> Poland and Lithuania have united already.
> >> >> They are part of new Recz Pospolita - European Union.
> >> >> If the union survives, it will be the new prosperous Pax Romana.
> >> >> But you need integrate Ukraine too.
>
> >> > Well to become a Roman Empire, EU must develop into one country. For
> >> > today it ia a loose union of countries agreering about some things
> >> > (and forgotting those agreements immediately if it seems good for a
> >> > country). More, 90% of european countries don't want to develop EU
> >> > towards "United States of Europe".
>
> >> It was such kind of szlachcic democracy that has ruined Rzecz Pospolita.
>
> > Rzeczpospolita was a totalitarian state in compare with EU. EU is just
> > a club.
>
> You are wrong, EU is totalitarian state comparing with Rzeczpospolita.
> EU has not Liberum Veto.
>
If tiny Luxembourg is against, not a single serious EU decicion is
possible to made, EU acts only if all member states agreed about
something. Any local lord can't leave Rzeczpospolita with his lands if
he don't like what other's want but any EU member state is member just
till day he finds EU is not attractive any more. Greeks are mad about
name of Macedonia - and Macedonia have no EU prospect despite 95% of
EU thinks Greeks are idiots with their name war.
vello
wrote:
they will be united one day. But Poland and Lithuania are different
nations, so natural for them is to live as separate countries.
Dmitry
> "Dmitry" <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
They are both part of EU, but there is no attempt for "re-
unification". As you probably know, European Union is not the same
thing as Soviet Union.
Tadas Blinda
And what will happen to a Québécois who is monolingual in French when
he is hospitalised in Vancouver? He certainly won't do as well as a
monolingual anglophone hospitalised in Québec. That's what I was
talking about.
Dmitry
> On Tue, 08 Mar 2011 00:26:26 +0100, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv>
I'm not quite sure what planet you are living on, Jaksa? Your posts
are rediculous and it is not just my view.
Dmitry
The whole idea of reistablishing "Rzeczpospolita" is insane.
Tadas Blinda
I ill never visit Greece because of them being such pricks.
Macedonia, Lithuania sign investment protection agreement
08 March 2011
Macedonian Vice-Premier for European, Affairs Vasko Naumovski, who is
paying a two-day visit to Lithuania, shared opinions Monday with
Foreign Minister Audronius Ažubalis on Macedonia's processes for the
European Union and NATO membership.
Lithuanian experience with those processes would be rather significant
for Macedonia, Naumovski said at the meeting.
Today, the two countries also signed an investment protection
agreement, aimed at creating a favourable climate for investing and
bolstering business relations.
In this respect, Naumovski and Ažubalis also addressed the
possibilities for boosting economic cooperation between the two
countries.
Macedonian-Lithuanian fruitful cooperation will continue, particularly
in regard to usage of the EU funds, Naumovski said.
Macedonia deserves its place within the EU and NATO, Ažubalis said.
Lithuania will keep supporting Macedonia on this road, he added. He is
planning to visit Macedonia this July. Lithuania is a member of the
European Union, NATO and current holder of the OSCE Chairmanship.
The Macedonian-Lithuanian trade exchange in 2010 was at €5 million.
Last year the two countries established parliamentary cooperation,
while the Ministries of Foreign Affairs signed a cooperation
agreement. Macedonia's constitutional name is used in that and today's
agreements.
On Tuesday, Naumovski is scheduled to meet Ramūnas Vilpišauskas,
Director of the Institute for International Relations and Political
Science, members of the Committee of European Affairs, former
Lithuania's Chief Negotiator for EU Accession Petras Auštrevičius,
members of the Inter-parliamentary Group for Cooperation with Western
Balkans, Vice-Minister for Finances Rolandas Krisciunas and Klaudius
Maniokas, Chairman of Board of European Social, Legal and Economic
Projects (ESTER).
On Wednesday Naumovski will also pay a one-day visit to Latvia.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
€5 million per annum in trade between Macedonia and Lithuania. I
would be curious to know what they buy from each other.
You know how hotels and some other tourist places ask you what country
you're from.... Does anybody know whether in "trade" figures such as
the one quoted above, tourism is counted? Interestingly, it was
pointed out to me once that the income a country earns from tourists
coming to it is considered to be an "export" earning (because it
brings in foreign currency). Likewise, and similarly counter-
instinctively, the money that a country's tourists spend abroad is
considered to be spending on "imports" (because it means that your
country's currency flows out into other countries).
The Black Monk
That's true. Canada is bilingual on the federal level but not across
all the provinces. Although I suspect that they will be able to find
a French-speaker in a large city such as Vancouver to translate. A
smalltown hospital in BC might be another matter...
English is a global language, a monolingual anglophone in any large
city in the world wouldn't have too much of a problem. But perhaps
someone monolingual in German or French might have trouble in
hospitals in England or Italy.
regards,
BM
Tadas Blinda
Koniečna. Which all goes to explain why Jackass' talk about 'union'
of LT with PL is preposterous and would be disastrous for Lithuania.
As would have been declaring Russian as a second official language
back in 1990–1, the way trendy hand-wringing do-gooders were
advocating. Thank Christ they didn't get their way. An extra
disaster – which could not be foreseen so clearly in 1990–1, is that
Lithuania would have filled about with carpetbaggers from Russia.
Just imagine how marvellous it would have been for them to be able to
live in an EU country without having to learn the local language.
Again – just like the anglos in Québec.
daniloff
"Dmitry" сообщил(а) в новостях
следующее:6825a2ca-caf4-47ed...@k38g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
Sure it isn;t
However, the EU is almost the same as that Rzeczpospolita
daniloff
"vello" сообщил(а) в новостях
следующее:f580ce73-4a50-4fe9...@dn9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
How do you think, what are the prospects for such a loose association as EU?
Would be fate of EU the same as Rzeczpospolita, if it was in a difficult
situation?
vello
You can't compare prospects of a country (Rzecz) and an union (EU).
Countries do make unions, change or dissolve them. Poland is still
there, no one can say is Europe more or less integrated after 100 or
500 years.
Tadas Blinda
> You can't compare prospects of a country (Rzecz) and an union (EU).
> Countries do make unions, change or dissolve them. Poland is still
> there, no one can say is Europe more or less integrated after 100 or
> 500 years.
What makes you say that? You seem to be ignoring the very tangible
progress made by the EU. Let's be realistic, since European Union
countries are no longer going to war with each other, the fact that
they are all sovereign nations (rather than just states/provinces as
in USA, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, etc.) makes very little
difference. No borders, same currency (in most cases), same laws? In
practical terms, already very much like a United States of Europe.
By the way, anyone been to Switzerland lately? What's the story there
in terms of border control since Schengen?
For some strange reason, for several decades now the Swiss franc has
been equivalent to the Aussie dollar. Even now, both have gone up and
both are worth about the same as the US dollar (actually, even just a
little more than the US dollar).
Dmitry
> > Especially because they have already reunited.
>
> They are both part of EU, but there is no attempt for "re-
> unification". As you probably know, European Union is not the same
> thing as Soviet Union.
>
> Sure it isn;t
> However, the EU is almost the same as that Rzeczpospolita
I don't think so. EU is a voluntary union.
Tadas Blinda
Hear, hear. Lithuania was duped and pressured into becoming part of
Rzeczpospolita. Partly by threats and intimidation, partly by buying
off certain traitors (promising them titles. land, etc.) so that they
would vote for the "Union of Lublin". And unlike with Rzeczpospolita,
EU doesn't try to replace your country's native language with its
own. There are huge benefits being in EU. There were no benefits
whatsoever for Lithuania from being part of Rzeczpospolita. (Needless
to say, ditto in regard to CCCP.) For once, for the first time in a
thousand years, we are getting a fair deal.
vello
> On Mar 11, 1:02 am, vello <vellok...@hot.ee> wrote:
>
> > You can't compare prospects of a country (Rzecz) and an union (EU).
> > Countries do make unions, change or dissolve them. Poland is still
> > there, no one can say is Europe more or less integrated after 100 or
> > 500 years.
