You actually missed out on some great and fairly absurd complexity here. While Prussia accepted the loss of the Polish territories, it did not want more territories in the west. This was because this would create a border with France (which was exactly why the UK and Austria insisted on Prussia gaining the land). Instead, Prussia annex the more proximate Saxony. This led to a crisis that almost resulted in a war between the UK, Austria, and France on one side and Prussia and Russia on the other during the Congress of Vienna.
@@paranoidandroid6095 Britain and Austria thought that Prussia would not be a reliable partner against France unless it actually shared a border with France. Prussia was not particularly keen on being that at the time, although it would later become quite fond of fighting the French.
@@paranoidandroid6095 france had just prior conquered europe and needed a huge ass coalition to beat. I wouldnt want a border with france remembering that :p
Poland's history: You exist. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do.
One thing I really appreciate about your channel is that you take the time to accurately depict lesser-known historical figures even if they show up briefly, like General Barclay de Tolly and Casimir the Great at 1:42
But I don't appreciate the nonsense being spread.The claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game". By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed. Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
So true, Billy. I didn't know you studied Russian history. I like learning about Russian figures of foreign origin who eventually assimilated and even converted to Orthodoxy
As a Polish person I'd like to say that the creation of the Duchy of Warsaw is one of the reasons why we in Poland tend to like Napoleon up to this day which sometimes surprises foreigners quite a bit. Nevertheless, calling it an "independent Polish state" is an overstatement. It was rather France's puppet state dependent on her in many ways, not an actual independent country which can have its own military and foreign policy. Even French language was one of the two official languages of the duchy next to Polish (and French is not one of our native tongues here).
Didn't he faff about letting the Poles put their own head of state in place before finally settling on someone who's last name was "Napoleon"? From the very little I know of this it was that point the Polish troops attitude towards him changed.
As a French, I also thought poles likes napoleon because of duchy of Warsaw indeed and because of Napoleon first natural child was with a polish woman 👩 😀
HELL YES. As a Polish person, I've always wondered what that was about. Textbooks would always show Prussia gaining a certain amount of land in the Partitions but after the Napoleonic wars the border mysteriously changed with no explanation. Thank you for this video.
same here, and a similar thing happened to a part of Austrian chunk of Poland, my town was Austrian before Duchy of Warsaw and after it became Russian, so it didn't return to Austrian Empire neither
I noticed that study books tend to not talk about gaining territories. As a russian I didn't learn from study book that we gained Polish territories that were in fact Prussian after Napoleonic wars
@@filoreykjavik both Austria and Prussia lost lands to the duchy during the napoleonic era. Most of it except for pozen and Cracow was given to Russia since they were the ones to conquer Poland
@@Xeem_Pad this might sound a little out of the blue but how is the war being perceived over there? Western media is really biased. Has your economy actually collapsed? Are there fears of a coup/ revolution or loss to Ukraine/ the west?
Yes, it was probably either a Russian, an Austrian or a Prussian who was shocked about the existence of Poland. By the way, the claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game". By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed. Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
Well, that was something who actually did happen in 1813, however it must be pointed who what Russia Austria And Prussia did in Poland was not short of Genocide. (not only in 1939)
This is the tsar. After the Napoleonic Wars, some Russian nobles was hated Alexander for giving autonomy to Poland under Russian empire and giving them a constitution. In youth, before accession to the throne, Alexander thought to restore Poland and thanks to this he became friends with Adam Czartoryski, a Polish aristocrat who would lead the Polish uprising in the future, but at that time Alexander would already be dead and his brother Nicholas 1 would rule. The Polish question became a factor in the decisive rupture of the Franco-Russian alliance. Because of the rumors spread by the Poles in the Duchy of Warsaw, there was a misunderstanding and Russia thought that Napoleon was planning to restore Poland. But it wasn't. Napoleon did not want this until the moment he invaded Russia. Alexander, even after statements about unwillingness to restore Poland, did not trust Napoleon. He needed a written statement that Poland would NEVER be restored, but Napoleon could not promise this, because it did not depend on him. He will not restore Poland, someone else will restore it, and he will not affect it in any way. But Napoleon could agree to make such a promise if Alexander agreed to marry his younger sister to him, but he refused. Alexander's family was radically against this marriage, because there was no guarantee that Napoleon's empire would last long.
Also, it's worth to emphasize that Prussia haven't hold these lands vor very long it the first place. The Congress of Vienna was supposed to theoretically operate on the principle of restoring Europe to roughly the state before the French Revolution. In 1792 (when the Revolution was already going for a couple of years) there was still a quite chunky Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth on the map. This undermined somewhat Prussian claims to the territories acquired in the second and especially the third partition.
Also, I think that this kinda helped Russia gain those territories, as both them, and Poles argued that Poland was still a country before the French Revolution (though with two different interests in mind), and as such, should be reestablished
And the British public opinion was sympathetic to the Polish cause, so the government had to at least pretend to be also (beyond their usual concerns about the "balance of power" on the continent). The channel Historia Civilis not long ago made a great mini series about the Congress of Vienna, explaining a lot of these complexities. I also like to think that the fact that Polish troops showed themselves as quite a formidable fighting force for Napoleon had some influence on all of this.
I know the claims for the reason Poland was carved up was that its reformers had met with some people in Paris and Prussia, Austria, and Russia were supposedly fearful that the reformers would seed the French Revolution outside of France. That sound logical on paper, but I have a hard time believing this wasn't a fig leaf just to cover up carving up Poland. As you said this somewhat Prussian claims to the territories acquired in the second and especially the third partition.
@@alex_zetsu Oh yes, I agree that the attempts to justify the vivisection of the Commonwealth by linking the reforms in it to "Jacobinism" did happen and were flimsy at best but I meant something different. If the Congress was supposed to rearrange Europe with the alleged goal to restore it to how it "supposed to be", before all of the bloody mess of the previous 25 years or so, then the question aroused: "Does it mean that Poland could or even _should_ be restored in some form?". Because Poland definitely was there 20 years before, and has been for centuries.
It's amazing how much historic information you're able to teach in just three minutes. If our schools taught this way we would all be amazingly smart. Keep up the awesome work!
There were actually more wheels within wheels in Prussian expansion post 1815. The Rhineland territories were part of the Duchy of Cleve which the Prussians claimed via dynastic inheritance. That led eventually to the Prussian Danish War, the Prussian Austrian War and the Prussian France War, as all three enabled Prussia to link Prussia proper to the western half. Hanover was swallowed by Prussia during these maneuvers, which History Matters has recently alluded too.
That was the Franco-German War, as the Germans correctly call thsi war, because the Prussians only dared to wage this war in alliance with various other German small states. Just as it is nonsense to call the Franco-German War as the Prussian-Franco War in English, are also the claims made in this video nonsense and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game". By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed. Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
This channel is the proof that Kids want to learn in the school but schools don't know the right way to teach kids. Literally it would be so cool if you were my history teacher @
For me, most of the issues when I was at school was taking notes (this was before cheap laptops), and testing of the material. I hated social studies (precursor to history) because of that, even though the actual content was interesting to me.
Anyway, this channel shows that not every video on UA-cam about Polish history is good! Because the claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game". By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed. Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
Austrians also lost some of the territories they acquired through taking part in the dismemberment of Poland. The land which the Duchy of Warsaw gained in 1809 was also given to Russia, becoming part of the Kingdom of Poland, except for Kraków (Cracow), which became the _Free, Independent, and Strictly Neutral City of Cracow with its Territory_ or the Cracow Republic for short. De facto it was an Austrian protectorate and got annexed in 1846.
So Austria effectively lost the Polish city of Kraków and its environs for only a short time. But in 1918 the Austrians lost all of the Polish territories when the Polish state was re-established. By the way, the claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game". By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed. Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
@@GreatPolishWingedHussars The war with the otomans had alrredy ended while the invasion of 1812 was ongoing also your claims that only Rusia and the uk are relevant for the war are just stupid. The russian army did amacing no doubt but for 1813 it was spent and the french had raised another half a million men that repulsed the russo prussian forces althouth they didnt win a masive victory. The participation of Austria with its fresh army and in a much lesser extent the prussians was vital for the succes of the 6° coalition. Your vision seems too rusian biased to say the least
@@blecao Your talk about the war against the Ottomans shows that you have no idea. I never claimed that the Ottomans were relevant in the Napoleonic wars. The rest of your talk is nonsense too, as it is a historical fact that the British and Russians were the key empires in the fight against the French Empire. The British and Russians were the only undefeated. All others were defeated by the French.
@@GreatPolishWingedHussars undefeated dont make me laugth Rusia lost on 1805 and on 1807 surrendered being forced into an aliance with the french The british yes they didnt surrendered but motly due to the royal navy becouse they had a lot of defeats beung only saved due to that The helder expedition or the walcheren expedition being the first 2 that come to mind
@@blecao Yes, the Russians and British were so defeated and lands were occupied. But no, the French failed to occupy either Russia nor Great Britain. Therefore Russia and Great Britain were undefeated, because all other nations were defeated and occupied by the French. When the French tried to occupy Moscow they failed and that was actually a decisive defeat at the hands of the Russians, who were smarter than Napoleon. France was actually the stronger empire, but France failed because of Napoleon's wrong decisions. These are historical facts that the French failed in the fight against the British and Russians because all the others were defeated by the French beforehand.
You mean probably theTreaty of Vienna of 9 June 1815, (also known as the "Final Act of the Congress of Vienna"), embodying all the separate treaties agreed at the Congress. The notice is necessary because the treaty of Vienna (1815) can refer to several different treaties. So you actually mean that the Congress of Vienna isn't something one can untangle easily in less than 4 minutes. But you're wrong, because the Congress of Vienna can be explained in just a few sentences. It is a common misconception that the Congress of Vienna should restore conditions before the French revolution. If that had been the case, then the Polish state would probably have come into being again. If that had been so, then the British and Russians would not have allowed the annexation of a large part of Saxony by Prussia. Also, there would not have been various other territorial changes of other German small states. In reality, the Congress of Vienna served to punish the allied napoleons. For example, Denmark had to cede Norway to Sweden because of its support for Napoleon. But above all, the Congress of Vienna served to gain potential allies for the British and Russians, since both powers knew that the next conflict for supremacy would be Russia against the British. For all these reasons, the political situation after the Napoleonic wars was very different from that before the French reavolution. By the way, regarding the video, the following criticism is appropriate. The claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game". By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed. Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
If you want a more complex analysis on this topic I would definitely recommend Historia Civilis’ videos on the Congress of Vienna as those go far more in depth into why Prussia gave up those lands.
Prussia gave up nothing! The British and the Russians decided what Prussia had to give up. Like your claim is nonsense are also the claims made in this video ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game". By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed. Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
@@GreatPolishWingedHussars Prussia did annex all of poland and all of the powers at be at the time (Russia, Austria and Prussia agreed to this so I really don’t see your point here. Sure while it is true that Britain, Russia and Austria were the real players in deciding what Prussia had to give up, that doesn’t mean that Prussia had no say. Prussia was very much a great power and had a formidable army. You can say that they lost to Napoleon but that’s because he was Napoleon nobody in mainland Europe could beat him, Russia only managed to turn the tide because they had nature and attrition on their side NOT AT ALL because their army was better. The only advantage the Russians had over the Prussians were numbers. Prussia was weak because it didn’t have a large population to get soldiers from. While most of your claims about Russia being in the best position to take poland are true that doesn’t mean that prussia was irrelevant especially since they would go on to form Germany which caused the collapse of the Russian monarchy in WW1, 100 years after the events of this video.
