Talk:Intermarium

message: In the final phrase
:Such a polity, comprising some 150 million central Europeans, with a common foreign policy, would have been a force to be reckoned with by Nazi Germany in the west and the Soviet Union in the east, but hardly viable due to its heterogeneity.
I removed the "but" part. In many cases heterogeneity is strength. The very Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is an example, not to say about USA and EU. Therefore "due to" is bad logic. Besides, there is no particular reasons to fight this guess about "such a polity". A guess is a guess, and hence a guess only. Like in this child's verse: "If all trees were one big tree...". Of course, it would be force, if... and plenty of other "ifs". I planned to remove the phrase altogether, but decided that it is a valid example of what majestic plans were in minds of the planners. But to fight someone's long gone dreams with "buts" is usually meaningless. Mikkalai 02:34, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Tnx for the info, I agree with your edit. Somehow I must have missed the 'but' removal when I was checking the changes at 4am :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 11:09, 13 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal 

message: Someone has frivolously changed this article's title from Międzymorze to "Polish imperialism."  What country has not been an empire at some point in its history?  The title needs to be corrected back to Międzymorze.  logologist 16:08, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Imperialism has nothing to do with being an empire or not. Even a tiny country may cherish imperial ambitions. The current article describes imperial dreams of Poland throughout its history, rather than Pilsudski's particular imperial doctrine. --Ghirlandajo 16:25, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved back. This has little to do with imperialism - please go read up on this. You are free to create/edit a page on Polish imperialism (if you can prove this ever existed), but this is not the right article for such a topic. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:39, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is clearly not about Pilsudski's irredentist project only, as the intro seems to profess, but about the Polish idea of domination of their Eastern neighbours from the 17th century at least. The current title is absolutely inappropriate. Also, I see no reason to keep an obscure Polish word in the title of English-language article. We should stick to English if possible. --Ghirlandajo 08:59, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Frivolous change of title

message: #Move sections: 'The Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth precedent', 'Prince Adam Jerzy Czartoryski plan' and the 'World War II and since' to Polish federalism.
#Copy appopriate material from Polish-Lithuanian-Muscovite Commonwealth, Polish-Lithuanian-Ruthenian Commonwealth, Prometheism and other (?) articles to Polish federalism article, but don't delete anything from those articles (keep them as they are in term of content - of course linking the Polish fedralism article)
#Keep reduced Międzymorze as an article about Międzymorze concept only
What do you think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 16:50, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Though I don't see the need to have an article on such an obscure phenomenon, and I don't see a much continuity between various Polish federalist ideas of various epochs, this seems like a good solution for those who do. Halibutt 18:00, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me. Frankly, I don't care, as long as no POV titles are being used and no content is deleted (but only moved around or preserved). --Lysy (talk) 18:55, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Piotrus solution 

message: "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, that, from the late 14th to the late 18th century century, had united Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania (the latter also incorporating modern Belarus and Ukraine).
" 
As far as I remember, Belarus and grater part of today's Ukraine were parts of Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Galicia was a part of Poland before the creation of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.
:Right. But where is the inaccuracy in the sentence above that you mention ? They seem not contradictory to me... --Lysy (talk) 22:21, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I was mistaking.--AndriyK 13:12, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Still to be even more pecise, Polan was incorporating Galicia(including the eastern one) and Lithuania - Balarus and a great part of modern Ukraine.--AndriyK 13:15, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccuracy 

message: The words
"The Międzymorze will be created in the year 2007, when Romania nad Bulgaria join the EU."
have been removed. What is wrong with the above statement?
Xx236 15:47, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's somebody's political fiction. Międzymorze is a thing of the past, not the future.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:25, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

text: You mean Polish evil impearialism, or what ? --Lysytalk 19:12, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just becuase Poland is a failed empire, does not deprive them of ability to have imperialist ideas. Stop using the euphemism "federalism" - it is simply a lie, as much a lie as say, that russians, during their 123 year control of Poland did it out of "federalism". With respect, Ko Soi IX 20:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please check WP:RS and WP:V. We have references to Międzymorze as a federation, none to 'Polish imperialism'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:05, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, the name People's Republic of Poland is also a lie as it was not a democracy (people's). At any rate, Miedzymorze is an imperialist enterpirse, aimed at conquering or aquiring non-polish lands. Ko Soi IX 21:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And do you have any sources backing your point of view? Especially as the aim of Międzymorze was to support independence of Polish neighbours (so they could act as a buffer beteen Poland and Russia out of their own free will) I fail to see how one can argue that M-more would be imperialistic. Do read about federation vs empire.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  21:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Miedzymorze now 

