sillygoose
Well-known member
Revolution in the Kingdom of Poland (1905–1907) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Pilsudski's men and not nationalists they were against. But what will happen?https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revolution_in_the_Kingdom_of_Poland_(1905%E2%80%931907) What if the Lodz portion of revolution spreads and Polish nationalists are able to break Congress Poland off of the Russian empire during the 1905 Russian Revolution? How does the rest of Europe respond and what happens going forward? Will Polish nationalist movements break off the Austrian and Prussian parts of Poland to join the rest of it?
Not exactly sure what you mean here. Are you saying Pilsudski wasn't a nationalist?Pilsudski's men and not nationalists they were against.
Yes, question is how big of war would it cause at the time. If it prevents WW1 though it's worth it.But what will happen?
Certainly a headache for Europe and a toy for the Central Powers who thus took away more than 1/3 of Russia's power.
Poland did take part in WW1 and was a major battleground in 1914-15 with lots of bloodshed. Being on the German side could end up sparing them considerably destruction and prevent the 1919-1921 fighting, which was also quite destructive. And if that prevents WW2 Poland suffers vastly less.There was no less chance of this happening, and the effects on Poland would have been worse in the long run because it would have had to take part in WWI.
Yes, according to what is assessed in Poland, Pilsudski was a Polish patriot but not a nationalist. Nationalists were in contrast to him and had a completely different approach to an identical goal.Not exactly sure what you mean here. Are you saying Pilsudski wasn't a nationalist?
Yes, but we would be forced to stand up to one side and bear the cost whether we want to or not. The chances that in such a scenario there would be a repeat of such a profound collapse of all three partitioners are really slim.Poland did take part in WW1 and was a major battleground in 1914-15 with lots of bloodshed. Being on the German side could end up sparing them considerably destruction and prevent the 1919-1921 fighting, which was also quite destructive. And if that prevents WW2 Poland suffers vastly less.
From the Polish point of view, avoiding WWI is not worth sacrificing Polish interest. It is in the Polish interest for this war to break out and so devastate Europe that the Polish partitioners will fall.Yes, question is how big of war would it cause at the time. If it prevents WW1 though it's worth it.
What if the Lodz portion of revolution spreads and Polish nationalists are able to break Congress Poland off of the Russian empire during the 1905 Russian Revolution? How does the rest of Europe respond and what happens going forward? Will Polish nationalist movements break off the Austrian and Prussian parts of Poland to join the rest of it?Revolution in the Kingdom of Poland (1905–1907) - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
In this TL, I could actually see Germany striking a devil's bargain with the Russians: As in, we'll help you crush this Polish separatist uprising if you'll terminate the Franco-Russian alliance and ally with us and A-H instead. If you'll refuse, however, then we'll aggressively support Polish independence and perhaps even Polish expansion at Russia's expense sooner or later to the hilt.
Thus we stand in relation to the past before 1815. In the year 1815 the Prussian state created a boundary which it can in no way retreat from. It needs this boundary to connect its provinces, to connect Breslau [i.e., Wrocław] to Königsberg, and for its commerce as well as its defense and security. [ . . . ]
Not exactly sure what you mean here. Are you saying Pilsudski wasn't a nationalist?
Yes, question is how big of war would it cause at the time. If it prevents WW1 though it's worth it.
Poland did take part in WW1 and was a major battleground in 1914-15 with lots of bloodshed. Being on the German side could end up sparing them considerably destruction and prevent the 1919-1921 fighting, which was also quite destructive. And if that prevents WW2 Poland suffers vastly less.
I mean he clearly took money from at least the Austrians, but he was his own man, as the goal was to get an independent Poland. He refused to cooperate with the Germans during WW1 after Congress Poland was liberated.1.No,Piłsudzki was first socialist,and then A-H and Japan agent.Maybe german,too.
How so?During WW1 he tried to start anti-russian uprising - which would end Poland,if he succed.
During the Russian revolution? And potentially with Austrian and German support?2.Russia would massacre us on their own,with France blessing.Nothing change for world,but we would be considered as german allies.