>
> What makes you say that? You seem to be ignoring the very tangible
> progress made by the EU. Let's be realistic, since European Union
> countries are no longer going to war with each other, the fact that
> they are all sovereign nations (rather than just states/provinces as
> in USA, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, etc.) makes very little
> difference. No borders, same currency (in most cases), same laws? In
> practical terms, already very much like a United States of Europe.
Not by me. Different countries sharing what they think it is good to
share, no more.
>
> By the way, anyone been to Switzerland lately? What's the story there
> in terms of border control since Schengen?
Last july: is some border posts (highway) there were officers stopping
random cars. In some border crossings on smaller roads there were just
signs. It's in North against Germany. In eastern end on border with
Austria, there were not even signs (or they were small enough to
mislook them). From Italy over mountains: nice border post but no
officers.
>
> For some strange reason, for several decades now the Swiss franc has
> been equivalent to the Aussie dollar. Even now, both have gone up and
> both are worth about the same as the US dollar (actually, even just a
> little more than the US dollar).
I see. ! franc was all the way from 1992 10 Estonian kroons. Now it is
about 12.
Tadas Blinda
> On Mar 10, 9:12 pm, Tadas Blinda <tadas.bli...@lycos.es> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 11, 1:02 am, vello <vellok...@hot.ee> wrote:
>
> > > You can't compare prospects of a country (Rzecz) and an union (EU).
> > > Countries do make unions, change or dissolve them. Poland is still
> > > there, no one can say is Europe more or less integrated after 100 or
> > > 500 years.
>
> > What makes you say that? You seem to be ignoring the very tangible
> > progress made by the EU. Let's be realistic, since European Union
> > countries are no longer going to war with each other, the fact that
> > they are all sovereign nations (rather than just states/provinces as
> > in USA, Canada, Australia, Brazil, Mexico, etc.) makes very little
> > difference. No borders, same currency (in most cases), same laws? In
> > practical terms, already very much like a United States of Europe.
>
> Not by me. Different countries sharing what they think it is good to
> share, no more.
>
>
>
> > By the way, anyone been to Switzerland lately? What's the story there
> > in terms of border control since Schengen?
>
> Last july: is some border posts (highway) there were officers stopping
> random cars. In some border crossings on smaller roads there were just
> signs. It's in North against Germany. In eastern end on border with
> Austria, there were not even signs (or they were small enough to
> mislook them). From Italy over mountains: nice border post but no
> officers.
That must mean that if you fly to Switzerland from overseas and you
want to enter (leave the airport) they must apply all the same rules
as EU, because once you are in Switzerland you are effectively already
in EU.
daniloff
"Tadas Blinda" сообщил(а) в новостях
следующее:857d0395-04f0-416e...@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 11, 7:38 am, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
> > > But Poland and Lithuania need.
> > > Especially because they have already reunited.
>
> > They are both part of EU, but there is no attempt for "re-
> > unification". As you probably know, European Union is not the same
> > thing as Soviet Union.
>
> > Sure it isn;t
> > However, the EU is almost the same as that Rzeczpospolita
>
> I don't think so. EU is a voluntary union.
Hear, hear. Lithuania was duped and pressured into becoming part of
Rzeczpospolita. Partly by threats and intimidation, partly by buying
off certain traitors (promising them titles. land, etc.) so that they
would vote for the "Union of Lublin". And unlike with Rzeczpospolita,
EU doesn't try to replace your country's native language with its
own.
Yes, you are right, the official language of the Grand Lithuanian Duchy,
Russian language was replaced by the Polish language. :-)
daniloff
"Dmitry" сообщил(а) в новостях
следующее:bb62f08b-4625-4eb0...@n18g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
Rzecpospolita was a voluntary union too.
vello
>
> > > But Poland and Lithuania need.
> > > Especially because they have already reunited.
>
> > They are both part of EU, but there is no attempt for "re-
> > unification". As you probably know, European Union is not the same
> > thing as Soviet Union.
>
> > Sure it isn;t
> > However, the EU is almost the same as that Rzeczpospolita
>
> I don't think so. EU is a voluntary union.
>
> Rzecpospolita was a voluntary union too.
Rzecpospolita was making one united country from two separate
countries. EU is union of separate countries - simple?
Tadas Blinda
>
> > > But Poland and Lithuania need.
> > > Especially because they have already reunited.
>
> > They are both part of EU, but there is no attempt for "re-
> > unification". As you probably know, European Union is not the same
> > thing as Soviet Union.
>
> > Sure it isn;t
> > However, the EU is almost the same as that Rzeczpospolita
>
> I don't think so. EU is a voluntary union.
>
> Rzecpospolita was a voluntary union too.
Don't be so fucking stupid.
Tadas Blinda
Do you delight in being an offensive fuckwit? From Wiki:
The emergence of the Old Belarusian literary language as a separate
linguistic entity and beginning of its documented development as such,
are dated back to the 14th century, with further development taking
place in 15th, and the "pinnacle of the development" reached in 16th
century[16]. In the 2nd half 16th — 1st half 17th century, several
attempts of codification of the Old Belarusian language were made. The
most notable of them were grammar and elementary reading by Ivan
Fyodorov (1574, 1578), grammar by Lavrentiy Zizaniy (1596) and grammar
by Ivan Uzhevich[17] (1645)[18].
However, the characteristically Belarusian phonological influences are
noted in local Old Church Slavonic texts dating back to mid. 11th
century[19], and the earliest known literacy artefact, showing the
distinctive features of the Old Belarusian language, is the Charters
of Smolensk (Belarusian: «Смаленскія граматы»), dating back to
1229[20].
The formation of the Old Belarusian took effect under the powerful
influence of the Old Church Slavonic literary tradition, and was based
on the local East Slavonic dialects ("Western branch of Middle Russian
dialects", as put by Karskiy), initially chiefly on those of the
Polatsk—Smolensk region, with centre of influence subsequently moving
westwards, to the Middle Belarusian dialects, then to the dialects of
Vilnius region.
While the literary language had gradually become, to an extent,
artificial, still the vernacular language had been preserving the
relative purity, with the literary language permanently drawing upon
the vernacular.
The major factor in the Old Belarusian development after the end 14th
century was the Polonisation, developing in the Grand Duchy lands, and
spreading from the upper toward the middle classes, and taking strong
hold in the mid 15th century already. The Latin and German influences
were also prominent in the vocabulary of the literary language. In the
1st half 17th century, certain Ukrainian influence was noticed after
the Polonisation successes in Belarusian lands, and centre of Orthodox
printing moving to Kyiv in the early 17th century.
The phonology and morphology of the Old Belarusian reached
stabilisation in the 16th century, including such features, which were
both absent before and characteristic to the Belarusian. Among the
most prominent phonological were "akanye", developed c. 14th century,
and "shortening of u", developed c. early 13th century. The morphology
developed sporadic Old Belarusian particularities in the 14th – 15th
century.
The syntax and lexicon continued changing after the 16th century, with
the literary language being strongly influenced by the Polish
language, especially in the 16th–17th centuries. It is considered that
the vernacular language was relatively free in that aspect, and
differed in its syntax and, especially, in its lexicon.
daniloff
"vello" сообщил(а) в новостях
следующее:c666715a-d6e8-4494...@a28g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
EU has its government so it is one united country. Confederation.
daniloff
"Tadas Blinda" сообщил(а) в новостях
следующее:4c80b401-3be7-4ab3...@22g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
What facts make you consider Rzecpospolita was a involuntary union?
daniloff
"Tadas Blinda" сообщил(а) в новостях
следующее:0a712a2d-3afd-4e92...@d12g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 11, 7:40 pm, "daniloff" <mdanil...@yandex.ru> wrote:
> "Tadas Blinda" сообщил(а) в новостях
> следующее:857d0395-04f0-416e-9220-14d971dd4...@q40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Mar 11, 7:38 am, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
> > > > But Poland and Lithuania need.
> > > > Especially because they have already reunited.
