6 ms·
Ironically, the first map with Poland although very popular (it comes up on Reddit on a weekly basis) doesn't explain much. It's the part not shown there that
by odiroot 4y ago
Ironically, the first map with Poland although very popular (it comes up on Reddit on a weekly basis) doesn't explain much.
It's the part not shown there that matters. The Russian partition (and to a lesser extent Austrian one) was the cause of the area in blue being poor and underdeveloped.
There was nothing particularly great in being under Prussian (German) occupation. It's that Russian occupation was so much worse, hell bent on robbing Poland on everything of any value.
- diordiderot 4y agoIt seems you make a claim in the first paragraph... Then provide reasoning to dispute it in the second?
- fsckboy 4y agomakes a claim in the first paragraph (eastern half is the way it is because russian occupied) and provides clarifying context in the second (and not because there was anything good about german occupation in west)
- brandnewaccount 4y agoClaim: > the first map with Poland [...] doesn't explain much. Reasoning that disputes it: > The Russian partition [...] was the cause of the area in blue being poor and underdeveloped For these to be contradictory statements, the Russian partition must refer to something meaningfully different than what the map with Poland refers to. Is that true? I'm no history buff, I'll leave it up to others to say.