@@coltonsupergame Even if you repeat this nonsense a hundred times, it won't come true! No, Prussia did not annex all of Poland, but a comparatively small part of Poland. That's why the title of the video is nonsense too! Prussia was not a great power, the great powers are not puppet states of France like Prussia became such a puppet state of France at the beginning of the 19th century. Great powers do not have to fear for their existence after losing a war and do not survive at the mercy of other states like Prussia, after being defeated by Russia in the Seven Years' War, had to fear doom and only survived at the mercy of Russia. As for the Prussian army, that's way overestimated! These are some defeats of the Prussian armies in the 18th century. So the list of defeats starts with Battle of Cassano (1705)! The Prussians also lost the other listed battles. Battle of Kolín 1757! Battle of Gross-Jägersdorf 1757! Battle of Moys 1757! Battle of Breslau 1757! Battle of Fehrbellin 1758 Battle of Hochkirch 1758 Battle of Kunersdorf in 1759! Battle of Meissen 1759! Battle of Maxen 1759! Battle of Landeshut in 1760! Battle of Valmy 1792 These are some defeats of the Prussian army in the 19th century. Twin battles of Jena and Auerstedt in 1806! Battle of Saalfeld 1806! Battle of Luebeck 1806! Battle of Lützen (1813) Battle of Bautzen 1813 Battle of Dresden 1813 Battle of Brienne 1814 Battle of Montmirail (1814) Battle of Château-Thierry 1814 Battle of Vauchamps 1814 Battle of Craonne 1814 Battle of Ligny 1815 Battle of Mysunde 1864 So the Prussian armies were the opposite of invincible and the dwarf Prussia was definitely not a great power. By the way, so what? The French Empire was actually superior to the Russian Empire. This has nothing to do with Prussia! Because Prussia was clearly inferior to both empires. Well recognized by the way! Prussia was weak because it didn't have a large population to get soldiers from. That's the only thing that's true what you wrote! Also, it is a historical fact that Prussia was irrelavant in the wars against Poland and that Russia defeated Poland. Prussia alone would not have been able to defeat Poland at all. Incidentally, later unified Germay has nothing to do with this topic. Besides, this united state was then actually a great power, but this German state was only a great power for a ridiculous 47 years.
Not really relevant, but what's really relevant is that the claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game". By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed. Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
The Swede saying "Hello fellow Germans" there cracks me up lol. Thanks for another fun and interesting video as always. Merry Christmas out there everybody! ✝️🎄
But in the video, the errors are particularly interesting! So the claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game". By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed. Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
The fascinating part about this video is that the decision to give Prussia lands in the Rhine area instead of the polish territories actually created Germany in the long run. Prussia had now a huge incentive to connect its Eastern and Western lands and made it a driving force in somehow uniting the northern German states either by unifying them diplomatically or annexing them. If the Rhine province had never become a part of Prussia there might not have been a German unification under Prussian hegemony. The Prussian kings were never huge fans of becoming German emperors anyway. They were content with beeing Prussian kings.
You described it as if it had been something positive that a united German state had emerged. But the unification of the various small German states into a united German state was a terrible catastrophe for Europe! Actually the forerunner of the worst catastrophes of all times in the 20th century. Because without this unified Germany, neither World War I nor World War II would have happened. This united nation would not have had the opportunity to commit various genocides before WW1 and during WW2. Even if one denies the German-Austrian war guilt, the First World War would not have happened without the united German state. The result would be the same. So NO two world wars with a total of 70 million dead, NO opportunity for this united nation to commit various genocides, NO immeasurable destruction in two World Wars. The communists only became so powerful through these two world wars. So yes also NO strong communism that was able to oppress half of Europe for almost 50 years So this multiple NO regarding these various catastrophes for Europe would be the result of NO united German state of 1871. Prussia made this German state possible in the first place. That was actually the only relevant achievement by Prussia! So unfortunately, when the Poles had the opportunity to do so, they did not destroy Prussia! Too bad for Europe! Others also had the opportunity to destroy Prussia or to weaken it decisively. The French twice in the 19th century and the Russians in the 18th century had the opportunity to destroy Prussia or to weaken it decisively. Unfortunately they didn't use the opportunity to destroy Prussia either.
The following can also be said about the video. The claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game". By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed. Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
@@GreatPolishWingedHussars Couldn’t the drop in population of Warsaw have been caused by 1. Polish public servants and officials moving out because there was no government to work for 2. Other people moving west to get a better paying job It’s „only” 100k people, maybe they just got access to the Prussian job market and left because the pay was better. Prussia was no heaven on Earth, but definitely more stable than Poland, which was devastated by civil wars and uprisings, and the Prussian king guaranteed safety of those who would become loyal Prussians.
@@billyberrington Your claims contradict historical reality! The Prussians still needed most Polish officials to govern the city. But even if all civil servants had actually left the city, it would not be a serious drop in population. Because the officials were certainly not a large population factor. It is no coincidence that woth the Prussian takeover of power the exodus of warsaw's population began. The people left the city because the economic situation became so miserable due to the Prussian rule. Yes, people probably fled there where it was better. Furthermore, it is absurd to claim that Prussia was more stable than Poland. Because that's how you can describe the alleged stability of Prussia. In the 18th century Ruled by an incompetent King Frederick II who megalomaniac led the country into the Seven Years' War. In any case, Prussia could only afford the war because of the massive financial support of the British ally. When the British stopped paying, the Prussians lost the war too. Prussia did not become a Russian puppet state only through the grace of Russia and survived this catastrophic defeat. After the war, however, the country was bankrupt. Then followed the attempt to rehabilitate the state finances, where even the currencies of other states were counterfeited. Really this criminal state ran the production of counterfeit money of other European countries. Then in the 19th, Prussia was so stable that it became a puppet state for the French. Then revolts and riots! So don't tell fairy tales about stable Prussia. Besides, your calimn regarding the loyalty of the Poles to the Prussian king is ridiculous. Poles despised and fought against the Prussians. Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Poles. ONLY ridiculous 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in in some battles. But in the end the Polish armies were defeated by the Russian superiority. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland. The Prussian occupation that changed into the German occupation was completely negative for Poland. Poland was hardly industrialized. Because of the occupation, Poland was completely backward. It is therefore amazing how quickly Poland could make up the industrialization after the occupiers were driven out. Whereby Poland was considerably damaged by the First World War. What very few know is that Poland also suffered enormous losses from WW1! Poland was ruined after World War I. The front rolled over Polish territory several times! ! Much of the heavy fighting on the war's Eastern Front took place on the territory of the future Polish state. The scorched-earth retreat strategies left much of the war zone uninhabitable. The economic damages were extreme! But also the number of dead was enormous! And from this pile of rubble, which was also divided into 3 parts, the Poles had to build a state. Poland was occupied by Russians, Austrians and Germans for over 100 years. So after the occupiers were driven out Poland was reunited from 3 parts and from 3 different parts had to be developed a united state! So Poland had to unify the disparate systems of law, economics, and administration in the former German, Austrian, and Russian sectors of Poland. There were in Poland 3 different currencies with 3 different banking systems, 3 different legal systems and 3 types of rail systems with different track widths each needing to be consolidated. 3 banking systems, 3 education systems, Also soldiers from 3 armies so the army must also be assembled from 3 different armies. There were 3 of everything etc, etc, etc....3, 3, 3, etc. Everything was available 3 times and had to be combined to a unit. So it is not surprising that because of the enormous devastation caused by the war and because the state was rebuilt from three completely different parts there were immense and massive economic problems. In Poland was also in 1923 even a hyperinflation. This hyperinflation was then successfully fought by the ingenious Polish National Democratic Prime Minister Władysław Grabski with a Currency reform and other very sensible measures. By the way, in this situation Poland won several wars caused by the fact that virtually all Poland's borders were disputed. But the war that Poland also waged against the Bolsheviks was not only a border conflict, but also the prevention of the conquest of Poland by the communists. Poland won this various war despite the fact that the Polish army had huge problems because the Polish army emerged from the 3 armies of the former occupiers of Poland. So the Polish army had weapons and equipment from these 3 armies. In addition, the British, French and Americans also supplied weapons and equipment. Poland also bought weapons and equipment from other countries. So the Polish Army used rifles manufactured in six countries, each using different ammunition. It was no different with artillery. Poland also produced its own weapons and equipment. For example, the Poles built an armored car from the Ford T. Although Poland also use other armored cars. That was very useful. In fact, the Polish Army used this armored car for blitzkrieg attacks against the Bolsheviks. Anyone who thinks that the Germans invented the Blitzkrieg with armored vehicles is wrong. The Polish Army had successfully used this tactic against the Bolsheviks with rapidly advancing armored cars clearing the way for the rapidly following infantry. But in fact, just 10 years after gaining independence, Poland exported various industrial products such as civil and military aircraft, locomotives and tanks. What few people know is that Poland was actually on the same technological level as Germany when Germany raided Poland in 1939. The were irrelevant to the war in 1939. One could also see that in the weapons technology. Poland didn't lose the war because Polish weapons were worse, but because Poland had fewer weapons. So it wasn't the quality that was the problem, it was the quantity. Poland has not rearmed as etremely as Germany has, because Poland has relied on the French and British allies. Little did the Poles know that these nefarious allies would betray Poland so cowardly in 1939 and would not attack in the west as agreed with Poland. In terms of weapons relevant to the war, Poland was certainly not technologically inferior. Even the ridiculed Polish fighter planes were not as bad as is always claimed. Although th Polish fighter planes were slower than German but the Polish were significantly more manoeuvrable. The Polish bomber PZL P-37 Łoś for example was one of the most advanced bombers then operational in the world and significantly better than comparable German bombers. Poland actually exported such bombers before the war, which turned out to be a mistake, because Poland, like of all weapons, had too few bombers compared to the Germans. In conclusion, it should be noted that Poland has achieved great successes in industrializaGermans were technologically far superior only in the navy and rocket construction, but these technologies tion what should have been mentioned in the video and why the Polish economy was so backward in 1918 but was no longer so in 1939.
@@GreatPolishWingedHussars still bitter over the partitions of Poland huh. Also, one doesn't get the epithet "the great" for being an incompetent idiot.
The balance of power was already a thing for at leat 200 years by that point, which is exactly why the Napoleonic wars were so shocking at the time : the balance of power was fully broken. France was already the strongest player in Europe for a while (notably because it was the most populated in western Europe by a massive margin and was very rich), but for the most part it was kept it check because of the balance of power, meaning it couldn't really expand much and every war it was a part on, there would be many nations going against it to try to hamper it. The revolution completely broke that shackle as now, the most populated country in Europe started mass mobilizing whenever it was at war, and with some great generals at the helm it also performed exceptionally well on the battlefield, then add in that Napoleon's plan to stop getting attacked over and over again by coalitions was "just conquer the ones who attack you, that way they can't declare war on you anymore" and you have the recipe for one of the most cataclysmic shake up of European geopolitics imaginable.
Yes you ask the question just as wrong as the title of the video! The claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game". By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed. Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
The claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game". By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed. Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
A video about Sweden during the Nepolianic Wars, why Charles John was chosen as crown prince, the Trachenberg Plan, and why the aftermath caused neutrality as the preferred policy up to Russia Ukraine War would be interesting
At 2:06. That bit of western German land that Prussia gained in exchange for Poland was, well, EXTREMELY important. It contains the Ruhr Valley, which was so rich in coal and iron ore that that was where the Ruhr industrial complex had exploded onto the economic scene starting in the 1840s. The Polish lands that Prussia lost to gain the Ruhr, and the rest of North Rhine-Westphalia as well as the Saarland, were definitely far less well-endowed in terms of taxpayer population and crucial natural resources like iron and coal. (The Austrians, by the way, had captured the good, resource-rich Polish lands around Krakow, so Prussia could not benefit there either if it had kept its share of Polish lands.) It was the Ruhr industrial complex that allowed Prussia to then militarily beat the Austrians in 1866 and then the French in 1871. So all in all, the Prussians got a GREAT deal from this swap of land that Russia sanctioned.
@@gamerdrache2.02 the Silesian war took place a hundred years before the Austro-Prussian war in 1866. At this point there was no industrialization yet.
that is more because of the name though. The actual core area was Brandenburg and the later intermariage with the Hohenzollern family led to the duchy of Prussia to become a part of Brandenburg which later renamed itself to Brandenburg-Prussia, then only Prussia.
@@Osterochse Wanted to underline the same, it was Brandenburg who did the heavy lifting, the name change was due to the fact Prussia was outside the HRE and the Elector Prince could style himself King.
I would like to use the occasion to talk about the republic of cracow. between 1815 - 1846 the city of cracow was a somewhat independent city under joined control of Austria, Prussia and Russia. Afer the cracow uprising Austria annexed the city and it remained a part of the Habsburg empire until the end of the first world war. So there was a a tiny somewhat independent polish state existing even after the napoleonic wars.
