Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
To make the long story short, from the 16th century on (if I remember correctly, ) from the "Times of Troubles," Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was trying to chew off the territories of Russian Empire and turn itself into something more significant than what it was and ever will be.
That, of course, didn't work out, but it left Polish influence in certain areas of Belorussia and Ukraine and bitter taste in Poles with the wet dreams of becoming a "power that matter" one day again.
Oh, it were not only for those damn Russians))))
If there are any people in Poland who dream of reclaiming territory, they have no influence in the nation's politics.
If there are any people in Poland who dream of reclaiming territory, they have no influence in the nation's politics.
I don't think anyone would like to "reclaim territory" per see, I just think it's a part of some deep-seated sentiment in some Poles ( not all of course.) And I suspect that this sentiment was behind the push of Poland ( the effort their politicians made) in the latest Ukrainian events. Poland wants its own "zone of influence."
If there are any people in Poland who dream of reclaiming territory, they have no influence in the nation's politics.
Comrade Erasure is incapable of telling the truth in anything related to the Russian Empire/nazi cause. It is really dishonest to claim that Belarussian lands were integral part of the Russian Empire and evil Poles tried to steal what's rightfully Russian, but that is official Russian myth.
To start, Kievan Rus was a loose agglomeration of the tribes and principalities. More than that the nominal rulers of Kievan Rus didnt really manage to fully subjugate what is now Belarus, it kept its authentic rulers (unrelated to the guys in Kiev) for long time. And then came 1240 and a proto Kievan state ceased to exist even nominally. Original separatists, ruling a part of what is now Russia, attacked and destroyed Kiev in 1169 to cut the ties with central authority and have their own thing going in the forest and swamps up north. Notice comrade Erasure missed a huge chunk of time 1200-1550, by the 1550s Moscow Rulers cemented their centralized rule of the adjacent lands with rivers of blood, and they wanted more, more and more. Even if it's 1550s one must have ideology to justify wars of conquest. So the principality of Moscow, non existent at the times of Kievan Rus, pronounced itself to be "The third Rome" called to unite all the lands of former Rus, the moscovites are to become the most pure descendants of Kievan Rus. Eventually Moscovites appropriated the brand "Russians" even though up to 1700s the term Moscovy was widely used.
To make it short, Kievan Rus never fully subjugated Belorussian swamps and then it ceased to exist circa 1200s. Muscovy got an imperial bug aimed at the lands subjected to the foreign kings around 1550. 1200 - 1550, it is a plenty of time to develop an identity, but Belarussian land never lost their identity to Kievan Rus to begin with. Russians/Moscovite subjugators destroyed all of that in the most vicious, barbarous ways, and then Belarus people just adopted the language, culture, even myths of their subjugators. Pathetic story that plays itself over and over.
Comrade Erasure is incapable of telling the truth in anything related to the Russian Empire/nazi cause. It is really dishonest to claim that Belarussian lands were integral part of the Russian Empire and evil Poles tried to steal what's rightfully Russian, but that is official Russian myth.
To start, Kievan Rus was a loose agglomeration of the tribes and principalities. More than that the nominal rulers of Kievan Rus didnt really manage to fully subjugate what is now Belarus, it kept its authentic rulers (unrelated to the guys in Kiev) for long time. And then came 1240 and a proto Kievan state ceased to exist even nominally. Original separatists, ruling a part of what is now Russia, attacked and destroyed Kiev in 1169 to cut the ties with central authority and have their own thing going in the forest and swamps up north. Notice comrade Erasure missed a huge chunk of time 1200-1550, by the 1550s Moscow Rulers cemented their centralized rule of the adjacent lands with rivers of blood, and they wanted more, more and more. Even if it's 1550s one must have ideology to justify wars of conquest. So the principality of Moscow, non existent at the times of Kievan Rus, pronounced itself to be "The third Rome" called to unite all the lands of former Rus, the moscovites are to become the most pure descendants of Kievan Rus. Eventually Moscovites appropriated the brand "Russians" even though up to 1700s the term Moscovy was widely used.
To make it short, Kievan Rus never fully subjugated Belorussian swamps and then it ceased to exist circa 1200s. Muscovy got an imperial bug aimed at the lands subjected to the foreign kings around 1550. 1200 - 1550, it is a plenty of time to develop an identity, but Belarussian land never lost their identity to Kievan Rus to begin with. Russians/Moscovite subjugators destroyed all of that in the most vicious, barbarous ways, and then Belarus people just adopted the language, culture, even myths of their subjugators. Pathetic story that plays itself over and over.
Thank you, it was very entertaining, but just to expand your horizons a bit - this is the founder of Moscow ( and Moscow's principality during the times of Kievan Rus.) ( By the way while reading this, you might get a better idea where the original violence and "rivers of blood" came to Russian rulers from. And it ain't from "mongols"))))
As far as Belorussia goes, you might find this read useful.