>
> > > They are both part of EU, but there is no attempt for "re-
> > > unification". As you probably know, European Union is not the same
> > > thing as Soviet Union.
>
> > > Sure it isn;t
> > > However, the EU is almost the same as that Rzeczpospolita
>
> > I don't think so. EU is a voluntary union.
>
> Hear, hear. Lithuania was duped and pressured into becoming part of
> Rzeczpospolita. Partly by threats and intimidation, partly by buying
> off certain traitors (promising them titles. land, etc.) so that they
> would vote for the "Union of Lublin". And unlike with Rzeczpospolita,
> EU doesn't try to replace your country's native language with its
> own.
>
> Yes, you are right, the official language of the Grand Lithuanian Duchy,
> Russian language was replaced by the Polish language. :-)
Do you delight in being an offensive fuckwit? From Wiki:
The emergence of the Old Belarusian literary language as a separate
linguistic entity and beginning of its documented development as such,
are dated back to the 14th century,
Do you want to say it was not Russian but Belorussian?
OK, OK It was Old Belarusian that was sole official language in Grand Duchy
of Lithuania when it was independent country.
A. Filip
You suggest the Grand Duchy should be called Grand Duchy of Belarus,
do not you? ;-)
--
"... the Mayo Clinic, named after its founder, Dr. Ted Clinic ..."
-- Dave Barry
daniloff
"vello" сообщил(а) в новостях
следующее:2c6a1065-26de-4dab...@fp9g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
What you need to make unions for if you are not able to prognosticate
consequences of such unions?
History teach us that it do not teach us at all?
A. Filip
Growing old isn't so bad when you consider the alternative :-)
Are you ready to consider alternatives of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth?
I do not expect you to call the Commonwealth "a perfect solution" but
it seems it had been "reasonably good" solution for both sides.
Real politics is a limited choice game.
--
The steady state of disks is full.
-- Ken Thompson
daniloff
"A. Filip" сообщил(а) в новостях
следующее:bce79yi...@charles.huge.strangled.net...
It is a good idea!
Well, I'll reflect on your offer :-)
vello
No way. International olympic commitee have their president, too - it
not makes it a country or confederation. I can't imagine Greeks and
Swedes wanting to live in one country :-)
vello
There are not too much decicions what we make to last forever. For
today, 80% of European countries find that there is a point to not
have tax or visa borders. tomorrow all those countries or some of them
may find out that in new conditions new approaches must be negotiated.
The Black Monk
Correction: the GDL used a Ruthenian dialect that I suppose could be
called proto-Belarussian, not Russian.
regards,
BM
A. Filip
It is easy to see what one wants to see, is not it? :-)
--
The Puritan hated bear-baiting, not because it gave pain to the bear, but
because it gave pleasure to the spectators.
-- Thomas Macaulay, "History of England"
daniloff
"vello" <vell...@hot.ee> wrote in message
news:063eed38-f14e-4053...@cu4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
You have forgotten Romanians
And Turks which are in turn to enter EU :-)
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
daniloff
"The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a0dfc177-fb2b-4883...@y2g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
They called themselves Russian. Why should we name them Belarussians?
"А писаръ земъский маеть по-руску литерами и словы рускими вси листы, выписы
и позвы писати, а не иншимъ езыкомъ и словы."
http://starbel.narod.ru/statut1588_4.htm
The Black Monk
> "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:a0dfc177-fb2b-4883...@y2g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
By that logic the Caesars called themselves Romanians.
Moreover your quote is a possesive word, not a self-identification.
The passage also refers to "Rus." The Belarusians once called
themselves Lytvaks or Lytvyny or something similar. They were forced
to abandon this self-description by the Russians.
http://www.belarusguide.com/history1/belname.html
About "Litva": historically two similar words were in existence --
"Litva"(one -- Licwin) and "Letuva"(one -- Letuvis). The former
developed through the 13th century to represent people living in the
GDL, the latter was applied to Baltic tribes occupying approximately
one fourth of the territory of present-day Lithuania. The word "Litva"
also possessed an ethnic meaning since since it was not used for Jews,
for instance, living in the GDL. Therefore, during the epoch of
Belarusian statehood (13-17 centuries) and later the inhabitants of
the Grand Dutchy of Lithuania were called "licwiny". Nonetheless, the
word was not employed for Ukranians or Zhmudzians despite their being
in the GDL for more than a hundred years.
The word Rus appeared in Eastern Europe with advance of
Varyagans(Scandinavians) to the south. "Ruotsi" was a common name of
Suomi Finns. Later the word spread to all Finns. Hence, in the 10th
century the word was used to describe Scandinavian newcomers in
contrast with Slavic people. After a number of Ukrainian tribes(e.g.
Palyane) had been conquered by Scandinavians, they adopted the names
of their victorers, and eventually word "Rusi" meant mainly
inhabitants of Ukraine, which, consequently, was called "Rus". At the
same time people living in the lands around Moscow were referred as
Maskouci or Maskali. Similar derivatives were common for other
principalities. Litwa was NOT included in Rus in the same sense as
Zhmudz(present-day Lithuania) was different from Litva.
...
After the divisions of 1773, 1793, 1795 the GDL part of the
Commonwealth was incorporated into Russia(Moskovy); the terms "Litwa"
and "Licwiny" were banned from use and replaced officially by
"Belarus" and "Belarusi".
regards,
-----------------
So: "Litva" = Belarus and "Lituva" = Lithuania.
BM
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...@netfront.net ---- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
vello
> "vello" <vellok...@hot.ee> wrote in message
>
> >> countries. EU is union of separate countries - simple?
>
> >> EU has its government so it is one united country. Confederation.
>
> > No way. International olympic commitee have their president, too - it
> > not makes it a country or confederation. I can't imagine Greeks and
> > Swedes wanting to live in one country :-)
>
> You have forgotten Romanians
> And Turks which are in turn to enter EU :-)
Sure. despite I like Turkey as spring holiday destination and their
rich history, I think it is better for both nations if Turkey and
Estonia remain as separate countries.
>
daniloff
"The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:da9717ca-7096-46b4...@y31g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
There was not such language as Romanian in Rome.
>
> Moreover your quote is a possesive word, not a self-identification.
> The passage also refers to "Rus." The Belarusians once called
> themselves Lytvaks or Lytvyny or something similar. They were forced
> to abandon this self-description by the Russians.
I am politic-linvo-historically unsophisticated person so if see "руски
езыкъ, словы руски и по-руску писати", I translate it as Russian language
then, for that text of the statute :
"А писаръ земъский маеть по-руску литерами и словы рускими вси листы,
выписы и позвы писати, а не иншимъ езыкомъ и словы."
is written practically in Russian.
And for me it is more understandable then some patoises of North Russia.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Dmitry
>
> > > But Poland and Lithuania need.
> > > Especially because they have already reunited.
>
> > They are both part of EU, but there is no attempt for "re-
> > unification". As you probably know, European Union is not the same
> > thing as Soviet Union.
>
> > Sure it isn;t
> > However, the EU is almost the same as that Rzeczpospolita
>
> I don't think so. EU is a voluntary union.
>
> Rzecpospolita was a voluntary union too.
Rzecpospolita was a state, not union as such. European Union is a
completely different type of unification.
daniloff
"vello" <vell...@hot.ee> wrote in message
news:899dd345-5044-4711...@u6g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
Maybe you like Chechens more?
Wouldn't you give all Chechnya then?
Dmitry
> EU has its government so it is one united country. Confederation.
No. Estonia has its own government and UK has its own. I and Vello
don't see that we are living in the same country. We have visa free
regime and many other benefits that the union brings, but our
countries are independent from each other.
daniloff
"Dmitry" <dmitrijs...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
news:75c1750f-c9a5-403d...@u3g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
Sure it is.
You can not enter in the same river twice
However it is very similar - union of heterogeneous, unlike parts.
Dmitry
> Russian language was replaced by the Polish language. :-)
Is this a joke or a serious statement?
daniloff
"Dmitry" <dmitrijs...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
news:73b3b472-0010-42fd...@d12g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
If some bird looks like chicken, cackles like chicken I name it chicken.