It is an illusion to describe the city of Kraków and its surroundings as an independent polish state! By the way, the claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game". By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed. Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
@@GreatPolishWingedHussars bro, none of the countries was able to annex the commonwealth on their own. This disaster happened purely due to the collusion of all 3 countries. It should also not be forgotten that the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was an extremely weak state, ever since the "Swedish flood". After him, it was already impossible to restore the country. In my opinion, everything went wrong when the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth divided the Cossack state with the Muscovites, instead of negotiating with them)
@@kaseta7752 What you claim is wrong because it contradicts the historical facts. Because only the Russians were the empire that defeated Poland in the wars before and during the partition of Poland. The Polish Bar Confederation's War of 1768-1772 was only against Russia. As the name suggests, the Polish-Russian War of 1792 was only a war of Poland against Russia. As the battles show, the Polish Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 was primarily a war of Poland against Russia. The Prussians were only involved in a few battles of the Kościuszko Uprising, and with comparatively few troops. The Greater Poland Uprising (1794), which actually took place parallel to the Kościuszko Uprising, was directed against the Prussians, but in fact the Prussians would have lost this war against the Polish troops without the support of the Russian Empire. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bydgoszcz in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. A large part of Prussian troops was captured there. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Polanders had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. The fact that the Russians were also decisive in this uprising also showed that on November 17, 1794, the last Polish insurgent units in central Poland capitulated to the Russians at Radoszyce and not to the Prussians. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. If Prussia had been a great power, Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. Even in these wars, Austria was completely meaningless, because Austria could only hold the relatively small Polish territories anyway because of Russian strength. In any case, the Polish resistance shows that Poland was weakened at the time but certainly not completely defenseless as is always claimed, because Poland was able to set up armies that were also able to win the battles against the Russians. Unfortunately, Russia was too strong, so Poland was destroyed. Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Polish-Russian War of 1792 and in the Kosciuszko Uprising of 1794 in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire. Your claim is also wrong that Poland was decisively weakened because of the so-called "Deluge" of 1655-1660, so that Poland later dommed as a result. In addition, the naming of this catastrophe is also incorrect as only Swedish "Deluge", because Poland was actually attacked from all directions and not only from the north. Because Russia also attacked from the east. From the south, Transylvania attacked Poland with the support of Moldavia and Wallachia. In the west, even the German small state of Brandenburg took the opportunity to attack too. In addition, Poland was attacked from the inside by the Cossack uprising. Despite the immense damage caused by these various wars, Poland has recovered from this blow, as evidenced by the victories of Polish King John III Sobieski 20 years later. Poland's downfall began only after the death of the great Polish king, John III Sobieski, in the early 18th century. In the early 18th century this completely incompetent king from Saxony Augustus II who was elected as Polish King by the Polish nobility was a catastrophe for Poland. So this completely incompetent king from Saxony Augustus II dragged Poland into the Great Northern War unnecessarily. Poland was not at all prepared for such a war and this war was catastrophic for Poland. Incidentally, August II was a squanderer who threw money away on luxuries such as court balls, games and garden parties. His court gained a reputation for luxurious extravagance throughout Europe. In fact, he was the opposite of his predecessor Jan Sobieski, who was a very capable king. By the way, a native Pole! This Saxon idiot on the Polish throne was one of the was one of the reasons for poland's downfall. Then, after Augustus II, the Pole Stanislaus Leszczyński became king of Poland, but unfortunately he was deposed in favor of Augustus III, who was just as incompetent. His son Augustus III was no better suited to be king of Poland either. Throughout his reign, Augustus III was known for being more interested in pleasure than in the affairs of state. Above all, he probably wanted to be a patron of the arts and not a king, because the administration of the kingdom did not interest him. This fool also waged a war for which he was not equipped at all. So in summary one can say that these two Saxon failures on the Polish throne were a double misfortune for Poland and were among the reasons why Poland doomed. Stanislaus Leszczyński proved his skills and intelligence as Duke of Lorraine. In 1750 he founded both the Académie de Stanislas and the Bibliothèque municipale de Nancy in Lorraine. He corresponded with Rousseau, among others. He also published Głos wolny wolność ubezpieczający, one of the most important political treatises of the Polish Enlightenment. One thing is certain, if the capable Jakob Sobieski and Stanislaus Leszczyński had become kings of Poland instead of the two incompetent Saxon stupid Augustus II and III, Poland would not have perished. During this period of these two completely incompetent Kings on the Polish throne, Russia then gained ever stronger influence in Poland and used this influence to further weaken Poland. Therefore, by the end of the 18th century, Poland was too weak to repel the Russian takeover of Poland. By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia or Austria at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be.
The Rhineland was around half Catholic half Protestant. Westphalia on the other hand was majority Catholic (most of it was part of the Prince-Bishopric of Munster.
If anyone is curious and wants to find out more about the post-Napoleonic border disputes and negotiations, Historia Civilis has a great video series on the Congress of Vienna.
hope this is better than this video! The claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game". By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed. Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
I could be wrong, but I think it was because Sweden had previously owned the area and the Finnish people there were used to Swedish law rather than Russian law.
Probably because they didn't want to fight rebellions so close to the Empire's capital. Also, the Finnish never had a state to call their own at the time, unlike Poland, so Nationalism wasn't as strong of a force to cause rebellions.
Okay, hear me out here, I've got an idea. I know it would take a lot of work, but I would love to see some kind of character creator that fans of your channel could use to make their own memes. I particularly want to make one of the dancing through fields of daisies scenes at 2:05.
The duchy of Warsaw was a French satellite state, so nowadays it is not really considered by Poles as "the first independent Polish state since partitions". Pretty much the same goes for the so called Congress Kingdom, which was established later and was kind of separate but still subject to Russian Tzar.
Only that the Congress of Poland was de facto really independent. It could effectively do whatever it wanted so long as it did not oppose the Russian Empire itself. Yes on paper the Tsar was the official ruler but in practice it was effectively independent. That changed in 1831 however.
@@dwarow2508 In theory. As Poles from that time would say "Konstytucja na stole, bat pod stołem" - eng. "Constitution on the table, whip under the table". It meant that while in theory Poland was independent - Russians still did as they pleased very often completly disregarding Polish freedoms granted by relatively liberal constitution. After the 1830 uprising, the saying switched to "Bat na stole, konstytucja pod stołem", refering to open violence and repression of that time.
@@MaximoRaider Only that in theory Poland was not independent. It was a subject of the Tsar. But in practice it was very much independent. It could do whatever it wanted and had it's own state with an own government, constitution etc. The Russians before 1831 did not deny the Poles any freedom at all. The only thing was foreign policy. The Russians did not opress the Poles or denied them any freedom until after the Polish uprising of 1830
Can you do one on why Poland's borders changed só much before & after World War II? Obv I know the direct reason (Stalin & Churchill playing paint-by-numbers), but like what were the underlying reasons for wanting the earlier versus later maps? What demographic, irredentist, economic, security, & other justifications were there for Poland's borders from 1919-1939 compared to 1945-present?
The 1919 German-Polish border generally followed the ethnic composition (though only approximately, in order to avoid having West Prussia look like a piece of Swiss cheese). But before Poland's *eastern* border could be decided, Russia invaded. Poland ended up winning that war, allowing it to annex territory with significant Ukrainian and Belarusian populations.
@@danielbishop1863 Swiss cheese is putting it midly, however the borders also included some very clearly geopolitical choices beyond demographics such as the question of an independent Free City of Danzig which was ethnically Prussian (German)
What is there not to understand? The Soviets expanded the soviet union in 1945 at Poland's expense in order to increase their own sphere of power and weaken Poland. Previously, the Poles conquered these areas during the Polish Bolshevik War in 1919-22. The Poles wanted these areas to strengthen the Polish state and because millions of Poles lived there. By the way, the claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game". By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed. Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
@@GreatPolishWingedHussars man you really hate Prussia, don’t you? Fact is that the decisive battles of Leipzig and Waterloo were won thanks to Prussia. Without the Prussian troops and Blücher, Napoleon would’ve won both of them, that’s a completely uncontroversial fact. Prussia also won pretty much all wars in its 300 years of history, most notably the Great northern war, the 7-years war, the liberation wars, the German danish wars, and the Prussian Austrian war. All this despite being a relatively small state with a small population.
Before the Vienna Congress, Prussia really wasn't all that German. Seeing as they ended up uniting Germany half a century later, I suppose they made the right call giving up some Polish territories.
the funny thing is that they had to be forced by other powers to do so. it is important to understand that nationalisms wasn't a fully established concept at this point in history and there was no reason why someone who spoke a different language can't rule another country. That was actually quite common in european history.
@@Osterochse To add to this "deutsch" (aka what Germans call themselves) literally means "commoner" aka language of the common people. Until the French Revolution it was normal for the German nobility to be unable to speak any German and they activly avoided learning it. After the French abolished absolutism, speaking French fell out of fashion among the absolutistic German nobility and they ended up learning and speaking German instead.
Polish history must be amazing to learn. We have so little to talk about in America we learn about our Revolution in 6 different grade levels (at least where I went to school)
If you like listening to podcasts I can recommend the special "A brief history of Poland" episodes of the Notes from Poland Podcast by Stanley Bill (most of the regular episodes are about current politics and kinda less fun) and the History of Poland Podcast by Trevor Gilbert, which is more in-depth but also a bit amateurish (but it gets better as it goes). BTW while you were learning about the American Revolution 6 times, was Tadeusz (Thaddeus) Kościuszko mentioned at least once?
You can look pretty much anywhere on earth & the history will be much longer than the curriculum of the US, mainly because it's a settler colony & as such fundamentally cuts any ties with the political entities that existed there prior to the US. Any history course of the US could only possibly go farther back in time either via the history of various cultures in the Americans, or the histories of the places people migrated or were displaced away from be it Europe or Africa or Asia.
Thank you for the positive rating of the Polish history! By the way, the claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game". By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed. Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
The wacky and complex back-and-fourth between the great powers on both sides after the War is something that's often under-discussed. The winners of the war all had different interests and weren't really allies.
That's right but only 3 powers were decisive. These were the British Empire, the Russian Empire and the French Empire, which then lost its status as an empire! All others were but pawns in the sile of these three powers in thie wars. By the way, the claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game". By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed. Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
@@Theworldsucks-kg5jv Swedish rule over Finland ended in 1809. I am no expert on the Napoleonic wars, but as far as I can tell, the war of the fourth coalition took place in 1806-1807? Also, the Swedish king portrayed in the video is Gustav IV Adolf, i.e. the king who was forced to abdicate after the loss of Finland. And the video states that Napoleon was defeated "7 years later" (after the defeat of the fourth coalition), which happened in 1814.
No, this is not a good video like unfortunately many videos related to Polish history are not good. The claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game". By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed. Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
@@GreatPolishWingedHussars So what you are trying to say is Prussia only took small parts of Poland is because if it took more, it couldn't control it.
@@Eed-gr5mr Well, I reported on the historical fact that without Russia, Prussia could not have annexed any Polish territories at all! The Russian Empire would not have permitted any further Polish territories for the Prussians.
@@Eed-gr5mr Oh man the Great Northern was in the early 18th century and the Polish war against Russia I was talking about was in the late 18th century. So at the time Poland was certainly not weakened by the Great Northern War. But Poland was weakened by other factors. But, as I have already established, Poland was still able to mobilize a relatively large and powerful armies. But because of the weakening, Poland was just too weak to defeat Russia. But Poland's strength would have been enough to to fight back the Prussians.
It is worth to mention that the duchy of Warsaw expanded in a war with Austria regaining the territories from the 3rd partition without the help of the french troops
i spotted a mistakes at 0:05 spain wasn't on side of napoleon cuz peninsular war and sicily wasn't occupied by napoleon and also denmark was on side of napoleon
Technically Spain was on Napoleons side cause of his brother being named king and his brother did have support and Sicily is a different shade of blue so that means it’s not an occupied territory
I will never get over your reading of your supporters at the end! 💕💕💕💋🌠💖 Pluss, I love your narration of the facts. Great for such a short vid even if you can't get everything.🤷😎😆😆😆💋💋⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Prussia: So um can I have Poland back. Russia: Mmm let me think abo- No. Prussia: Whelp I tried. Russia: But I can help you gain some German speaking land westward now that the Hold Roman Empire, which was neither Holy, nor Roman nor an Empire, has finally dissolved. Prussia: You lose some you gain some. Deal.