If Poland were onside Germany might win, as was said before in 1905 Poland was 1/3rd of the Russian economy.3.Being on german side mean supporting losers.No independent Poland as a result,Poland was win in Versaile by Dmowski,who was nationalist,and army from France and GreatPoland,both supporting nationalists.
You changed nothing,except throwing Poland under bus.
Only that OLT also won with Russia to lose the war. What's more, the successful revolution of 1905 is bound to cause a fray that will be the impetus for a sharper reform of Russia, which the OLT was, but weaker and yet Russia's development was astounding.If Poland were onside Germany might win, as was said before in 1905 Poland was 1/3rd of the Russian economy.
Russia loses quicker and can't tie down German troops as much means the Entente loses before US entry. After all if those two German corps weren't diverted from the western front in 1914 during the Marne the Entente may lose in 1914 or 1915.Only that OLT also won with Russia to lose the war. What's more, the successful revolution of 1905 is bound to cause a fray that will be the impetus for a sharper reform of Russia, which the OLT was, but weaker and yet Russia's development was astounding.
It's just your assumption that Russia loses faster. Just as well that by 1914 Russia could, due to losses, develop not only faster but also more profoundly as a reaction to a successful revolution.Russia loses quicker and can't tie down German troops as much means the Entente loses before US entry. After all if those two German corps weren't diverted from the western front in 1914 during the Marne the Entente may lose in 1914 or 1915.
How would they do nearly as well without 1/3rd of their economy for 9 years before the war and then during it, having the Polish army fight them rather than be onside during the war, plus having to invade Poland to even be able to threaten the CPs? Austria and Germany could support them on the flanks much easier with the Russians having to divert units to Congress Poland rather than Galicia and Prussia, Germany and Austria have a greater ability to deal with Serbia and France in 1914 (Serbia getting knocked out probably brings Bulgaria and the Ottomans in sooner and keep Italy out and allows for more forces to be moved to the eastern front), etc. Virtuous circle for the CPs, negative circle for the Russians.It's just your assumption that Russia loses faster. Just as well that by 1914 Russia could, due to losses, develop not only faster but also more profoundly as a reaction to a successful revolution.
I remember reading somewhere (it was a history forum) that Poland was more accurately responsible for 1/3 of the industrial production in the Russian Empire and its collapse during WWI was a significant economic disaster for Russia, especially since the factories there were an important part of the light industry.I would like to see the figures behind the statement that Kingdom of Poland/Vistula Krai accounted for 1/3rd of Russia's GDP.
1.He cooperated till 1916,after that he was "imprisoned" in comfy house with german servant.And,in 1918 german militart let him go and send to Warsaw.Where he becomed boss,and never started anything which hurt germans.I mean he clearly took money from at least the Austrians, but he was his own man, as the goal was to get an independent Poland. He refused to cooperate with the Germans during WW1 after Congress Poland was liberated.
How so?
During the Russian revolution? And potentially with Austrian and German support?
If Poland were onside Germany might win, as was said before in 1905 Poland was 1/3rd of the Russian economy.
Russia loses quicker and can't tie down German troops as much means the Entente loses before US entry. After all if those two German corps weren't diverted from the western front in 1914 during the Marne the Entente may lose in 1914 or 1915.
How would they do nearly as well without 1/3rd of their economy for 9 years before the war and then during it, having the Polish army fight them rather than be onside during the war, plus having to invade Poland to even be able to threaten the CPs? Austria and Germany could support them on the flanks much easier with the Russians having to divert units to Congress Poland rather than Galicia and Prussia, Germany and Austria have a greater ability to deal with Serbia and France in 1914 (Serbia getting knocked out probably brings Bulgaria and the Ottomans in sooner and keep Italy out and allows for more forces to be moved to the eastern front), etc. Virtuous circle for the CPs, negative circle for the Russians.
It's just your assumption that Russia loses faster. Just as well that by 1914 Russia could, due to losses, develop not only faster but also more profoundly as a reaction to a successful revolution.
Or the Entente, seeing the blow, will put effort on preparations for war in an attempt to compensate for the weakening of Russia. In fact, it is not certain.
Do a search for a map showing railroads - and Russian gubernia borders - in the area. That will answer your question.Even with an independent Poland, Russia can presumably still attack East Prussia in 1914, no?