Moreover, EU has more
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation
"A confederation is an association of sovereign member states that, by
treaty, have delegated certain of their competences (or powers) to common
institutions, in order to coordinate their policies in a number of areas,
without constituting a new state on top of the member states. Under
international law a confederation respects the sovereignty of its members
and its constituting treaty can only be changed by unanimous agreement."
Moreover, EU has more common state features then Commonwealth
"European Union
Due to its unique nature, and the political sensitivities surrounding it,
there is no common or legal classification for the European Union (EU).
However, it does bear some resemblance to a confederation or federation. The
EU operates common economic policies with hundreds of common laws, which
enable a single economic market, open internal borders, a common currency
and allow for numerous other areas where powers have been transferred and
directly applicable laws are made. However, unlike a federation, the EU does
not have exclusive powers over foreign affairs, defence and taxation.
Furthermore, laws sometimes must be transcribed into national law by
national parliaments; decisions by member states are taken by special
majorities with blocking minorities accounted for; and treaty amendment
requires ratification by every member state before it can come into force."
"Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (confederated personal union; 1447-1492,
1501-1569, (different governments, armies, treasuries, laws, territories
with borders, citizenships; common monarch (Grand Duke of Lithuania and King
of Poland), parliament (Sejm) and currency)"
daniloff
"Dmitry" <dmitrijs...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
news:37f48749-0511-4152...@y3g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
>> Yes, you are right, the official language of the Grand Lithuanian Duchy,
>> Russian language was replaced by the Polish language. :-)
>
> Is this a joke or a serious statement?
>
Statut about official language in Grand Duchy of Lithuania:
"А писаръ земъский маеть по-руску литерами и словы рускими вси листы,
выписы и позвы писати, а не иншимъ езыкомъ и словы.
"http://starbel.narod.ru/statut1588_4.htm
The Black Monk
> "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:da9717ca-7096-46b4...@y31g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
The Romanian and Italian words for Romanian and Roman are basically
the same - as similar as Russky and Rus'ky. In Englsh, to avoid
confusion, we use Romanian and Roman just as Rus'ki is nowadays often
referred to as "Ruthenian" to avoid confusion with Russian.
There has historically been confusion because unlike Romania, Russia
is a large country which for awhile controlled the territory of all
Rus, and has had many academics who have gone out of their way to
confuse the issue by mistranslating Rus'ky as "Russian", Kieven Rus as
Kieven Russia, etc. to secure Russia's claims on all that territory.
If Romanian historians were to insist on referrring to ancient Rome as
the ancient Romanian Empire they would be laughed at. But Romania
never conquered Italy.
> > Moreover your quote is a possesive word, not a self-identification.
> > The passage also refers to "Rus." The Belarusians once called
> > themselves Lytvaks or Lytvyny or something similar. They were forced
> > to abandon this self-description by the Russians.
>
> I am politic-linvo-historically unsophisticated person so if see "руски
> езыкъ, словы руски и по-руску писати", I translate it as Russian language
> then, for that text of the statute :
Yes, Lytvyny spoke Ruthenian (Rus'ky) just as Americans, Jamaicans,
Australians etc. speak English.
> "А писаръ земъский маеть по-руску литерами и словы рускими вси листы,
> выписы и позвы писати, а не иншимъ езыкомъ и словы."
>
> is written practically in Russian.
> And for me it is more understandable then some patoises of North Russia.
I think that is modern (or 1930's) Belarussian rather than 15th
century Belarussian.
regards,
BM
>
>
The Black Monk
> "Dmitry" <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
AFAIK the PLC was not established until after the union of 1569.
Previously the two countriues were linked much more loosely. So,
until 1569 the relationship between Poland and Lithuania was much like
the EU (but with 2 members) but afterwards it was not. One major
difference was that the Polish-Lithuanian union had one large member
and one small one. Lithuania is glad to be in the EU. I'm not sure it
would want to join an EU with the same laws as the current EU but with
only two members - it and Poland.
regards,
BM
vello
> "vello" <vellok...@hot.ee> wrote in message
>
> news:899dd345-5044-4711...@u6g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 11, 7:17 pm, "daniloff" <mdanil...@yandex.ru> wrote:
> >> "vello" <vellok...@hot.ee> wrote in message
>
> >> >> Rzecpospolita was making one united country from two separate
> >> >> countries. EU is union of separate countries - simple?
>
> >> >> EU has its government so it is one united country. Confederation.
>
> >> > No way. International olympic commitee have their president, too - it
> >> > not makes it a country or confederation. I can't imagine Greeks and
> >> > Swedes wanting to live in one country :-)
>
> >> You have forgotten Romanians
> >> And Turks which are in turn to enter EU :-)
>
> > Sure. despite I like Turkey as spring holiday destination and their
> > rich history, I think it is better for both nations if Turkey and
> > Estonia remain as separate countries.
>
> Maybe you like Chechens more?
> Wouldn't you give all Chechnya then?
Never been in Chechenia so I have no idea about them, exept from
literature. They are enough different from us for sure to say as with
Turkey - independent Estonia and Chechenia is better solution for both
then united Estochenia :-)
vello
> "Dmitry" <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
by one person, but in europe we have 40 independent govts, some of
them dealing together if frames of EU.
Jaksa
wrote:
> On Mar 8, 8:43 pm, Jaksa <Ja...@podole.pl> wrote:
>> On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 10:07:50 +0100, Tadas Blinda
>> <tadas.bli...@lycos.es> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Mar 7, 7:54 pm, "daniloff" <mdanil...@yandex.ru> wrote:
>> >> "Jaksa" <Ja...@podole.pl> wrote in message
>>
>> >>news:op.vrx9mg0d1j561p@atlantis...
>>
>> >> > On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 16:50:29 +0100, EZ <zvi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> >> > Poland and Lithuania, any opinion?
>>
>> >> > Well, Lithuania is one of historical provinces of Poland.
>> >> > And my favorite one actually.
>>
>> >> > Jaksa
>>
>> >> Both Poland and Lithuania are Siamese twins separated by a clumsy
>> >> barbaric
>> >> operation.
>> >> They need to unite to the new Rzeczpospolita, to become full-fledged
>> >> state.
>> >> It is an paradox but such historical chimera as Rzeczpospolita was
>> much >> more
>> >> viable then its parts.
>>
>> > Yes, yes, and Paraguay should be united with Cameroon.
>>
>> Actually, Lithunia and Cameroon have a lot in common.
>> Just look to the national emblems of both countries,
>> they are almost identical.
>> Also, both country has a reach culture and heritage,
>> dating back to the late 19 century!
>>
>> > Keep your nose
>> > out of it, it's none of your business.
>>
>> Actually, it is more his business as you could ever expect,
>> dear Tadas.
>>
>> Any true reconciliation between Poland and Russia, which
>> is in the best interest of both states, must take into account
>> undoing of the wrongs of the past.
>
> Russia would never have to dealw ith aPoland that consists only of
> Poland and (in your dreams) Lithuania. It would be below Russia to do
> so. Rather than deal with such a Poland, Russia would only need to
Russia has grown her own corner full of shit, which she methodically
had created over centuries to weaken Poland. Now, it comes back to her
haunting.. and it hurts.
It is not about any friendly gossips or secret plans, but about
benefits and taking chances of opportunities.
Russia is one part to it, Poland is another. What is between, has to go.
And what is between, hurts more Russia then us. For us, it's only
"nice to have", for Russia it is a question of staying big player.
See a pattern?
> deal directly with such a Poland's master, Germany.
What should Russia deal with Germany directly? Partitioning of Ukraine?
Are you kidding?
>
>> Do you understand what that means?
>>
>> That simply means, that there is no future for artificial entities
>> created by Tsarist Russia to weaken Poland, like independent Lithunia
>> or so called Western Ukraine
>
> In which case there is no future for Poland as an actor on the
> historical stage. It alone is not strong or large or rich enough to
> even come close to competing against Russia and Germany. Lithuania's 2
> million people or so wouldn't make a difference. So Poland would be
> condemned to be a puppet/buffer/colony of ither Russia or Germany,
> nothing more. Poland's entry into the EU and NATO guerantees that it
> will be Germany's, not Russia's, colony/buffer state.