Now let's be honest here, I feel like another Big reason in this Border Change is that Prussia's Previous Borders looked Way too Ugly and those new ones looked much more better, so I feel like a favor was done to us in the End by not having to look at that aberration of a Pre-Napoleonic border anymore
I wouldn’t hold my breath for 10-minute videos making a comeback. He made it clear that he switched to shorter videos because the ten-minute ones were too hard to produce at the pace he wanted to maintain.
Here’s a question I asked myself and I thought you might be able to tackle it, even if it’s a bit hard, what was the world’s reaction to the fall of Babylon?
@@johnpatrickcosta52 Well, there was hardly a world back then tbh. Just isolated city states that barely knew of each other's existence. So I'm not sure if the question is even valid 😅
@@feynstein1004 I’m sure there was some reaction, Places like Greece weren’t far off and they’d heard how Persia had conquered Lydia, and merchants can travel far, and the nearby Egypt would be close enough to hear about it, I think it’s possible some states had a reaction
@@johnpatrickcosta52 Ahaha fair enough but that's what I was trying to say. Some states =/= the world. Or at least not the world as we know it today. History is very time and location-sensitive.
I love your short stories, but as Pole i know about this one enough to think you oversimplified and missed fiew important facts. Great Britain was afraid France will try to take over Europe once again, so they wanted to make as many strong nations around their borders as possible, to prevent that from happening. This is mostly why Netherland and Piemond gained that much land. Prussia was another one of those nations, so GB wanted them to have land border with France. That worked well with Russian and Prussian plans you mentioned - Prussia wanting to be stronger in Germany and Russia wanting Poland. Prussia during congress of Vienna was promised very early to have "17 milion souls" to protect from France, and since there wasnt any mentioning where they would gain that much people, they started propagaiting on gaining rich west germany with no ethnical issues over poor Poland full of Poles.
2:06 not really a replacement with protestant Germans... The Rhineland was and is a catholic region which even formed their own political movement during the Revolution of 48/49 (Political Catholicism) and were fought against by Prussian government or officials in their influence by for example Bismarck.
It’s good to point out that after Napoleon was defeated, the great powers of Europe (specially Great Britain) decided that Poland should continue to exist, however be dependent on other states. This is why u had Congress Poland (named after the Congress of Vienna and controlled by Russia through a personal Union), Grand Duchy of Posen (Grand duke was the Kaiser), and the Free city of Kraków (which on paper was independent, however was heavily influenced by all three powers especially Austria. The idea was that while Poland was wiped off the map after 1795, it should re-emerge as dependent state and not independent. PS: history matters mention that Poland regained independence after Napoleon created the Duchy of Warsaw. However it was very dependent on Napoleon, he didn’t even put a Pole on the throne but gave it back the Saxon monarchs who ruled before.
The British wanted a Polish state to weaken Russia. but in fact, the establishment of a Polish state failed because Congress Poland was in fact part of the Russian Empire. By the way, the claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game". By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed. Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
Your videos are just great! Would you kindly create some content on the ethnic germans at the volga or in Bessarabia? Something like 'What happended to the german settlers in Russia?'
A video on Germans in the east could be several hours long if it did the topic justice - which I would absolutely like to see. It's a complex history going far beyond those 2 areas, beyond late-settlers, beyond the Russian Empire & even beyond the question of German linguistics as to what it means to be German or speak what kind of German language.
Catherine the Great, who was ethically German invited Germans to settle the vast lands of Russia. Stalin sent most of them to either the Gulag during WWII or to East Germany after the war.
*VIDEO SUGGESTION:* After World War II why did The Western Allies allow The Soviets to expell The Germans from The Sudetenland, East Prussia and in what's now Western Poland?
Because german minorities in other countries were seen as one of roots causes of WW2. Also post ww1 idea of adjusting borders to people was seen as failed one, so they adjusted people to borders instead.
2:35 it's kinda hard to say the Kingdom of Poland was an independent state even then. Our King was the Tzar of Russia who did what he wanted, not what was written in the constitution.
that is also my opinion. i really don't think that this should be called an independent country. It was dependent for sure, maybe semi-autonomous. I wonder the same for congress Poland though. Was this state actually independent? Could it make decisions that were against the napoleonic system? I suppose that it might have independent more on paper, but was effectively a french vassel, like any other european country at that point.
@@Osterochse Congress Poland was the Kingdom of Poland, The Duchy of Warsaw was a semi French Client state like our Constitution was based on theirs (which might have been a good thing idk)
Does anyone know a good source of Prussian history? Specifically West Prussia as well East Prussia. My ancestors lived in West Prussia for a while and from the limited research I've done, that is where my family name originates. I have found it very difficult to find anything other than nobility info and wars they conducted. It would be cool see actual maps of the areas, industries conducted, and learn more of what life was like then and there.
@@Osterochse That's part of the problem. I'm only fluent in English. Conversationally I can speak Plautdietsch, I can sort of understand written Plautdietsch. I've been mainly using google translate to read standard german materials but I haven't found many.
You actually missed out on some great and fairly absurd complexity here. While Prussia accepted the loss of the Polish territories, it did not want more territories in the west. This was because this would create a border with France (which was exactly why the UK and Austria insisted on Prussia gaining the land). Instead, Prussia annex the more proximate Saxony. This led to a crisis that almost resulted in a war between the UK, Austria, and France on one side and Prussia and Russia on the other during the Congress of Vienna.
I think he did a video on it before hand.
A fellow history civilis watcher?
@@dapperbunch5029 No, I was
I read about it in a book back in the day. Mark Jarrett's "The Congress of Vienna and its Legacy" to be precise.
@@paranoidandroid6095 Britain and Austria thought that Prussia would not be a reliable partner against France unless it actually shared a border with France. Prussia was not particularly keen on being that at the time, although it would later become quite fond of fighting the French.
@@paranoidandroid6095 france had just prior conquered europe and needed a huge ass coalition to beat. I wouldnt want a border with france remembering that :p
Poland’s history is one hell of a rollercoaster for sure.
Nah, its just that period when we created democracy and everyone else was building monarch empires.
And this video doesn't even cover 1%
Poland's history: You exist. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do. No, you don't. Yes, you do.
And to think that Poland helped save Europe from the Turks a couple centuries earlier.
Yes. And this is one of the reasons why it's very interesting.
One thing I really appreciate about your channel is that you take the time to accurately depict lesser-known historical figures even if they show up briefly, like General Barclay de Tolly and Casimir the Great at 1:42
But I don't appreciate the nonsense being spread.The claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game".
By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed.
Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
So true, Billy. I didn't know you studied Russian history. I like learning about Russian figures of foreign origin who eventually assimilated and even converted to Orthodoxy
@@GreatPolishWingedHussars tldr?
@@thelonelyghostN So what?
@@GreatPolishWingedHussars no im asking for a tldr
As a Polish person I'd like to say that the creation of the Duchy of Warsaw is one of the reasons why we in Poland tend to like Napoleon up to this day which sometimes surprises foreigners quite a bit. Nevertheless, calling it an "independent Polish state" is an overstatement. It was rather France's puppet state dependent on her in many ways, not an actual independent country which can have its own military and foreign policy. Even French language was one of the two official languages of the duchy next to Polish (and French is not one of our native tongues here).
Didn't he faff about letting the Poles put their own head of state in place before finally settling on someone who's last name was "Napoleon"?
From the very little I know of this it was that point the Polish troops attitude towards him changed.
As a French, I also thought poles likes napoleon because of duchy of Warsaw indeed and because of Napoleon first natural child was with a polish woman 👩 😀
去1
Pupet state. Like after ww2
I'm glad I'm not the only one who balked at the Duchy of Warsaw being called "independent".
HELL YES. As a Polish person, I've always wondered what that was about. Textbooks would always show Prussia gaining a certain amount of land in the Partitions but after the Napoleonic wars the border mysteriously changed with no explanation. Thank you for this video.
same here, and a similar thing happened to a part of Austrian chunk of Poland, my town was Austrian before Duchy of Warsaw and after it became Russian, so it didn't return to Austrian Empire neither
Tak samo.
I noticed that study books tend to not talk about gaining territories. As a russian I didn't learn from study book that we gained Polish territories that were in fact Prussian after Napoleonic wars
@@filoreykjavik both Austria and Prussia lost lands to the duchy during the napoleonic era. Most of it except for pozen and Cracow was given to Russia since they were the ones to conquer Poland
@@Xeem_Pad this might sound a little out of the blue but how is the war being perceived over there? Western media is really biased. Has your economy actually collapsed? Are there fears of a coup/ revolution or loss to Ukraine/ the west?
As a Swede, with a Grandmother from what used to be Prussia, and great-grandparents from Poland and Lithuania it is hard for me to take sides in this.
Marry an Italian and switch sides when needed
som en svensk är det lätt att välja sida här
or blame the french
@@triglos5413 thats a good one actually 🗿
The morally correct side is Poland Lithuania
I like how Napoleon making a point that "Poles exist" appeared to shock the person he was having a talk with.
Russian moment
They couldn't clearly explain that they'd agreed to never speak of it again in a previous secret treaty.
Yes, it was probably either a Russian, an Austrian or a Prussian who was shocked about the existence of Poland. By the way, the claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game".
By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed.
Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
Well, that was something who actually did happen in 1813, however it must be pointed who what Russia Austria And Prussia did in Poland was not short of Genocide. (not only in 1939)
This is the tsar. After the Napoleonic Wars, some Russian nobles was hated Alexander for giving autonomy to Poland under Russian empire and giving them a constitution. In youth, before accession to the throne, Alexander thought to restore Poland and thanks to this he became friends with Adam Czartoryski, a Polish aristocrat who would lead the Polish uprising in the future, but at that time Alexander would already be dead and his brother Nicholas 1 would rule.
The Polish question became a factor in the decisive rupture of the Franco-Russian alliance. Because of the rumors spread by the Poles in the Duchy of Warsaw, there was a misunderstanding and Russia thought that Napoleon was planning to restore Poland. But it wasn't. Napoleon did not want this until the moment he invaded Russia. Alexander, even after statements about unwillingness to restore Poland, did not trust Napoleon. He needed a written statement that Poland would NEVER be restored, but Napoleon could not promise this, because it did not depend on him. He will not restore Poland, someone else will restore it, and he will not affect it in any way. But Napoleon could agree to make such a promise if Alexander agreed to marry his younger sister to him, but he refused. Alexander's family was radically against this marriage, because there was no guarantee that Napoleon's empire would last long.
Also, it's worth to emphasize that Prussia haven't hold these lands vor very long it the first place. The Congress of Vienna was supposed to theoretically operate on the principle of restoring Europe to roughly the state before the French Revolution. In 1792 (when the Revolution was already going for a couple of years) there was still a quite chunky Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth on the map. This undermined somewhat Prussian claims to the territories acquired in the second and especially the third partition.
Also, I think that this kinda helped Russia gain those territories, as both them, and Poles argued that Poland was still a country before the French Revolution (though with two different interests in mind), and as such, should be reestablished
That was the excuse not the reason Russia even got to keep Finland FFS
And the British public opinion was sympathetic to the Polish cause, so the government had to at least pretend to be also (beyond their usual concerns about the "balance of power" on the continent). The channel Historia Civilis not long ago made a great mini series about the Congress of Vienna, explaining a lot of these complexities.
I also like to think that the fact that Polish troops showed themselves as quite a formidable fighting force for Napoleon had some influence on all of this.
I know the claims for the reason Poland was carved up was that its reformers had met with some people in Paris and Prussia, Austria, and Russia were supposedly fearful that the reformers would seed the French Revolution outside of France. That sound logical on paper, but I have a hard time believing this wasn't a fig leaf just to cover up carving up Poland. As you said this somewhat Prussian claims to the territories acquired in the second and especially the third partition.
@@alex_zetsu Oh yes, I agree that the attempts to justify the vivisection of the Commonwealth by linking the reforms in it to "Jacobinism" did happen and were flimsy at best but I meant something different. If the Congress was supposed to rearrange Europe with the alleged goal to restore it to how it "supposed to be", before all of the bloody mess of the previous 25 years or so, then the question aroused: "Does it mean that Poland could or even _should_ be restored in some form?". Because Poland definitely was there 20 years before, and has been for centuries.
1:15 "The first reason being the most obvious, Sweden." I genuinely burst out laughing, was not expecting that
Pee pee shape
“Napoleon’s Adventures Across Europe” definitely deserves its own Saturday morning cartoon series.