message: When I changed the "Tween the Seas" to "Between the Seas", it was merely a copy edit to improve the English meaning. Regardless of what it is in Latin, "Interseas", doesn't cut it in English. I know it works in the case of "International", but not here. Dr. Dan 16:53, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It wasn't "Tween the Seas" but "Tween-Seas."  "Tween-Seas" was an attempted translation of the Polish original, "Between the Seas" is an explanation.  I don't think a polity could be named something like "Between the Seas."  logologist|Talk 17:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Między

message: Certainly, Poland did much to strengthen her neighbors, such as taking the Lithuanian capital. C'mon, stop it with the lies and revisionist white-washing. With respect, Ko Soi IX 21:14, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or giving them their capital (Battle of Daugavpils, Kiev Offensive). This article is about a never-realized political federation, that according to our sources would be composed of independent nations. Certainly Międzymorze would benefit Poland's eastern and southern neighbors - much more so than their absorbtion into the SU did. This is all backed with references. If you have sources to the contrary, please give them, otherwise you are just engaging in revert war for which you may be blocked.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:03, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, in theory, Soviet domination of Poland was a good thing as it gave the poles freedom from capitalist oppression and an ability to develop communism. According to the opening paragraphs there were three more countries to be invloved in the "federation" - Lithuania, Ukraine and Belarus. While Poland enjoyed poor relationships with Lithuania due to Polish imperialist ambitions and the taking of Vilnius, I am sure that Ukraine and Belarus were stronger as part of USSR than they would be in Poland (WW2 illustrates that pretty well). Thus, I'm not gonna fall for your trap of sources, but rather request sources from you that PROVE that Ukraine and Belarus would be better off with Poland than with the USSR in terms of security. I'm sure you will not be able to provide, but everyone deserves a chance. You threaten me with getting banned, but however you go against common sense and claim something moronic like Ukraine would be safer with Poland than USSR because you got some sources backing it up. Face it, Poland got it's arse kicked while USSR almost single-handingly (even if you deny it) defeated Nazi Germany. Thus, USSR was stronger. So, how would it be that Ukraine and Belarus would be safer in this so called "federation" (under "aegis" of Poland)? Ko Soi IX 04:55, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunatly, WP:3RR and WP:V are our policies. If you don't like them, I am afraid you will have to find other website to air your grieviances at. The article is no stating that Ukraine or Belarus would be better of with Poland so your edits are irrelevant to your arguments above, but for argument sake it is rather self-evident that anything but absorbtion into SU would be better for those countries: no Holodomor, no millions of dead in Stalinist purges, and Germany stopped during Invasion of Poland (1939)...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  05:17, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Listen up Ko Soi IX, how can you say that the SU almost single-handingly, (sic) defeated Nazi Germany? The article Battle of Berlin clearly shows how Polish military contributions brought down Germany and brought about the final victory. And the article also has a "plethora" of pictures proving this too. What better sources could there be? The prokonsul has warned you that you are in danger of being you may be blocked, so if I were you, I'd watch out. Of course he never warned user: Molobo, so he might not be completely serious. As for sources showing that that the three nations that Miedzymorze was intended to "benefit", I'm sure P.P., (Prokonsul Piotrus) can provide them. What, you really have the temerity to doubt him? Dr. Dan 06:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: To Proconsul's argument - when we depart from what happened into the realm of what if there is much room for debate, although it is not really historical. For example, I'm not convinced that the "Federation" could stop the Germans - mostly due to lack of heterogenety and a long history of "problems" between the Polish people and their Eastern Slavic bretheren. Holodomor and it's causes are subject to much debate as well, and repression in Ukraine and Belarus weren't in "millions", and they (the repressions) were mostly aimed at the Party. But I also have to admit that my reverts were a bit hasty, and certainly I was banned rightly. I suggest we add a section explaining how polish imperialist ambitions and the long history of hatred between the poles and ukrainians would've made the idea of the "federation" a naive joke at best. With respect, Ko Soi IX 13:44, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First of all, feel free to expand the article as long as you have proper references (WP:V, WP:RS). Second, I don't believe there ever was a "long history of hatred between the poles and ukrainians". At the very least this seems like a giant POVed simplification; you could as well talk about "long history of hatred between the russians and ukrainians". There were conflicts, there was also cooperation; check Snyder refs for how Poland worked with Ukrainians during the interwar period (and of course check Davies or others on how it stamped on the Ukrainian minority at the same time...). Third, while we cannot know if Ukraine and Belarus (and L. and other countries) would be better of with Poland, it's hard to see how they could be worse; millions died in Holodomor and while I don't have a number for repressions, I'd be not suprised to see it in hundred thousands. Not to mention issues like Sovietization, complete lack of independence and such - all considered, Międzymorze looks like a much better alternative.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  15:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strengthen Poland... and her neighbors?