>
>> (badly misnamed, as Ukraine starts good
>> few hundreds kilometer farther west from the gates of city of Lwow,
>> just check any map from 17 century to prove my words!).
>
> That Poland had nothing to do with modern Poland.
In the sense that medieval England has nothing to do with today UK,
agree. Otherwise, we are another incarnation of the same entity.
>
>> Alas, the fake pseudo states between Poland and Russia must fade away
>> to make reconciliation between Poland and Russia possible.
>
> You mean Germany and Russia.
No, I didn't mean Russia and Germany. They are already very good friends.
Poland and Russia are now at cold war (and that will not change anytime
soon). I think that even UK has better relationship with Russia.
Jaksa
>
> regards,
>
> BM
>
>> It is that simple! Call me genius.
>>
>> Jaksa- Hide quoted text -
Jaksa
wrote:
> On Mar 9, 9:39 pm, vello <vellok...@hot.ee> wrote:
>> On Mar 9, 11:06 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On Mar 7, 4:09 pm, Tadas Blinda <tadas.bli...@lycos.es> wrote:
>>
>> > > On Mar 8, 10:26 am, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>>
>> > > > On Mar 7, 9:15 am, "daniloff" <mdanil...@yandex.ru> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > "Tadas Blinda" <tadas.bli...@lycos.es> wrote in message
>>
>> > > >
>> >news:247b9fd1-fe3e-4566...@l14g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > > > > > On Mar 7, 7:54 pm, "daniloff" <mdanil...@yandex.ru> wrote:
>> > > > > >> "Jaksa" <Ja...@podole.pl> wrote in message
>>
>> > > > > >>news:op.vrx9mg0d1j561p@atlantis...
>>
>> > > > > >> > On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 16:50:29 +0100, EZ <zvi...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > >> > Poland and Lithuania, any opinion?
>>
>> > > > > >> > Well, Lithuania is one of historical provinces of Poland.
>> > > > > >> > And my favorite one actually.
>>
>> > > > > >> > Jaksa
>>
>> > > > > >> Both Poland and Lithuania are Siamese twins separated by a
>> clumsy
>> > > > > >> barbaric
>> > > > > >> operation.
>> > > > > >> They need to unite to the new Rzeczpospolita, to become
>> full-fledged
>> > > > > >> state.
>> > > > > >> It is an paradox but such historical chimera as
>> Rzeczpospolita was much
>> > > > > >> more
>> > > > > >> viable then its parts.
>>
>> > > > > > Yes, yes, and Paraguay should be united with Cameroon.
>>
>> > > > > Paraguay and Cameroon is bad analogy.
>> > > > > They have not common history.
>>
>> > > > Many countries have common history, but it doesn't mean that they
>> have
>> > > > any need to re-unite.
>>
>> > > Precisely, Dmitry. Does anyone go around encouraging divorced
>> couples
>> > > to re-marry each other?
>>
>> > Sure. Most people in the US State Department want North and South
>> > Korea to re-unite. I do too.
>>
>> Korea people are single nation, divided on political grounds - sure
>> they will be united one day. But Poland and Lithuania are different
>> nations, so natural for them is to live as separate countries.
>
> The whole idea of reistablishing "Rzeczpospolita" is insane.
There is no talk about reestablishing Rzeczpospolita, donkey.
Rzeczpospolita exists today and is in a relatively good shape,
considering all conditions.
Her current numbering stays at III, even if some politicians
in Poland strongly try to promote version IV.
What I find personally premature, as such numbering change would
require imo significant territorial gains to be justified
in the first place.
Also, no IV Rzeczpospolita before Lwow (and hopefully Lithuania)
rejoins with Poland.
To sum it up for you:
I Rzeczpospolita
960-1796
II Rzeczpospolita
1919-1939
III Rzeczpospolita
now
IV Rzeczpospolita
future (not so distant...)
Jaksa
Jaksa
>
>
> "Jaksa" сообщил(а) в новостях следующее:op.vr1y2ejk1j561p@atlantis...
>
> On Mon, 07 Mar 2011 10:07:50 +0100, Tadas Blinda <tadas....@lycos.es>
> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 7, 7:54 pm, "daniloff" <mdanil...@yandex.ru> wrote:
>>> "Jaksa" <Ja...@podole.pl> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:op.vrx9mg0d1j561p@atlantis...
>>>
>>> > On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 16:50:29 +0100, EZ <zvi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> > Poland and Lithuania, any opinion?
>>>
>>> > Well, Lithuania is one of historical provinces of Poland.
>>> > And my favorite one actually.
>>>
>>> > Jaksa
>>>
>>> Both Poland and Lithuania are Siamese twins separated by a clumsy
>>> barbaric
>>> operation.
>>> They need to unite to the new Rzeczpospolita, to become full-fledged
>>> state.
>>> It is an paradox but such historical chimera as Rzeczpospolita was
>>> much more
>>> viable then its parts.
>>
>> Yes, yes, and Paraguay should be united with Cameroon.
>
> Actually, Lithunia and Cameroon have a lot in common.
> Just look to the national emblems of both countries,
> they are almost identical.
> Also, both country has a reach culture and heritage,
> dating back to the late 19 century!
>
>> Keep your nose
>> out of it, it's none of your business.
>
> Actually, it is more his business as you could ever expect,
> dear Tadas.
>
> Any true reconciliation between Poland and Russia, which
> is in the best interest of both states, must take into account
> undoing of the wrongs of the past.
>
> Do you understand what that means?
>
> That simply means, that there is no future for artificial entities
> created by Tsarist Russia to weaken Poland, like independent Lithunia
> or so called Western Ukraine (badly misnamed, as Ukraine starts good
> few hundreds kilometer farther west from the gates of city of Lwow,
> just check any map from 17 century to prove my words!).
>
> Alas, the fake pseudo states between Poland and Russia must fade away
> to make reconciliation between Poland and Russia possible.
>
> It is that simple! Call me genius.
>
>
>
> You both, Jaksa and Tadas are too outdated.
> You are fighting against windmills, against the ghosts of past centuries.
> Poland and Lithuania have united already.
Not yet. But let's hope for improvements.
> They are part of new Recz Pospolita - European Union.
> If the union survives, it will be the new prosperous Pax Romana.
> But you need integrate Ukraine too.
A fucka! No way!
Keep barbarians away from our seet home!
What we need from Ukraine is Lwow and maybe Zytomierz plus Winnica.
The rest undoubtedly belongs to the red devil, which is Russia.
Jaksa
Jaksa
wrote:
> On Mar 9, 12:46 pm, Jaksa <Ja...@podole.pl> wrote:
>
>> >> Many countries have common history, but it doesn't mean that they
>> have
>> >> any need to re-unite.
>>
>> > Precisely, Dmitry.
>>
>> I am glad you found a friend Tadas.
>>
>> > Does anyone go around encouraging divorced couples
>> > to re-marry each other? No – if they are divorced, it must be for
>> > good reasons.
>>
>> I know of no divorce.
>
> 21st anniversary coming up (March 11). Thanks for reminding me.
>
> The Act of the Re-Establishment of the State of Lithuania or Act of
[ ciach brednie ]
> state.[2]
I can't understand why you would expect me to honor any illegal
activities undertaken by lumps and drunken thugs from Smetana band?
The Law passed by I Rzeczopspolita parliament in 1794 has approved
incorporating of Lithuania fully into the Polish state, as its
constituent part.
Since then, further talks are pointless.
Lithuania is a Polish province according to a Law.
And I honor no other authority.
Jaksa
Jaksa
wrote:
Russian? It was almost identical to Polish - I can understand its written
form easily and Russian is perfectly incomprehensible to me.
It was Old Ruthenian. Noting to do with Russian language.