It's amazing how much historic information you're able to teach in just three minutes. If our schools taught this way we would all be amazingly smart. Keep up the awesome work!
@Jack Wrath you literally got 0 content on your fucking channel
@Jack Wrath We don't watch gay porn.
Why would your school need to teach this you?
That would make no sense unless you live in Germany or Poland
@@balabanasireti Gee, I don't know, to be a more well rounded person?
@balabanasireti So everyone can care about the worlds past and future a lot more.
Your pace of delivery is incredible! I had to watch and carefully listen twice to grab the full story.
Compliments for the video,
Regards,
Anthony
There were actually more wheels within wheels in Prussian expansion post 1815. The Rhineland territories were part of the Duchy of Cleve which the Prussians claimed via dynastic inheritance. That led eventually to the Prussian Danish War, the Prussian Austrian War and the Prussian France War, as all three enabled Prussia to link Prussia proper to the western half. Hanover was swallowed by Prussia during these maneuvers, which History Matters has recently alluded too.
That was the Franco-German War, as the Germans correctly call thsi war, because the Prussians only dared to wage this war in alliance with various other German small states. Just as it is nonsense to call the Franco-German War as the Prussian-Franco War in English, are also the claims made in this video nonsense and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game".
By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed.
Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
Not gonna read all of that
@@henrypucci2738 In short: Typical polish ultra-nationalist on the internet that tries re-write history. Also he's a racist.
This channel is the proof that Kids want to learn in the school but schools don't know the right way to teach kids. Literally it would be so cool if you were my history teacher @
I think it's got a lot to do with the fact that you're actively looking for this while school is thrust upon you "against your will"
lmao nice try
What you gonna do, give me free robux?
@Jack Wrath You do not even have content bot
For me, most of the issues when I was at school was taking notes (this was before cheap laptops), and testing of the material. I hated social studies (precursor to history) because of that, even though the actual content was interesting to me.
Anyway, this channel shows that not every video on UA-cam about Polish history is good! Because the claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game".
By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed.
Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
Austrians also lost some of the territories they acquired through taking part in the dismemberment of Poland. The land which the Duchy of Warsaw gained in 1809 was also given to Russia, becoming part of the Kingdom of Poland, except for Kraków (Cracow), which became the _Free, Independent, and Strictly Neutral City of Cracow with its Territory_ or the Cracow Republic for short. De facto it was an Austrian protectorate and got annexed in 1846.
So Austria effectively lost the Polish city of Kraków and its environs for only a short time. But in 1918 the Austrians lost all of the Polish territories when the Polish state was re-established. By the way, the claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game".
By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed.
Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
@@GreatPolishWingedHussars The war with the otomans had alrredy ended while the invasion of 1812 was ongoing also your claims that only Rusia and the uk are relevant for the war are just stupid.
The russian army did amacing no doubt but for 1813 it was spent and the french had raised another half a million men that repulsed the russo prussian forces althouth they didnt win a masive victory.
The participation of Austria with its fresh army and in a much lesser extent the prussians was vital for the succes of the 6° coalition.
Your vision seems too rusian biased to say the least
@@blecao Your talk about the war against the Ottomans shows that you have no idea. I never claimed that the Ottomans were relevant in the Napoleonic wars. The rest of your talk is nonsense too, as it is a historical fact that the British and Russians were the key empires in the fight against the French Empire. The British and Russians were the only undefeated. All others were defeated by the French.
@@GreatPolishWingedHussars undefeated dont make me laugth
Rusia lost on 1805 and on 1807 surrendered being forced into an aliance with the french
The british yes they didnt surrendered but motly due to the royal navy becouse they had a lot of defeats beung only saved due to that
The helder expedition or the walcheren expedition being the first 2 that come to mind
@@blecao Yes, the Russians and British were so defeated and lands were occupied. But no, the French failed to occupy either Russia nor Great Britain. Therefore Russia and Great Britain were undefeated, because all other nations were defeated and occupied by the French. When the French tried to occupy Moscow they failed and that was actually a decisive defeat at the hands of the Russians, who were smarter than Napoleon. France was actually the stronger empire, but France failed because of Napoleon's wrong decisions. These are historical facts that the French failed in the fight against the British and Russians
because all the others were defeated by the French beforehand.
This is way oversimplified, but the Treaty of Vienna isn't something you can untangle easily in less than 4 minutes...
Since history matters only create short history video, i wouldn't imagine him doing longer videos
@@yourroyalchungusness Yeah imagine him doing like... a 10 minutes video. What a wild world that would be to live in
@@abdulmasaiev9024 ahhh the good old days...
He's getting lazier, it's a shame.
You mean probably theTreaty of Vienna of 9 June 1815, (also known as the "Final Act of the Congress of Vienna"), embodying all the separate treaties agreed at the Congress. The notice is necessary because the treaty of Vienna (1815) can refer to several different treaties. So you actually mean that the Congress of Vienna isn't something one can untangle easily in less than 4 minutes. But you're wrong, because the Congress of Vienna can be explained in just a few sentences. It is a common misconception that the Congress of Vienna should restore conditions before the French revolution. If that had been the case, then the Polish state would probably have come into being again. If that had been so, then the British and Russians would not have allowed the annexation of a large part of Saxony by Prussia. Also, there would not have been various other territorial changes of other German small states. In reality, the Congress of Vienna served to punish the allied napoleons. For example, Denmark had to cede Norway to Sweden because of its support for Napoleon. But above all, the Congress of Vienna served to gain potential allies for the British and Russians, since both powers knew that the next conflict for supremacy would be Russia against the British. For all these reasons, the political situation after the Napoleonic wars was very different from that before the French reavolution.
By the way, regarding the video, the following criticism is appropriate. The claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game".
By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed.
Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
If you want a more complex analysis on this topic I would definitely recommend Historia Civilis’ videos on the Congress of Vienna as those go far more in depth into why Prussia gave up those lands.
Those Congress of Vienna videos are peak history media.
Such good videos.
Prussia gave up nothing! The British and the Russians decided what Prussia had to give up. Like your claim is nonsense are also the claims made in this video ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game".
By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed.
Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
@@GreatPolishWingedHussars Prussia did annex all of poland and all of the powers at be at the time (Russia, Austria and Prussia agreed to this so I really don’t see your point here. Sure while it is true that Britain, Russia and Austria were the real players in deciding what Prussia had to give up, that doesn’t mean that Prussia had no say. Prussia was very much a great power and had a formidable army. You can say that they lost to Napoleon but that’s because he was Napoleon nobody in mainland Europe could beat him, Russia only managed to turn the tide because they had nature and attrition on their side NOT AT ALL because their army was better. The only advantage the Russians had over the Prussians were numbers. Prussia was weak because it didn’t have a large population to get soldiers from. While most of your claims about Russia being in the best position to take poland are true that doesn’t mean that prussia was irrelevant especially since they would go on to form Germany which caused the collapse of the Russian monarchy in WW1, 100 years after the events of this video.
@@coltonsupergame Even if you repeat this nonsense a hundred times, it won't come true! No, Prussia did not annex all of Poland, but a comparatively small part of Poland. That's why the title of the video is nonsense too! Prussia was not a great power, the great powers are not puppet states of France like Prussia became such a puppet state of France at the beginning of the 19th century. Great powers do not have to fear for their existence after losing a war and do not survive at the mercy of other states like Prussia, after being defeated by Russia in the Seven Years' War, had to fear doom and only survived at the mercy of Russia. As for the Prussian army, that's way overestimated! These are some defeats of the Prussian armies in the 18th century. So the list of defeats starts with Battle of Cassano (1705)! The Prussians also lost the other listed battles.
Battle of Kolín 1757!
Battle of Gross-Jägersdorf 1757!
Battle of Moys 1757!
Battle of Breslau 1757!
Battle of Fehrbellin 1758
Battle of Hochkirch 1758
Battle of Kunersdorf in 1759!
Battle of Meissen 1759!
Battle of Maxen 1759!
Battle of Landeshut in 1760!
Battle of Valmy 1792
These are some defeats of the Prussian army in the 19th century.
Twin battles of Jena and Auerstedt in 1806!
Battle of Saalfeld 1806!
Battle of Luebeck 1806!
Battle of Lützen (1813)
Battle of Bautzen 1813
Battle of Dresden 1813
Battle of Brienne 1814
Battle of Montmirail (1814)
Battle of Château-Thierry 1814
Battle of Vauchamps 1814
Battle of Craonne 1814
Battle of Ligny 1815
Battle of Mysunde 1864
So the Prussian armies were the opposite of invincible and the dwarf Prussia was definitely not a great power.
By the way, so what? The French Empire was actually superior to the Russian Empire. This has nothing to do with Prussia! Because Prussia was clearly inferior to both empires. Well recognized by the way! Prussia was weak because it didn't have a large population to get soldiers from. That's the only thing that's true what you wrote! Also, it is a historical fact that Prussia was irrelavant in the wars against Poland and that Russia defeated Poland. Prussia alone would not have been able to defeat Poland at all. Incidentally, later unified Germay has nothing to do with this topic. Besides, this united state was then actually a great power, but this German state was only a great power for a ridiculous 47 years.
I've actually always wondered this. You answer another one of my questions again!
James Bisonette couldn’t negotiate the peace deal, so they had to use substandard diplomats in his place.
Not really relevant, but what's really relevant is that the claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game".
By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed.
Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
@@GreatPolishWingedHussars Least patriotic Pole:
@@SunKyne This is probably supposed to be a joke. Because it is clear that I am a Polish patriot!
@@GreatPolishWingedHussarshow long did it take for you to write that lol
@@weese200 Not particularly long! I can type quickly with 10 fingers!
The Swede saying "Hello fellow Germans" there cracks me up lol. Thanks for another fun and interesting video as always.
Merry Christmas out there everybody! ✝️🎄
But in the video, the errors are particularly interesting! So the claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game".
By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed.
Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
The fascinating part about this video is that the decision to give Prussia lands in the Rhine area instead of the polish territories actually created Germany in the long run. Prussia had now a huge incentive to connect its Eastern and Western lands and made it a driving force in somehow uniting the northern German states either by unifying them diplomatically or annexing them. If the Rhine province had never become a part of Prussia there might not have been a German unification under Prussian hegemony. The Prussian kings were never huge fans of becoming German emperors anyway. They were content with beeing Prussian kings.
You described it as if it had been something positive that a united German state had emerged. But the unification of the various small German states into a united German state was a terrible catastrophe for Europe! Actually the forerunner of the worst catastrophes of all times in the 20th century. Because without this unified Germany, neither World War I nor World War II would have happened. This united nation would not have had the opportunity to commit various genocides before WW1 and during WW2. Even if one denies the German-Austrian war guilt, the First World War would not have happened without the united German state. The result would be the same. So NO two world wars with a total of 70 million dead, NO opportunity for this united nation to commit various genocides, NO immeasurable destruction in two World Wars. The communists only became so powerful through these two world wars. So yes also NO strong communism that was able to oppress half of Europe for almost 50 years So this multiple NO regarding these various catastrophes for Europe would be the result of NO united German state of 1871. Prussia made this German state possible in the first place. That was actually the only relevant achievement by Prussia! So unfortunately, when the Poles had the opportunity to do so, they did not destroy Prussia! Too bad for Europe! Others also had the opportunity to destroy Prussia or to weaken it decisively. The French twice in the 19th century and the Russians in the 18th century had the opportunity to destroy Prussia or to weaken it decisively. Unfortunately they didn't use the opportunity to destroy Prussia either.
The following can also be said about the video. The claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game".
By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed.
Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
@@GreatPolishWingedHussars Couldn’t the drop in population of Warsaw have been caused by
1. Polish public servants and officials moving out because there was no government to work for
2. Other people moving west to get a better paying job
It’s „only” 100k people, maybe they just got access to the Prussian job market and left because the pay was better. Prussia was no heaven on Earth, but definitely more stable than Poland, which was devastated by civil wars and uprisings, and the Prussian king guaranteed safety of those who would become loyal Prussians.
@@billyberrington Your claims contradict historical reality! The Prussians still needed most Polish officials to govern the city. But even if all civil servants had actually left the city, it would not be a serious drop in population. Because the officials were certainly not a large population factor. It is no coincidence that woth the Prussian takeover of power the exodus of warsaw's population began. The people left the city because the economic situation became so miserable due to the Prussian rule. Yes, people probably fled there where it was better.