message: p.75: an interesting quote: "The federalists were attacked not only by their more chauvinists compatriots at home but by their prospective partners, who mistook the modern federalist ideal for a revamped version of old Rzeczpospolita. This indicates that Davies would support the argument that M-morze was to be more like EU then PLC. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  13:55, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Speaking of Davies, he calls Miedzymorze, the Federation of the Borders, and the Wikipedia policy of WP:Use English, needs to be applied to the title of this article. Any objections? Dr. Dan 18:57, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: He appear to use this phrase only in WERS and this is not used by anobody, him included, anywhere else (). I'd suggest we consider all possible variants and their translations before any move - especially to the name used by one author in one book only...-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  19:37, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: English is my goal here, nothing else, WP:Use English. Besides, Davies, is the "one author in one book only", that is a favorite source of yours, in many articles that you have "created". I'm going to give you more and more Davies, including the plethora of exclusions of information, and without the subjective editing that you are fond of making, when you use his material as a source. Dr. Dan 21:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Davies on M-morze

message: A theory of this scope needs citations from sources other than blogs. If these are not provided soon, it should go to some wider venue. Novickas 15:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fringe theory - "this plan could have prevented World War II"

message: What are motives to hold article about conference in 2006, which is complete irrelevant here, under See also section? One contributor insists for doing so ? M.K. 11:09, 9 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: See also

message: Piotrus, could you state your justification for removing the clause from the lead that described the late 20th century supporters of this movement, and its opposition from Poland's neighbors? If NATO felt it was important enough to be mentioned in the opening paragraphs of the cited article, why should WP disagree?  Novickas 19:19, 12 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After looking through the removed information, I think it is the clear case of WP:OWN folloved by obvious violation of WP:NPOV.--Lokyz 16:16, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: With regard to ownership, WP doesn't really discourage that. Piotrus' user page lists "My GAs' and "My FAs', where most people list these under "GAs and FAs that I have started or contributed to". But ownership behavior is hard to define, and AFAIK has not yet shown up in arbitration... Novickas 21:48, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removal of late 20th-century version of this movement from lead

message: Thanks to User:Nihil novi - I hope you will continue contributing to other controversial articles as they come along. Novickas 16:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. --Irpen 02:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Participation by Nihil novi

message: I cleaned up and tightened the lead. Someone please shorten the pre-WW1 and post-WW2 stuff. Those have nothing to do with the Pilsudski's concept. Every idea of the Polish-dominated Europe dumped together may add up to an article about Polish view towards its neighbors but this article is about a specific concept by specific politician. A short preface and aftermath could be added but not sections comparable by length to the main subject. Unless this is dealt with, the page is turned into a soapbox devoted to the nostalgia of the regional domination. --Irpen 02:42, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded. Dr. Dan 02:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Huge irrelevances

message: # 
ΔιγυρενΕμπροσ! 18:28, 29 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Random sources 

message: Since this statement has been sitting here with "citation requested" for a while, I'm going to remove it, and replace it with a reference from historynet.com. Not really the best, but better than nothing, and better than Piotrus' blogs. As with most serious historical issues, there are probably a variety of scholarly opinions, but we just can't have a single un-attributed opinion about the Allies' point of view. Novickas 00:52, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Allied Opposition - will remove unreferenced statement about their motives 