Thank you, it was very entertaining, but just to expand your horizons a bit - this is the founder of Moscow ( and Moscow's principality during the times of Kievan Rus.) ( By the way while reading this, you might get a better idea where the original violence and "rivers of blood" came to Russian rulers from. And it ain't from "mongols"))))
As far as Belorussia goes, you might find this read useful.
Thanks for the amusing wiki links written by the guys who dont even think about mythological conditioning they received, they are just like you. There is an euphemistic pearl right in the beginning. Yuri played a key role in the transition of political power from Kiev to Suzdal following the death of his elder brother Mstislav the Great in 1132. Way to describe an arsehole fighting and undermining Kievan Rus, just to run to his northern swamps after Kiev' possession caused some strains and uncertainties him holding on to power. And a son of that arsehole, Andrei Bogolyubsky, drowned Kiev in blood in 1169 to further facilitate "transition of power". Those two brutal individuals were the original separatists who didnt think twice about destroying Kievan Rus to consolidate their power up North.
Wiki link you cited repeats Stalinist nonsense about Yuri Dolgoruki founding of Moscow in 1147 without checking even basic sources. The first mention of the Moscow (as a village or a compound) dates to 1147, it says nothing about founding, most likely Moscow (supposedly it means dirty water in the old finnish) was a finnish village for hell knows how long until slavic colonizers occupied the area.
Moscow was first mentioned in 1147, Yuri sacked Kiev in 1151 or, Andrei drowned Kiev in blood in 1169 thus ending Kievan Rus. That is some weird power "transition" and "legitimacy" succession
modern Russian nazis claim, when in fact it's their ancestors who destroyed Kievan Rus to enjoy more power up North. You are shameless guys. Russian were and remain fratricidal.
The Grand Duchy of Moscow dates back 1283 the times when Kievan Rus was dead for 100+ years, thanks to the original separatists up North. The history of Mordor starts in 1283.
Last edited by RememberMee; 07-25-2015 at 04:23 PM..
As far as Belorussia goes, you might find this read useful.
This link doesnt really contradict me. The progeny of the raped Rogneda kept Kievan Rus at bay for century+, apparently the blood of Rogneda meant more to them than the blood of the Vladimir who raped her and wiped out her clan.
Comrade Erasure is incapable of telling the truth in anything related to the Russian Empire/nazi cause. It is really dishonest to claim that Belarussian lands were integral part of the Russian Empire and evil Poles tried to steal what's rightfully Russian, but that is official Russian myth.
To start, Kievan Rus was a loose agglomeration of the tribes and principalities. More than that the nominal rulers of Kievan Rus didnt really manage to fully subjugate what is now Belarus, it kept its authentic rulers (unrelated to the guys in Kiev) for long time. And then came 1240 and a proto Kievan state ceased to exist even nominally. Original separatists, ruling a part of what is now Russia, attacked and destroyed Kiev in 1169 to cut the ties with central authority and have their own thing going in the forest and swamps up north. Notice comrade Erasure missed a huge chunk of time 1200-1550, by the 1550s Moscow Rulers cemented their centralized rule of the adjacent lands with rivers of blood, and they wanted more, more and more. Even if it's 1550s one must have ideology to justify wars of conquest. So the principality of Moscow, non existent at the times of Kievan Rus, pronounced itself to be "The third Rome" called to unite all the lands of former Rus, the moscovites are to become the most pure descendants of Kievan Rus. Eventually Moscovites appropriated the brand "Russians" even though up to 1700s the term Moscovy was widely used.
To make it short, Kievan Rus never fully subjugated Belorussian swamps and then it ceased to exist circa 1200s. Muscovy got an imperial bug aimed at the lands subjected to the foreign kings around 1550. 1200 - 1550, it is a plenty of time to develop an identity, but Belarussian land never lost their identity to Kievan Rus to begin with. Russians/Moscovite subjugators destroyed all of that in the most vicious, barbarous ways, and then Belarus people just adopted the language, culture, even myths of their subjugators. Pathetic story that plays itself over and over.
Whether or not Erasure is right it is meaningless. Belarus and Ukraine do not belong to Russia, Russia has enough land. Russian nationalists are hypocrites, let's flip around and talk about Siberia which used to belong to the Qing Dynasty, shall we? When will Russia relinquish Siberia to the Chinese?
Whether or not Erasure is right it is meaningless. Belarus and Ukraine do not belong to Russia, Russia has enough land. Russian nationalists are hypocrites, let's flip around and talk about Siberia which used to belong to the Qing Dynasty, shall we? When will Russia relinquish Siberia to the Chinese?
When America gives the land back to Native Americans.
Ukrainians, Russians, and Belarusians are all same people.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