Initially they spoke Old-Ruthenian (Ruski) before they switch to Polish
which was almost identical language then. That lingo switch happen
somewhere in the 16 century.
>
>> "А писаръ земъский маеть по-руску литерами и словы рускими вси листы,
>> выписы и позвы писати, а не иншимъ езыкомъ и словы."
>>
>> is written practically in Russian.
>> And for me it is more understandable then some patoises of North Russia.
>
> I think that is modern (or 1930's) Belarussian rather than 15th
> century Belarussian.
Considering that no one in 15th century heard anything about Belarus
(or Ukraine for that matter), that must be Tadas Kaminskas school
of history.
Jaksa
>
> regards,
>
> BM
>
>>
Jaksa
wrote:
> On Mar 11, 7:38 am, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>> > > But Poland and Lithuania need.
>> > > Especially because they have already reunited.
>>
>> > They are both part of EU, but there is no attempt for "re-
>> > unification". As you probably know, European Union is not the same
>> > thing as Soviet Union.
>>
>> > Sure it isn;t
>> > However, the EU is almost the same as that Rzeczpospolita
>>
>> I don't think so. EU is a voluntary union.
>
> Hear, hear. Lithuania was duped and pressured into becoming part of
> Rzeczpospolita. Partly by threats and intimidation, partly by buying
> off certain traitors (promising them titles. land, etc.) so that they
> would vote for the "Union of Lublin". And unlike with Rzeczpospolita,
> EU doesn't try to replace your country's native language with its
> own. There are huge benefits being in EU. There were no benefits
> whatsoever for Lithuania from being part of Rzeczpospolita.
You could be actually a bit more grateful scumbag!
If not for Poland, there will be nothing Lithuanian left on this Earth,
like there is nothing left after Old Prussians, annihilated by Teutons,
to the extent that there is even no name for them in English, and we
have to use "Old Prussians" expression, as Prussians come to mean with
time German settlers on former Prussian territory, rather then authentic
(Old) Prussians. Such would be a fate of Lithuanians if not for Poland.
Gedymin or Mendog would be equally remote and exotic for contemporaries
(including yourself, if you would have existed at all) like Inca Kings.
Jaksa
daniloff
"Jaksa" сообщил(а) в новостях следующее:op.vr7iewdf1j561p@atlantis...
> You both, Jaksa and Tadas are too outdated.
> You are fighting against windmills, against the ghosts of past centuries.
> Poland and Lithuania have united already.
Not yet. But let's hope for improvements.
> They are part of new Recz Pospolita - European Union.
> If the union survives, it will be the new prosperous Pax Romana.
> But you need integrate Ukraine too.
A fucka! No way!
Keep barbarians away from our seet home!
What we need from Ukraine is Lwow and maybe Zytomierz plus Winnica.
The rest undoubtedly belongs to the red devil, which is Russia.
Considering Grand Duchy of Lithuania spoke po-russki Poland has to unite
with Russia to new Rzeczpospolita.
daniloff
"The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:d4ab32f8-3bb1-47a5...@n2g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
>> > By that logic the Caesars called themselves Romanians.
>>
>> There was not such language as Romanian in Rome.
>
> The Romanian and Italian words for Romanian and Roman are basically
> the same - as similar as Russky and Rus'ky. In Englsh, to avoid
> confusion, we use Romanian and Roman just as Rus'ki is nowadays often
> referred to as "Ruthenian" to avoid confusion with Russian.
>
> There has historically been confusion because unlike Romania, Russia
> is a large country which for awhile controlled the territory of all
> Rus, and has had many academics who have gone out of their way to
> confuse the issue by mistranslating Rus'ky as "Russian", Kieven Rus as
> Kieven Russia, etc. to secure Russia's claims on all that territory.
> If Romanian historians were to insist on referrring to ancient Rome as
> the ancient Romanian Empire they would be laughed at. But Romania
> never conquered Italy.
>
>> > Moreover your quote is a possesive word, not a self-identification.
>> > The passage also refers to "Rus." The Belarusians once called
>> > themselves Lytvaks or Lytvyny or something similar. They were forced
>> > to abandon this self-description by the Russians.
>>
>> I am politic-linvo-historically unsophisticated person so if see "руски
>> езыкъ, словы руски и по-руску писати", I translate it as Russian language
>> then, for that text of the statute :
>
> Yes, Lytvyny spoke Ruthenian (Rus'ky) just as Americans, Jamaicans,
> Australians etc. speak English.
You are right here.
>
>
>> "А писаръ земъский маеть по-руску литерами и словы рускими вси листы,
>> выписы и позвы писати, а не иншимъ езыкомъ и словы."
>>
>> is written practically in Russian.
>> And for me it is more understandable then some patoises of North Russia.
>
> I think that is modern (or 1930's) Belarussian rather than 15th
> century Belarussian.
Original:
"А писаръ земъский маеть по-руску литерами и словы рускими вси листы,
писати, а не иншимъ езыкомъ и словы."
Modern Belarussian:
"А писар земски павинен па-руску литарам и словами рускими усе листы писаць,
а не иншай мовай и словами."
Modern Russian:
"А писарь земский должен по-русски литерами и словами русским все письма
писать, а не другим языком и словами."
Lexicon and morphology of modern Russian is more similar to Old West Russki
original then modern Belarussian for modern Belarussian is greatly polonized
Russian.
>
> regards,
>
> BM
>
>>
>>
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
daniloff
"vello" <vell...@hot.ee> wrote in message
news:3ae606a9-d76c-417f...@e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
You should visit Chechenia by all means
And maybe you will change your mind about Estochenia :-)
daniloff
"Jaksa" <Ja...@podole.pl> wrote in message
news:op.vr7iewdf1j561p@atlantis...
What for?
> The rest undoubtedly belongs to the red devil, which is Russia.
>
> Jaksa
The Black Monk
> "The Black Monk" <ch....@hotmail.com> wrote in messagenews:d4ab32f8-3bb1-47a5...@n2g2000prj.googlegroups.com...
Interesting. The only more "Russian" words in Old Belarusian vs.
Modern Belarusian are "vse" (vs. use") and "yazyk" (vs. mova"). OTOH
modern Belarusian has grammar more similar to modern Russian than did
old Belarusisan (which was closer to modern Ukrainian).
regards,
BM
>
> Lexicon and morphology of modern Russian is more similar to Old West Russki
> original then modern Belarussian for modern Belarussian is greatly polonized
> Russian.
>
>
>
> > regards,
>
> > BM
>
The Black Monk
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2011 22:25:37 +0100, Tadas Blinda <tadas.bli...@lycos.es>
Jaksa, perhaps inadevertantly, brings up an interesting point. If not
for the union with Poland and the Polonization of the (Ruthenized)
Lithuanian upper classes, would Lithuania continue to exist? It seems
possible to me that if the GDL were to have continued developing on
its own it would become rather like Bulgaria, a country with the name
of the conquerers but the religion and language of the majority of the
people (East Slavs, speaking what we call Belarussian and refering to
themselves as Lytwins). During the GDL there was a progressive
adoption of the Slavic alnguage, not to mention the legal code, etc.
After the union the nobility switched from speaking Ruthenian to
speaking Polish.
Unlike the Ruthenian culture, Polish noble culture emphasized a strict
seperation of nobles from peasants. Indeed, Polish nobility of the
15th-18th centuries did even consider Polish-speaking Roman Catholic
peasants from Poland as "Poles." This strict separation of (Polish-
speaking) nobles from peasants may have prevented the Slavicization of
the Lithuanian country people and peasants. I'm not sure if the
Lithuanian people would have been spared eventual Slavicization had
the nobility continued to subscribe to the Ruthenian/Rus culture which
was more amenable to absorbing non-Slavic people.
Pure historical what-if speculation, but something to think about
IMO....
BM
vello
I was nearby in 1983 returning by car from SU formula racing
championship event in Rustavi near Tbilisi. Kabardino-Balkaria was
positive surprise for me - nice eating places with clean toilettes,
local culture was presented everywhere.
Dmitry
> "Dmitry" <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
>
> news:73b3b472-0010-42fd...@d12g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > > EU has its government so it is one united country. Confederation.