Furthermore, it is absurd to claim that Prussia was more stable than Poland. Because that's how you can describe the alleged stability of Prussia. In the 18th century Ruled by an incompetent King Frederick II who megalomaniac led the country into the Seven Years' War. In any case, Prussia could only afford the war because of the massive financial support of the British ally. When the British stopped paying, the Prussians lost the war too. Prussia did not become a Russian puppet state only through the grace of Russia and survived this catastrophic defeat. After the war, however, the country was bankrupt. Then followed the attempt to rehabilitate the state finances, where even the currencies of other states were counterfeited. Really this criminal state ran the production of counterfeit money of other European countries. Then in the 19th, Prussia was so stable that it became a puppet state for the French. Then revolts and riots! So don't tell fairy tales about stable Prussia.
Besides, your calimn regarding the loyalty of the Poles to the Prussian king is ridiculous. Poles despised and fought against the Prussians. Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Poles. ONLY ridiculous 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in in some battles. But in the end the Polish armies were defeated by the Russian superiority. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland.
The Prussian occupation that changed into the German occupation was completely negative for Poland. Poland was hardly industrialized. Because of the occupation, Poland was completely backward. It is therefore amazing how quickly Poland could make up the industrialization after the occupiers were driven out. Whereby Poland was considerably damaged by the First World War. What very few know is that Poland also suffered enormous losses from WW1! Poland was ruined after World War I. The front rolled over Polish territory several times! ! Much of the heavy fighting on the war's Eastern Front took place on the territory of the future Polish state. The scorched-earth retreat strategies left much of the war zone uninhabitable. The economic damages were extreme! But also the number of dead was enormous!
And from this pile of rubble, which was also divided into 3 parts, the Poles had to build a state. Poland was occupied by Russians, Austrians and Germans for over 100 years. So after the occupiers were driven out Poland was reunited from 3 parts and from 3 different parts had to be developed a united state! So Poland had to unify the disparate systems of law, economics, and administration in the former German, Austrian, and Russian sectors of Poland. There were in Poland 3 different currencies with 3 different banking systems, 3 different legal systems and 3 types of rail systems with different track widths each needing to be consolidated. 3 banking systems, 3 education systems, Also soldiers from 3 armies so the army must also be assembled from 3 different armies. There were 3 of everything etc, etc, etc....3, 3, 3, etc. Everything was available 3 times and had to be combined to a unit. So it is not surprising that because of the enormous devastation caused by the war and because the state was rebuilt from three completely different parts there were immense and massive economic problems. In Poland was also in 1923 even a hyperinflation. This hyperinflation was then successfully fought by the ingenious Polish National Democratic Prime Minister Władysław Grabski with a Currency reform and other very sensible measures. By the way, in this situation Poland won several wars caused by the fact that virtually all Poland's borders were disputed. But the war that Poland also waged against the Bolsheviks was not only a border conflict, but also the prevention of the conquest of Poland by the communists. Poland won this various war despite the fact that the Polish army had huge problems because the Polish army emerged from the 3 armies of the former occupiers of Poland. So the Polish army had weapons and equipment from these 3 armies. In addition, the British, French and Americans also supplied weapons and equipment. Poland also bought weapons and equipment from other countries. So the Polish Army used rifles manufactured in six countries, each using different ammunition. It was no different with artillery. Poland also produced its own weapons and equipment. For example, the Poles built an armored car from the Ford T. Although Poland also use other armored cars. That was very useful. In fact, the Polish Army used this armored car for blitzkrieg attacks against the Bolsheviks. Anyone who thinks that the Germans invented the Blitzkrieg with armored vehicles is wrong. The Polish Army had successfully used this tactic against the Bolsheviks with rapidly advancing armored cars clearing the way for the rapidly following infantry.
But in fact, just 10 years after gaining independence, Poland exported various industrial products such as civil and military aircraft, locomotives and tanks. What few people know is that Poland was actually on the same technological level as Germany when Germany raided Poland in 1939. The were irrelevant to the war in 1939. One could also see that in the weapons technology. Poland didn't lose the war because Polish weapons were worse, but because Poland had fewer weapons. So it wasn't the quality that was the problem, it was the quantity. Poland has not rearmed as etremely as Germany has, because Poland has relied on the French and British allies. Little did the Poles know that these nefarious allies would betray Poland so cowardly in 1939 and would not attack in the west as agreed with Poland. In terms of weapons relevant to the war, Poland was certainly not technologically inferior. Even the ridiculed Polish fighter planes were not as bad as is always claimed. Although th Polish fighter planes were slower than German but the Polish were significantly more manoeuvrable. The Polish bomber PZL P-37 Łoś for example was one of the most advanced bombers then operational in the world and significantly better than comparable German bombers. Poland actually exported such bombers before the war, which turned out to be a mistake, because Poland, like of all weapons, had too few bombers compared to the Germans. In conclusion, it should be noted that Poland has achieved great successes in industrializaGermans were technologically far superior only in the navy and rocket construction, but these technologies tion what should have been mentioned in the video and why the Polish economy was so backward in 1918 but was no longer so in 1939.
@@GreatPolishWingedHussars still bitter over the partitions of Poland huh. Also, one doesn't get the epithet "the great" for being an incompetent idiot.
1:17 I love your way of delivering lines like that
early 19th century Euopre is really interesting to learn. Especially the concept of 'balance of powers' after Napoleonic Wars. Thanks History Matters.
The balance of power was already a thing for at leat 200 years by that point, which is exactly why the Napoleonic wars were so shocking at the time : the balance of power was fully broken.
France was already the strongest player in Europe for a while (notably because it was the most populated in western Europe by a massive margin and was very rich), but for the most part it was kept it check because of the balance of power, meaning it couldn't really expand much and every war it was a part on, there would be many nations going against it to try to hamper it. The revolution completely broke that shackle as now, the most populated country in Europe started mass mobilizing whenever it was at war, and with some great generals at the helm it also performed exceptionally well on the battlefield, then add in that Napoleon's plan to stop getting attacked over and over again by coalitions was "just conquer the ones who attack you, that way they can't declare war on you anymore" and you have the recipe for one of the most cataclysmic shake up of European geopolitics imaginable.
Me, who's never thought about land losses in the Napoleonic Wars, not ever, "good question, why did they lose Poland."
@Jack Wrath Tell me when you you post your first video, and i'll think about it.
Don't care
Yes you ask the question just as wrong as the title of the video! The claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game".
By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed.
Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
I was literally just asking myself that. Great content as usual.
I've wondered about this for a while. Thanks for making a video on it.
The claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game".
By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed.
Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
Same
You made me to love history , great video .
A video about Sweden during the Nepolianic Wars, why Charles John was chosen as crown prince, the Trachenberg Plan, and why the aftermath caused neutrality as the preferred policy up to Russia Ukraine War would be interesting
At 2:06. That bit of western German land that Prussia gained in exchange for Poland was, well, EXTREMELY important. It contains the Ruhr Valley, which was so rich in coal and iron ore that that was where the Ruhr industrial complex had exploded onto the economic scene starting in the 1840s. The Polish lands that Prussia lost to gain the Ruhr, and the rest of North Rhine-Westphalia as well as the Saarland, were definitely far less well-endowed in terms of taxpayer population and crucial natural resources like iron and coal. (The Austrians, by the way, had captured the good, resource-rich Polish lands around Krakow, so Prussia could not benefit there either if it had kept its share of Polish lands.) It was the Ruhr industrial complex that allowed Prussia to then militarily beat the Austrians in 1866 and then the French in 1871. So all in all, the Prussians got a GREAT deal from this swap of land that Russia sanctioned.
prussia alsso beat asutria cause of silesia because it had very much uron and steel and coal too
@@gamerdrache2.02 the Silesian war took place a hundred years before the Austro-Prussian war in 1866. At this point there was no industrialization yet.
@@Osterochse it was still one of the most important states of germany
Best thing is that whole existence of Prussia is due to some Polish Duke inviting German Teutons there in the XIII century 😅
that is more because of the name though. The actual core area was Brandenburg and the later intermariage with the Hohenzollern family led to the duchy of Prussia to become a part of Brandenburg which later renamed itself to Brandenburg-Prussia, then only Prussia.
@@Osterochse
Wanted to underline the same, it was Brandenburg who did the heavy lifting, the name change was due to the fact Prussia was outside the HRE and the Elector Prince could style himself King.
@@Shatterfury1871Another detail is that he called himself King IN Prussia, as the King of Poland was already the King of Prussia at the time.
@kawo666
No, he called himself King in Prussia as to not upset the Emperor, since there was only one kingdom in the HRE: Bohemia.
thats sad tho we (poles) saved austria from turks thats how they repayed us
Can’t express how happy I am you touched this
Of course a Catholic would say this. /j
I would like to use the occasion to talk about the republic of cracow. between 1815 - 1846 the city of cracow was a somewhat independent city under joined control of Austria, Prussia and Russia. Afer the cracow uprising Austria annexed the city and it remained a part of the Habsburg empire until the end of the first world war. So there was a a tiny somewhat independent polish state existing even after the napoleonic wars.
It is an illusion to describe the city of Kraków and its surroundings as an independent polish state!
By the way, the claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game".
By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed.
Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
@@GreatPolishWingedHussarsok
@@gav_200 Thank you for your ok! :)
@@GreatPolishWingedHussars bro, none of the countries was able to annex the commonwealth on their own. This disaster happened purely due to the collusion of all 3 countries. It should also not be forgotten that the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was an extremely weak state, ever since the "Swedish flood". After him, it was already impossible to restore the country. In my opinion, everything went wrong when the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth divided the Cossack state with the Muscovites, instead of negotiating with them)
@@kaseta7752 What you claim is wrong because it contradicts the historical facts. Because only the Russians were the empire that defeated Poland in the wars before and during the partition of Poland. The Polish Bar Confederation's War of 1768-1772 was only against Russia. As the name suggests, the Polish-Russian War of 1792 was only a war of Poland against Russia. As the battles show, the Polish Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 was primarily a war of Poland against Russia. The Prussians were only involved in a few battles of the Kościuszko Uprising, and with comparatively few troops. The Greater Poland Uprising (1794), which actually took place parallel to the Kościuszko Uprising, was directed against the Prussians, but in fact the Prussians would have lost this war against the Polish troops without the support of the Russian Empire. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bydgoszcz in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. A large part of Prussian troops was captured there. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Polanders had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. The fact that the Russians were also decisive in this uprising also showed that on November 17, 1794, the last Polish insurgent units in central Poland capitulated to the Russians at Radoszyce and not to the Prussians. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. If Prussia had been a great power, Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. Even in these wars, Austria was completely meaningless, because Austria could only hold the relatively small Polish territories anyway because of Russian strength. In any case, the Polish resistance shows that Poland was weakened at the time but certainly not completely defenseless as is always claimed, because Poland was able to set up armies that were also able to win the battles against the Russians. Unfortunately, Russia was too strong, so Poland was destroyed. Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Polish-Russian War of 1792 and in the Kosciuszko Uprising of 1794 in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire.