message: We should really have an article on the Ponto-Baltic Isthmus, not just this political concept.--Pharos (talk) 08:20, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What's that?  Nihil novi (talk) 08:38, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Baltic Lake perhaps? This was however not a M-morze concept, IIRC it was a Swedish one during 17th century or so.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  11:35, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ponto-Baltic Isthmus is a term for the geographical region between the Black Sea (the Pontus) and the Baltic Sea; as opposed to Międzymorze, which is a political project proposed for that region.  BTW, Piotr, I believe you are thinking of the idea of the Baltic becoming a "Swedish lake", just like the Mediterranean was anciently considered a "Roman lake" (this is a separate topic, of course).--Pharos (talk) 05:12, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds intriguing.  Have you considered starting an article on this topic?  Nihil novi (talk) 08:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: You are right, I did not hear the PBI term before and tried to deconstruct it via 'ponto'-'pond' etymology :D Per NN I look forward to seeing that article stubbed! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  17:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Hello! See here on Romanian Wikipedia: :ro:Istmul ponto-baltic--Accipiter Gentilis Q. (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geographical article missing 

message: An amusing quote is being treated seriously enough to result in some edit warring here; comments appreciated.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk  23:01, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: How MMorze was sunk by a bridge on Dniepr

message: The following sentences were copied from . Czartoryski aspired above all to reconstitute — with French, British and Turkish support — a Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth federated with the Czechs, Slovaks, Hungarians, Romanians and all the South Slavs of the future Yugoslavia. Poland, in his concept, could have mediated the conflicts between Hungary and the Slavs, and between Hungary and Romania.[20] The plan seemed achievable[21] during the period of national revolutions in 1848–49 but foundered on lack of western support, on Hungarian intransigence toward the Czechs, Slovaks and Romanians, and on the rise of German nationalism. Novickas (talk) 18:58, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On which page of Central-European Case Studies does this text appear? Nihil novi (talk) 09:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Pages 245,246. Novickas (talk) 14:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Plagiarism does indeed appear to have been perpetrated—by Matylda Urjasz-Raczko, author of "Intermarium—History of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or an Alternative for the Future? The Polish Perspective", in Central-European Case Studies, volume 2, Győr, Universitas-Győr Nonprofit Kft, 2008, ISSN 2060-0461, pp. 245–46.  The sentences in question first appeared three years earlier, in the 06:15, 25 September 2005, edition of "Międzymorze" on the English-language Wikipedia.  Nihil novi (talk) 17:33, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Your evaluation looks correct, thanks for the good catch. Novickas (talk) 19:35, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyvio

message: Lithuanian–Polish–Ukrainian Brigade:  :-) -No.Altenmann >t 16:55, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Międzymorze -2014 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Intermarium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071007194853/http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/20_21_century/3038436.html?featured=y&c=y to http://www.historynet.com/wars_conflicts/20_21_century/3038436.html?featured=y&c=y
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:44, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 7 external links on Intermarium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051126150005/http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/329/29435/ to http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/329/29435/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051107051914/http://www.zn.kiev.ua/ie/show/329/29435/ to http://www.zn.kiev.ua/ie/show/329/29435/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060116140351/http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/495/46522/ to http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/495/46522/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070310220124/http://www.zn.kiev.ua/ie/show/495/46522/ to http://www.zn.kiev.ua/ie/show/495/46522/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051126150005/http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/329/29435/ to http://www.zerkalo-nedeli.com/nn/show/329/29435/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051107051914/http://www.zn.kiev.ua/ie/show/329/29435/ to http://www.zn.kiev.ua/ie/show/329/29435/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150319140714/http://valdaiclub.com/europe/69020.html to http://valdaiclub.com/europe/69020.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:23, 14 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Intermarium. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130918005803/http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110516-visegrad-new-european-military-force to http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110516-visegrad-new-european-military-force
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:33, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I am removing :File:Балто-Чорноморська вісь 2.png from the lead of the article, as it seems factually inaccurate. It's currently labelled "Original Intermarium concept", but its coverage doesn't match any of the definitions of the proposed federation in the article, certainly not the one described as its original one in the lead section next to which it is now placed. Also, it suspiciously shows countries in their present-day borders, most notably Poland with its present western border with Germany; this must surely be anachronistic when illustrating an "original" concept of this early-20th-century idea? Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:12, 2 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image removed