>
> > No. Estonia has its own government and UK has its own. I and Vello
> > don't see that we are living in the same country. We have visa free
> > regime and many other benefits that the union brings, but our
> > countries are independent from each other.
>
> If some bird looks like chicken, cackles like chicken I name it chicken.
Some people in the USA think that Africa is a country. Does it sum
you up?
> Moreover, EU has more
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation
> "A confederation is an association of sovereign member states that, by
> treaty, have delegated certain of their competences (or powers) to common
> institutions, in order to coordinate their policies in a number of areas,
> without constituting a new state on top of the member states. Under
> international law a confederation respects the sovereignty of its members
> and its constituting treaty can only be changed by unanimous agreement."
And more - the union has many member states, none of which was ever
forced to join.
> Moreover, EU has more common state features then Commonwealth
Commonwealth is a completely different "relationship" than EU.
> "European Union
> Due to its unique nature, and the political sensitivities surrounding it,
> there is no common or legal classification for the European Union (EU).
I can assure you - EU is legal by any international standard.
> However, it does bear some resemblance to a confederation or federation.
Vodka and water could also have a resemblance as they are similar in
appearance.
> The
> EU operates common economic policies with hundreds of common laws, which
> enable a single economic market, open internal borders, a common currency
> and allow for numerous other areas where powers have been transferred and
> directly applicable laws are made. However, unlike a federation, the EU does
> not have exclusive powers over foreign affairs, defence and taxation.
> Furthermore, laws sometimes must be transcribed into national law by
> national parliaments; decisions by member states are taken by special
> majorities with blocking minorities accounted for; and treaty amendment
> requires ratification by every member state before it can come into force."
>
> "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (confederated personal union; 1447-1492,
> 1501-1569, (different governments, armies, treasuries, laws, territories
> with borders, citizenships; common monarch (Grand Duke of Lithuania and King
> of Poland), parliament (Sejm) and currency)"
>
> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...@netfront.net ---
Dmitry
> "Dmitry" <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
>
> news:37f48749-0511-4152...@y3g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> Yes, you are right, the official language of the Grand Lithuanian Duchy,
> >> Russian language was replaced by the Polish language. :-)
>
> > Is this a joke or a serious statement?
>
> Statut about official language in Grand Duchy of Lithuania:
>
> "А писаръ земъский маеть по-руску литерами и словы рускими вси листы,
> выписы и позвы писати, а не иншимъ езыкомъ и словы.
But it doesn't mean that Russian was an official language of Grand
Duchy of Lithuania.
>
> "http://starbel.narod.ru/statut1588_4.htm
daniloff
"Jaksa" <Ja...@podole.pl> wrote in message
news:op.vr7jm3m11j561p@atlantis...
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2011 23:52:00 +0100, The Black Monk <ch....@hotmail.com>
> Russian? It was almost identical to Polish - I can understand its written
> form easily and Russian is perfectly incomprehensible to me.
>
> It was Old Ruthenian. Noting to do with Russian language.
Sure Russian is perfectly incomprehensible to you
It is because only Mongol-Tatars speak Russian.
The rest of Russia speaks new Ruthenian only.
And it is very similar to Polish
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
daniloff
"vello" <vell...@hot.ee> wrote in message
news:9c83167e-da61-4585...@u12g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
>> You should visit Chechenia by all means
>> And maybe you will change your mind about Estochenia :-)
>
> I was nearby in 1983 returning by car from SU formula racing
> championship event in Rustavi near Tbilisi. Kabardino-Balkaria was
> positive surprise for me - nice eating places with clean toilettes,
> local culture was presented everywhere.
>
Actually I tell about Chechenia.
All Caucasians are very different.
daniloff
"Dmitry" <dmitrijs...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
news:b6d8c171-eab2-4d95...@a26g2000vbo.googlegroups.com...
> On Mar 11, 8:52 pm, "daniloff" <mdanil...@yandex.ru> wrote:
>> "Dmitry" <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
>>
>> news:73b3b472-0010-42fd...@d12g2000vbz.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > > EU has its government so it is one united country. Confederation.
>>
>> > No. Estonia has its own government and UK has its own. I and Vello
>> > don't see that we are living in the same country. We have visa free
>> > regime and many other benefits that the union brings, but our
>> > countries are independent from each other.
>>
>> If some bird looks like chicken, cackles like chicken I name it chicken.
>
> Some people in the USA think that Africa is a country. Does it sum
> you up?
Africa looks like country and cackles like country?
>
>> Moreover, EU has more
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confederation
>> "A confederation is an association of sovereign member states that, by
>> treaty, have delegated certain of their competences (or powers) to common
>> institutions, in order to coordinate their policies in a number of areas,
>> without constituting a new state on top of the member states. Under
>> international law a confederation respects the sovereignty of its members
>> and its constituting treaty can only be changed by unanimous agreement."
>
> And more - the union has many member states, none of which was ever
> forced to join.
Was Poland and Lithuania ever forced to join to Commonwealth?
>
>> Moreover, EU has more common state features then Commonwealth
>
> Commonwealth is a completely different "relationship" than EU.
>
>> "European Union
>> Due to its unique nature, and the political sensitivities surrounding it,
>> there is no common or legal classification for the European Union (EU).
>
> I can assure you - EU is legal by any international standard.
Without any doubt.
>
>> However, it does bear some resemblance to a confederation or federation.
>
> Vodka and water could also have a resemblance as they are similar in
> appearance.
>
>> The
>> EU operates common economic policies with hundreds of common laws, which
>> enable a single economic market, open internal borders, a common currency
>> and allow for numerous other areas where powers have been transferred and
>> directly applicable laws are made. However, unlike a federation, the EU
>> does
>> not have exclusive powers over foreign affairs, defence and taxation.
>> Furthermore, laws sometimes must be transcribed into national law by
>> national parliaments; decisions by member states are taken by special
>> majorities with blocking minorities accounted for; and treaty amendment
>> requires ratification by every member state before it can come into
>> force."
>>
>> "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (confederated personal union; 1447-1492,
>> 1501-1569, (different governments, armies, treasuries, laws, territories
>> with borders, citizenships; common monarch (Grand Duke of Lithuania and
>> King
>> of Poland), parliament (Sejm) and currency)"
>>
>> --- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: n...@netfront.net ---
>
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
daniloff
"Dmitry" <dmitrijs...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
news:ce9ef177-539d-48af...@v31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
OK!
It was Rus'ki jazyk that was an official language of Grand Duchy of
Lithuania.
Right?
vello
> "Dmitry" <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
>
> news:ce9ef177-539d-48af...@v31g2000vbs.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 11, 8:57 pm, "daniloff" <mdanil...@yandex.ru> wrote:
> >> "Dmitry" <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote in message
>
> >>news:37f48749-0511-4152...@y3g2000vbh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> >> Yes, you are right, the official language of the Grand Lithuanian
> >> >> Duchy,
> >> >> Russian language was replaced by the Polish language. :-)
>
> >> > Is this a joke or a serious statement?
>
> >> Statut about official language in Grand Duchy of Lithuania:
>
> >> "А писаръ земъский маеть по-руску литерами и словы рускими вси листы,
> >> выписы и позвы писати, а не иншимъ езыкомъ и словы.
>
> > But it doesn't mean that Russian was an official language of Grand
> > Duchy of Lithuania.
>
> OK!
> It was Rus'ki jazyk that was an official language of Grand Duchy of
> Lithuania.
> Right?
>
had no writing form - but for hundreds of years, Latin was sole
"official" language in many european countries - all bureaucracy runs
in Latin no matter what was the real tongue of people.
Ostap Bender
> On Mar 9, 11:06 pm, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> > > On Mar 8, 10:26 am, Dmitry <dmitrijsfedot...@inbox.lv> wrote:
>
>
> > > > > "Tadas Blinda" <tadas.bli...@lycos.es> wrote in message
>
> > > > >news:247b9fd1-fe3e-4566...@l14g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> > > > > >> > On Sat, 05 Mar 2011 16:50:29 +0100, EZ <zvi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > >> > Poland and Lithuania, any opinion?