Your claim is also wrong that Poland was decisively weakened because of the so-called "Deluge" of 1655-1660, so that Poland later dommed as a result. In addition, the naming of this catastrophe is also incorrect as only Swedish "Deluge", because Poland was actually attacked from all directions and not only from the north. Because Russia also attacked from the east. From the south, Transylvania attacked Poland with the support of Moldavia and Wallachia. In the west, even the German small state of Brandenburg took the opportunity to attack too. In addition, Poland was attacked from the inside by the Cossack uprising. Despite the immense damage caused by these various wars, Poland has recovered from this blow, as evidenced by the victories of Polish King John III Sobieski 20 years later. Poland's downfall began only after the death of the great Polish king, John III Sobieski, in the early 18th century. In the early 18th century this completely incompetent king from Saxony Augustus II who was elected as Polish King by the Polish nobility was a catastrophe for Poland. So this completely incompetent king from Saxony Augustus II dragged Poland into the Great Northern War unnecessarily. Poland was not at all prepared for such a war and this war was catastrophic for Poland. Incidentally, August II was a squanderer who threw money away on luxuries such as court balls, games and garden parties. His court gained a reputation for luxurious extravagance throughout Europe. In fact, he was the opposite of his predecessor Jan Sobieski, who was a very capable king. By the way, a native Pole! This Saxon idiot on the Polish throne was one of the was one of the reasons for poland's downfall. Then, after Augustus II, the Pole Stanislaus Leszczyński became king of Poland, but unfortunately he was deposed in favor of Augustus III, who was just as incompetent. His son Augustus III was no better suited to be king of Poland either. Throughout his reign, Augustus III was known for being more interested in pleasure than in the affairs of state. Above all, he probably wanted to be a patron of the arts and not a king, because the administration of the kingdom did not interest him. This fool also waged a war for which he was not equipped at all. So in summary one can say that these two Saxon failures on the Polish throne were a double misfortune for Poland and were among the reasons why Poland doomed. Stanislaus Leszczyński proved his skills and intelligence as Duke of Lorraine. In 1750 he founded both the Académie de Stanislas and the Bibliothèque municipale de Nancy in Lorraine. He corresponded with Rousseau, among others. He also published Głos wolny wolność ubezpieczający, one of the most important political treatises of the Polish Enlightenment. One thing is certain, if the capable Jakob Sobieski and Stanislaus Leszczyński had become kings of Poland instead of the two incompetent Saxon stupid Augustus II and III, Poland would not have perished. During this period of these two completely incompetent Kings on the Polish throne, Russia then gained ever stronger influence in Poland and used this influence to further weaken Poland. Therefore, by the end of the 18th century, Poland was too weak to repel the Russian takeover of Poland.
By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia or Austria at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be.
I recommend Historia Civilis' videos on the Peace of Vienna for an in-depth explanation of the negotiations.
I love this channel! It’s wonderful.📜🖋
I just love the "running through the fields" animation XD
omg i was actually wondering about this for so long, tysm for answering my question
2:08 Didn't they actually got instead of Catholic Polish land Catholic Rhineland German lands?
The Rhineland was around half Catholic half Protestant. Westphalia on the other hand was majority Catholic (most of it was part of the Prince-Bishopric of Munster.
@@معرفةوترفيه-ت2ظ It is still. I'm from Germany, actually
Wow. Thanks for learning new stuff
Keep up the great work
Great video keep up the great work
If anyone is curious and wants to find out more about the post-Napoleonic border disputes and negotiations, Historia Civilis has a great video series on the Congress of Vienna.
hope this is better than this video! The claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game".
By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed.
Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
Would you like to make a video about polish uprisings after the partition?
Video idea as a loyal Patreon supporter: Why was Finland 🇫🇮 given autonomy in the Russian Empire?
It also gave it to Poland and Uzbekistan(Bukhara). And do not talk to the bot above me
I could be wrong, but I think it was because Sweden had previously owned the area and the Finnish people there were used to Swedish law rather than Russian law.
@Jack Wrath bot
Probably because they didn't want to fight rebellions so close to the Empire's capital. Also, the Finnish never had a state to call their own at the time, unlike Poland, so Nationalism wasn't as strong of a force to cause rebellions.
@@quakeknight9680 Poland was given autonomy very briefly before revolting against the Russians, after that russification went in full force.
Man I love this channel
Okay, hear me out here, I've got an idea. I know it would take a lot of work, but I would love to see some kind of character creator that fans of your channel could use to make their own memes. I particularly want to make one of the dancing through fields of daisies scenes at 2:05.
You said Kelly Moneymaker is one of your top Patreon supporters!! That is so cool man. I will never get over You getting her too support you.
The duchy of Warsaw was a French satellite state, so nowadays it is not really considered by Poles as "the first independent Polish state since partitions". Pretty much the same goes for the so called Congress Kingdom, which was established later and was kind of separate but still subject to Russian Tzar.
Only that the Congress of Poland was de facto really independent. It could effectively do whatever it wanted so long as it did not oppose the Russian Empire itself. Yes on paper the Tsar was the official ruler but in practice it was effectively independent. That changed in 1831 however.
They were allies not satellite state like Austria, Spain or the Confederation of the Rhine
@@dwarow2508 In theory. As Poles from that time would say "Konstytucja na stole, bat pod stołem" - eng. "Constitution on the table, whip under the table". It meant that while in theory Poland was independent - Russians still did as they pleased very often completly disregarding Polish freedoms granted by relatively liberal constitution. After the 1830 uprising, the saying switched to "Bat na stole, konstytucja pod stołem", refering to open violence and repression of that time.
@@ommsterlitz1805 No they were also a satelite ruled by a French Marshal
@@MaximoRaider
Only that in theory Poland was not independent. It was a subject of the Tsar. But in practice it was very much independent. It could do whatever it wanted and had it's own state with an own government, constitution etc. The Russians before 1831 did not deny the Poles any freedom at all. The only thing was foreign policy. The Russians did not opress the Poles or denied them any freedom until after the Polish uprising of 1830
A question that i actually asked myself... Thank you for answering it!
Can you do one on why Poland's borders changed só much before & after World War II? Obv I know the direct reason (Stalin & Churchill playing paint-by-numbers), but like what were the underlying reasons for wanting the earlier versus later maps? What demographic, irredentist, economic, security, & other justifications were there for Poland's borders from 1919-1939 compared to 1945-present?
The 1919 German-Polish border generally followed the ethnic composition (though only approximately, in order to avoid having West Prussia look like a piece of Swiss cheese). But before Poland's *eastern* border could be decided, Russia invaded. Poland ended up winning that war, allowing it to annex territory with significant Ukrainian and Belarusian populations.
in Polish-Bolshevik Soviet Russia war, Stalin proposed the new Polish eastern borders at curson line and he brought it back in 1945.
@@danielbishop1863 Swiss cheese is putting it midly, however the borders also included some very clearly geopolitical choices beyond demographics such as the question of an independent Free City of Danzig which was ethnically Prussian (German)
What is there not to understand? The Soviets expanded the soviet union in 1945 at Poland's expense in order to increase their own sphere of power and weaken Poland. Previously, the Poles conquered these areas during the Polish Bolshevik War in 1919-22. The Poles wanted these areas to strengthen the Polish state and because millions of Poles lived there. By the way, the claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game".
By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed.
Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
@@GreatPolishWingedHussars man you really hate Prussia, don’t you? Fact is that the decisive battles of Leipzig and Waterloo were won thanks to Prussia. Without the Prussian troops and Blücher, Napoleon would’ve won both of them, that’s a completely uncontroversial fact.
Prussia also won pretty much all wars in its 300 years of history, most notably the Great northern war, the 7-years war, the liberation wars, the German danish wars, and the Prussian Austrian war. All this despite being a relatively small state with a small population.
YES I’ve been asking for this for like 4 videos
Your content is so interesting! Keep up the good work!
@History_matters. bro shut the fuuuuuuuuuuuu
@JackWrath4 because history is interesting numbskull and + probably a bot
Make some actual content first, Jack. Otherwise get lost.
2:19 "You Suck Now"
That got me 😂😂
Before the Vienna Congress, Prussia really wasn't all that German. Seeing as they ended up uniting Germany half a century later, I suppose they made the right call giving up some Polish territories.
the funny thing is that they had to be forced by other powers to do so. it is important to understand that nationalisms wasn't a fully established concept at this point in history and there was no reason why someone who spoke a different language can't rule another country. That was actually quite common in european history.
@@Osterochse To add to this "deutsch" (aka what Germans call themselves) literally means "commoner" aka language of the common people. Until the French Revolution it was normal for the German nobility to be unable to speak any German and they activly avoided learning it. After the French abolished absolutism, speaking French fell out of fashion among the absolutistic German nobility and they ended up learning and speaking German instead.
Polish history must be amazing to learn. We have so little to talk about in America we learn about our Revolution in 6 different grade levels (at least where I went to school)
Yes it is a very nice thing to learn, I recommend it to you if you are interested in history. Polish history is over 1000 years old).
If you like listening to podcasts I can recommend the special "A brief history of Poland" episodes of the Notes from Poland Podcast by Stanley Bill (most of the regular episodes are about current politics and kinda less fun) and the History of Poland Podcast by Trevor Gilbert, which is more in-depth but also a bit amateurish (but it gets better as it goes).
BTW while you were learning about the American Revolution 6 times, was Tadeusz (Thaddeus) Kościuszko mentioned at least once?
You can look pretty much anywhere on earth & the history will be much longer than the curriculum of the US, mainly because it's a settler colony & as such fundamentally cuts any ties with the political entities that existed there prior to the US. Any history course of the US could only possibly go farther back in time either via the history of various cultures in the Americans, or the histories of the places people migrated or were displaced away from be it Europe or Africa or Asia.
Thank you for the positive rating of the Polish history! By the way, the claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game".
By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed.
Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
is is tho?
it always starts with the 'and heres another partitioning incoming'
after the 3rd one it becomes kinda stale
Prussia mostly did it to avoid war with the ottomans so that way they would seem like less of a threat because of the partitions
yes! finnaly a video on this. ty
For once I knew the why before watching one of your videos. Thank you Historia Civilis
I really needed to know this thank you
Finally a video where I knew 90 % of the topic. But not 100% because of the Swedish
Ay, new upload, nice!
The wacky and complex back-and-fourth between the great powers on both sides after the War is something that's often under-discussed. The winners of the war all had different interests and weren't really allies.
That's right but only 3 powers were decisive. These were the British Empire, the Russian Empire and the French Empire, which then lost its status as an empire! All others were but pawns in the sile of these three powers in thie wars. By the way, the claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game".
By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed.
Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
@@GreatPolishWingedHussars so much anti Prussian cope
@@diddlypoop No anti Prussian cope but description of the historical reality related to the Prussians!
Great as always! But shouldn't Finland still be a part of Sweden at 0:28?
@@Theworldsucks-kg5jv Swedish rule over Finland ended in 1809. I am no expert on the Napoleonic wars, but as far as I can tell, the war of the fourth coalition took place in 1806-1807? Also, the Swedish king portrayed in the video is Gustav IV Adolf, i.e. the king who was forced to abdicate after the loss of Finland. And the video states that Napoleon was defeated "7 years later" (after the defeat of the fourth coalition), which happened in 1814.
Aliens: could you all stop invading Poland? FOR FIVE MINUTES?!
world: nah
Great video.
you just keep making better videos keep it up. Like this information is important and no one really talks about history.
No, this is not a good video like unfortunately many videos related to Polish history are not good. The claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game".
By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed.
Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
@@GreatPolishWingedHussars So what you are trying to say is Prussia only took small parts of Poland is because if it took more, it couldn't control it.
@@Eed-gr5mr Well, I reported on the historical fact that without Russia, Prussia could not have annexed any Polish territories at all! The Russian Empire would not have permitted any further Polish territories for the Prussians.
@@GreatPolishWingedHussars OH so the only one that could defeat Poland was Russia but wasn't Poland weaken during the Great Northern war?
@@Eed-gr5mr Oh man the Great Northern was in the early 18th century and the Polish war against Russia I was talking about was in the late 18th century. So at the time Poland was certainly not weakened by the Great Northern War. But Poland was weakened by other factors. But, as I have already established, Poland was still able to mobilize a relatively large and powerful armies. But because of the weakening, Poland was just too weak to defeat Russia. But Poland's strength would have been enough to to fight back the Prussians.
0:20 what is King of Urf supposed to be? I can only find League of Legends clips if I search for it
It is worth to mention that the duchy of Warsaw expanded in a war with Austria regaining the territories from the 3rd partition without the help of the french troops
Damn 2:42 transition is so good
God you make obscure history video! I love it
0:48 wow, finally first allegory of IIIrd partition by History Matters
i spotted a mistakes at 0:05 spain wasn't on side of napoleon cuz peninsular war and sicily wasn't occupied by napoleon and also denmark was on side of napoleon
Technically Spain was on Napoleons side cause of his brother being named king and his brother did have support and Sicily is a different shade of blue so that means it’s not an occupied territory
I will never get over your reading of your supporters at the end! 💕💕💕💋🌠💖 Pluss, I love your narration of the facts. Great for such a short vid even if you can't get everything.🤷😎😆😆😆💋💋⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
Prussia: So um can I have Poland back.
Russia: Mmm let me think abo- No.
Prussia: Whelp I tried.
Russia: But I can help you gain some German speaking land westward now that the Hold Roman Empire, which was neither Holy, nor Roman nor an Empire, has finally dissolved.
Prussia: You lose some you gain some. Deal.
I literally JUST watched historia civilis' video about the congress of vienna and yet I still chose to watch your video haha
1:55 “You mean, I was the little baby boy all along?” Alexander I of Russia
*boom*
I love history and love your info but I have to admit I mainly come here for the sarcasm, visual and spoken.
0:24 whoo! Disco lights!
2:11 minor correaction, what later became the rhineland and westfalia provinces were deeply catholic as well
2:28 what is this cap on polish dude?
I really like this channel fun animations too
Scammer
0:21 What is URF? Why was Napoleon "King of URF"?
ERF sounds like Europe
Learn much of my history from maps and noticed this discrepancy. Wait long enough and this channel seems to answer the discrepancies from maps.
Another wonderful question no one asked! Thanks! Love your content
What happened to the end of the year Q and A?
Now let's be honest here, I feel like another Big reason in this Border Change is that Prussia's Previous Borders looked Way too Ugly and those new ones looked much more better, so I feel like a favor was done to us in the End by not having to look at that aberration of a Pre-Napoleonic border anymore
@@Me-yq1fl But they had a lot of potential
@@Me-yq1fl I am pretty sure he meant the Eastern Border, while the exclaves in the west were a bonus motivator to clean up border-gore so also a plus
Great video. Would also recommend everyone watch History Civilis' video on the subject.
Enjoy your content man, keep it up.
Waiting for 10 minute videos to get back 🗿
I wouldn’t hold my breath for 10-minute videos making a comeback. He made it clear that he switched to shorter videos because the ten-minute ones were too hard to produce at the pace he wanted to maintain.
"I need to study for my finals"
*History Matters has uploaded a new video*
"A video on post-Napoleonic European politics? Don't mind if I do."
Here’s a question I asked myself and I thought you might be able to tackle it, even if it’s a bit hard, what was the world’s reaction to the fall of Babylon?
To clarify I mean the fall of the Neo-Babylonian Empire in 539 BC
@@johnpatrickcosta52 Well, there was hardly a world back then tbh. Just isolated city states that barely knew of each other's existence. So I'm not sure if the question is even valid 😅
@@feynstein1004 I’m sure there was some reaction, Places like Greece weren’t far off and they’d heard how Persia had conquered Lydia, and merchants can travel far, and the nearby Egypt would be close enough to hear about it, I think it’s possible some states had a reaction
@@johnpatrickcosta52 Ahaha fair enough but that's what I was trying to say. Some states =/= the world. Or at least not the world as we know it today. History is very time and location-sensitive.
@@feynstein1004 ah, you’re right, but still…..
“539 BCE and Babylon has a bad case….of the deads *thunk*”
Everyone gets cheered up when HM upload a video
I have never heard you saying the word Seljuk during your whole career 🤣🤣🤣
I love your short stories, but as Pole i know about this one enough to think you oversimplified and missed fiew important facts. Great Britain was afraid France will try to take over Europe once again, so they wanted to make as many strong nations around their borders as possible, to prevent that from happening. This is mostly why Netherland and Piemond gained that much land. Prussia was another one of those nations, so GB wanted them to have land border with France. That worked well with Russian and Prussian plans you mentioned - Prussia wanting to be stronger in Germany and Russia wanting Poland. Prussia during congress of Vienna was promised very early to have "17 milion souls" to protect from France, and since there wasnt any mentioning where they would gain that much people, they started propagaiting on gaining rich west germany with no ethnical issues over poor Poland full of Poles.
Fascinating!
man there should be an entire video on james bisonette alone
@History_matters. go away you damn bot
2:06 not really a replacement with protestant Germans...
The Rhineland was and is a catholic region which even formed their own political movement during the Revolution of 48/49 (Political Catholicism) and were fought against by Prussian government or officials in their influence by for example Bismarck.
It’s good to point out that after Napoleon was defeated, the great powers of Europe (specially Great Britain) decided that Poland should continue to exist, however be dependent on other states. This is why u had Congress Poland (named after the Congress of Vienna and controlled by Russia through a personal Union), Grand Duchy of Posen (Grand duke was the Kaiser), and the Free city of Kraków (which on paper was independent, however was heavily influenced by all three powers especially Austria. The idea was that while Poland was wiped off the map after 1795, it should re-emerge as dependent state and not independent.
PS: history matters mention that Poland regained independence after Napoleon created the Duchy of Warsaw. However it was very dependent on Napoleon, he didn’t even put a Pole on the throne but gave it back the Saxon monarchs who ruled before.
Had been better if these lands would have remainded shared between prussia and russia
The British wanted a Polish state to weaken Russia. but in fact, the establishment of a Polish state failed because Congress Poland was in fact part of the Russian Empire. By the way, the claims made in this video are ridiculous and contradict historical reality. Even the title is ridiculous, suggesting that Prussia annexed all of Poland. Also the claim that Prussia won the war against France is ridiculous, like the entire video. Prussia was a puppet state of France and would have remained so without the intervention of the Russian Empire and the British Empire in the war. So Prussia was not victorious because Prussia was far too weak to defeat France. If France had waged the war against Russia smarter and had won, then Prussia would have remained a puppet state of France. Prussia was far too weak to liberate itself without the support of the British and French empires. Only the Russian Empire and the British Empire were relevant in the war against the French Empire. The Prussians only provided the auxiliary troops to the armies of these empires. Victory was unthinkable without the participation of this empires. Besides, there was only one reason why Prussia lost these Polish territories. Because the real winners were the British Empire and the Russian Empire. The Russian Empire had the power to annex these Polish territories. Weak, powerless and tiny Prussia had to accept this Russian annexation. Anyway, it was amazing that Russia surrendered Warsaw to Prussia at all. After the Napoleonic Wars, the Russians only corrected their error. After the partitions of Poland made possible by Russia, relatively small Polish territories were occupied by Prussians, with Warsaw being occupied by the Prussians for 11 years. This occupation had a very negative impact on Warsaw, because the population dropped rapidly to 115,000 inhabitants in 1806, and the economic situation also deteriorated a lot. Napoleon then took all these Polish territories from the Prussians after defeating Prussia and ceded these Polish lands to the newly established Duchy of Warsaw. After the defeat of France, the Russians then annexed much of the former Prussian-occupied Poland themselves, including Warsaw, and Prussia was only allowed to keep a very small part of Poland. The only reason why Prussia was not completely marginalized and was allowed to keep these small Polish areas and was given areas in the west at the expense of other German small states because the British wanted it that way. The British knew that there would be a future conflict with the another major empire, Russia, and so wanted to have some docile allies, which one of this should be Prussia. In fact, there was also this conflict between the British Empire and the Russian Empire later in the 19th century, known as "The Great Game".
By the way, the small two part of Poland that Austria and Prussia received of Poland were actually a gift from the Russians. The Russian Empire annexed most of Poland. At this time the Russian Empire annexed the Crimea and wanted to take more areas from the Ottomans. The Russian Empire wanted to prevent a conflict with Prussia and Austria at the same time of the war with the Ottomans. So the Russian Empire left relatively small areas of Poland to Prussia and Austria. Because together Prussia and Austria could have caused trouble for the Russians when the Russians were at war with the Ottomans. If the Russian Empire hadn't the conflict with the Ottomans at that time, the Russian Empire would have annexed all of Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. It is a historical fact that weak Prussia at the end of the 18th century would never have been able to defeat Poland and take territory from Poland. Just as Prussia's strength is always absurdly exaggerated, Poland's weakness is absurdly exaggerated during the time of the partitions. As if Prussia had been invincible and Poland completely defenseless. Although Poland was a fallen empire at the end of the 18th century, it was certainly not as defenseless as it is always portrayed to be. And Prussia, on the other hand, was not a great power like this is repeatedly falsely claimed.
Even when Poland was completely weakened at the end of the 18th century, Prussia alone would not have been able to take areas from Poland. Because Poland still had enough economic potential to mobilize armies to ward off Prussia, as the various battles in the Kościuszko Uprising of 1794 proved. In fact, Poland was still capable of raising armies and winning battles. Neither Austria nor Prussia would have been able to defeat and to destroy Poland alone. Poland still had military potential, as was particularly evident in Kościuszko Uprising in which Poland fought against the Russian Empire, Austria and Prussia. Poland also won battles in this war like the Battle of Raclawice in April 1794 as Poland defeated the Russians. How weak Prussia was shows that Prussia really only sent an army of 1000 men against the Polish rebels. ONLY 1000 MEN! This small ridiculous Prussian army was then defeated by a far superior in number Polish army in the Battle of Bromberg in 1794. The Prussian commander-in-chief was killed in this battle too. The ridiculous Prussians also tried to besiege the Polish capital Warsaw with only 25,000 soldiers. The Poles had mobilized over 49,000 men and expelled the Prussian troops. Thanks to the mobility of the forces, of General Dąbrowski Polish troops have even advanced into Prussian Pomerania. Prussia was unable to fight Poland alone and could only hold onto the small Polish territories with the support of the Russian Empire. For example, in the Battle of Szczekociny June 1794, the Prussians needed the help of the Russian Empire to defeat Poland. The Russian Empire fought alone against the Polish troops in most battles. The Poles also proved their military potential against the Russians when the Poles defeated the Russian Empire in the Battle of Zielńce in 1792. There were also other victories against the Russians. So the Polish armies also achieved some victories in some battles, but then in the end the numerical superiority led to the victory of the Russian Empire. The dwarf Prussia would have been able to defeat Poland on its own, but in fact the Russian Empire won most battles against Poland without Prussian participation. The difference was that the Russian Empire did not need Prussian support, but Prussia could not defeat Poland alone. This is a historical fact that the various battles bear witness to. So it's clear that Prussia was not a great power capable of defeating Poland. The decisive factor was the Russian Empire for the downfall of Poland and certainly not weak Prussia and certainly not weak Prussia.
Your videos are just great! Would you kindly create some content on the ethnic germans at the volga or in Bessarabia? Something like 'What happended to the german settlers in Russia?'
A video on Germans in the east could be several hours long if it did the topic justice - which I would absolutely like to see. It's a complex history going far beyond those 2 areas, beyond late-settlers, beyond the Russian Empire & even beyond the question of German linguistics as to what it means to be German or speak what kind of German language.
Catherine the Great, who was ethically German invited Germans to settle the vast lands of Russia. Stalin sent most of them to either the Gulag during WWII or to East Germany after the war.
*VIDEO SUGGESTION:*
After World War II why did The Western Allies allow The Soviets to expell The Germans from The Sudetenland, East Prussia and in what's now Western Poland?
because they didnt care :(
Nobody asked western allies or even soviets. We kicked them out ourselves bro.
Because german minorities in other countries were seen as one of roots causes of WW2. Also post ww1 idea of adjusting borders to people was seen as failed one, so they adjusted people to borders instead.
@@ComissarYarrick but germany was not minoritys in poznan danzig and königsberg and sileasia was mostly germany too
@@gamerdrache2.02 The answer for Königsberg is that the Soviet Union wanted to control a warm water port.
2:35 it's kinda hard to say the Kingdom of Poland was an independent state even then. Our King was the Tzar of Russia who did what he wanted, not what was written in the constitution.
that is also my opinion. i really don't think that this should be called an independent country. It was dependent for sure, maybe semi-autonomous.
I wonder the same for congress Poland though. Was this state actually independent? Could it make decisions that were against the napoleonic system? I suppose that it might have independent more on paper, but was effectively a french vassel, like any other european country at that point.
@@Osterochse Congress Poland was the Kingdom of Poland, The Duchy of Warsaw was a semi French Client state like our Constitution was based on theirs (which might have been a good thing idk)
Does anyone know a good source of Prussian history? Specifically West Prussia as well East Prussia.
My ancestors lived in West Prussia for a while and from the limited research I've done, that is where my family name originates. I have found it very difficult to find anything other than nobility info and wars they conducted. It would be cool see actual maps of the areas, industries conducted, and learn more of what life was like then and there.
I actually have many books, but I must ask you what languages you know. :D
@@Osterochse That's part of the problem. I'm only fluent in English. Conversationally I can speak Plautdietsch, I can sort of understand written Plautdietsch. I've been mainly using google translate to read standard german materials but I haven't found many.
Nice video