>
> > > > > >> > Well, Lithuania is one of historical provinces of Poland.
> > > > > >> > And my favorite one actually.
>
> > > > > >> > Jaksa
>
> > > > > >> Both Poland and Lithuania are Siamese twins separated by a clumsy
> > > > > >> barbaric
> > > > > >> operation.
> > > > > >> They need to unite to the new Rzeczpospolita, to become full-fledged
> > > > > >> state.
> > > > > >> It is an paradox but such historical chimera as Rzeczpospolita was much
> > > > > >> more
> > > > > >> viable then its parts.
>
> > > > > > Yes, yes, and Paraguay should be united with Cameroon.
>
> > > > > They have not common history.
>
> > > > any need to re-unite.
>
> > > to re-marry each other?
>
> > Sure. Most people in the US State Department want North and South
> > Korea to re-unite. I do too.
>
> Korea people are single nation, divided on political grounds - sure
> they will be united one day. But Poland and Lithuania are different
> nations, so natural for them is to live as separate countries.
How do you determine which nations are "single nations" and which
aren't? By names?
Are Abkhazians and Georgians a single nation? Are Ossetians and
Georgians a single nation? Are Transdniestrian Ukrainians and Moldovan
Romanians a single nation? Are Crimeans and Ukrainians a single
nation? Are Austria and Germany a single nation? Are Prussia/
Brandenburg and Germany a single nation?
Tadas Blinda
wrote:
> How do you determine which nations are "single nations" and which
> aren't? By names?
>
> Are Abkhazians and Georgians a single nation? Are Ossetians and
> Georgians a single nation? Are Transdniestrian Ukrainians and Moldovan
> Romanians a single nation? Are Crimeans and Ukrainians a single
> nation? Are Austria and Germany a single nation? Are Prussia/
> Brandenburg and Germany a single nation?
I think you probably realise it and are just stirring again as usual
☺, but of course you have the cart exactly before the horse here.
It's interesting how people tend to take a word/name for something as
a starting point, and to say that "A" exists because there is a word/
name for it. But of course the reality is exactly the opposite. In
reality, a word/name for something evolves when a certain social group
starts to perceive that "A" is a reality and that in future there is
going to be a need for a convenient way to refer to it, to wit – a
word/name. Trouble is, in many cases the thing that had the referent
"A" attached to it at a certain stage (perhaps several centuries ago)
was rather different at that time, but while the thing changed, the
name for it did not. This is particular so where geography and ethnic
affairs are involved, as anyone who has tried to discuss (e.g.)
"Macedonia" will find.
Another aspect of this discussion is the difference between "educated"
usage and "vernacular" usage. Lexicographers and experts in various
fields try to "define" terms in an attempt to standardise them and
make future discussions more logical, to make sure everybody is "on
the same page" (as they say). But regardless of the well-intentioned
efforts of the experts, the masses go right ahead and use terms in an
undisciplined way, as for example, any non-Russian person from the
former USSR would know in relation to the terms "Russian" and
"Soviet". (e.g. "So your countryman X is on the Russian basketball
team?", "No, he's on the Soviet basketball team, but he'd much rather
be on the Lithuanian Olympic basketball team, and one day his luckier
younger colleagues will be.")
Ostap Bender
> On Mar 15, 7:52 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > How do you determine which nations are "single nations" and which
> > aren't? By names?
>
> > Are Abkhazians and Georgians a single nation? Are Ossetians and
> > Georgians a single nation? Are Transdniestrian Ukrainians and Moldovan
> > Romanians a single nation? Are Crimeans and Ukrainians a single
> > nation? Are Austria and Germany a single nation? Are Prussia/
> > Brandenburg and Germany a single nation?
>
> I think you probably realise it and are just stirring again as usual
No. From previous discussions I got a very strong sense that Vello
thinks that it is very easy to tell which ethnic groups must belong to
the same country and which should be independent from each other. The
reality is not like that at all.
In particular, why is it a "god given" fact that the 15 Soviet
republics have the right to be independent while the sub-republics
don't? Just because Stalin and Khruschev divided USSR into 15
republics and drew the borders between them, doesn't mean that it is
the only way of dividing USSR.
The same goes for Yugoslavia.
Tadas Blinda
wrote:
> No. From previous discussions I got a very strong sense that Vello
> thinks that it is very easy to tell which ethnic groups must belong to
> the same country and which should be independent from each other. The
> reality is not like that at all.
>
> In particular, why is it a "god given" fact that the 15 Soviet
> republics have the right to be independent while the sub-republics
> don't? Just because Stalin and Khruschëv divided USSR into 15
> republics and drew the borders between them, doesn't mean that it is
> the only way of dividing USSR.
>
> The same goes for Yugoslavia.
Well, indeed. But when it comes national territories, and how
countries look on the map, nationals of any country to indeed start to
believe that the present shape and extent of their country is the "god
given" one, and many of them get quite hysterical and aggressive at
any suggestion that there should be territorial changes.
Going back before 1901, Australia consisted of six separate British
colonies. During the 1890s momentum gathered for independence and
federation, and in 1901 the Commonwealth of Australia was born. What
many Australians (and New Zealanders) are now blithely unaware of is
that New Zealand delegates attended the first "Constitutional
Congresses", and in deed the first draft of a Constitution for the
forthcoming "ANZ Federation" started off with a preamble naming the
colonies concerned, which included New Zealand. But then NZ dropped
out and went its own way. Everybody takes it for granted now that NZ
is its own country, but I guarantee that if had been part of the
Commonwealth of Australia for a few decades or a century, and then
tried to drop out, there would be wailing and gnashing of teeth and
sky-is-falling hysteria in Australia on a scale to match that of the
Québec independence referendum. Same if a US state tried to secede.
Or a Mexican one, for that matter, even though the Mexican
constitution guarantees them that right.
Yes, the masses love the status quo. That's why in most places, most
referendums (referenda?) are lost, regardless of the subject.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
vello
wrote:
> On Mar 14, 11:13 pm, Tadas Blinda <tadas.bli...@lycos.es> wrote:
>
> > On Mar 15, 7:52 am, Ostap Bender <ostap_bender_1...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > How do you determine which nations are "single nations" and which
> > > aren't? By names?
>
> > > Are Abkhazians and Georgians a single nation? Are Ossetians and
> > > Georgians a single nation? Are Transdniestrian Ukrainians and Moldovan
> > > Romanians a single nation? Are Crimeans and Ukrainians a single
> > > nation? Are Austria and Germany a single nation? Are Prussia/
> > > Brandenburg and Germany a single nation?
>
> > I think you probably realise it and are just stirring again as usual
> > ☺, but of course you have the cart exactly before the horse here..
>
> No. From previous discussions I got a very strong sense that Vello
> thinks that it is very easy to tell which ethnic groups must belong to
> the same country and which should be independent from each other. The
> reality is not like that at all.
In basics it IS simple: those who WANT to live together.
>
> In particular, why is it a "god given" fact that the 15 Soviet
> republics have the right to be independent while the sub-republics
> don't? Just because Stalin and Khruschev divided USSR into 15
> republics and drew the borders between them, doesn't mean that it is
> the only way of dividing USSR.
Sure - any ethnic nation deserves to be independent. Problems arise,
when population is mixed. So "liberation" of abkhazians means
ethnically cleansing for ethnic georgians by number three times bigger
then number of abkhazians in Abkhazia. By justice, australia belongs
to aborigines, but you can't redo the history coz you had to send out
millions of people, born in australia making Australia aboroginal
again. Same for Americas and Siberia. So realization of right for self-
determination is easy/possible where original nation still
constitutes large maiority.
>
> The same goes for Yugoslavia.
Exactly. Koosovo belongs to Serbia by historical means without any
doubt. But as ethnic serbians make very small %% from the population
in Kosovo, it was impossible to keep Kosovo inside Serbia without
overrunning will of 90% of population of Kosovo.