Talk:Partitions of Poland/Archive 1

Old talk
Hello,

First of all, I'd like to congradulate you on the work you have been doing with the encyclopedia and that it has helped me out on numerous occassions.

The Partitions of Poland had a larger impact on European history then is mostly realized. One example of this is the impact it had on the developing state of Prussia. Before the first partition, Prussia was highly efficient but very small in comparison to it's neighbours, especially Austria. After the partitions, however, Prussia doubled in size, making it a major power in the region. This increase in size had a definite impact on Prussia's road to becoming the most powerful of the German states and leading the role in German unification during Bismark's time. Another example of its impact on Europe was how it moved Russia closer to Europe. For centuries, Russia was always seen by other European states as an Asian state, with Poland acting as a form of buffer. However, after the partitions, Russia's European possessions increased tremendously bringing it deeper into the heart of Europe both geographically and politically.

O.K. I'm in no way a proffessional historian so if there are any qualms about what I had written, please contact me. I hope it helps in any way. Stefan Klosiak

em
Actually the first two partitions were of Lithuanian - Polish Commonwealth, while the third, after constitution that didn't mention Lithuania, was a partition of Poland. But that is too inconvenient. --Vytautas 15:03, 2004 Jun 6 (UTC)

You are wrong. All three partitions were of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth not poland. Study better history of your country. 85.206.195.99 13:29, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not that it did not mention the PLC, it simply declared a creation of a new, unified state. Not that it made a difference to this article anyway... [[User:Halibutt|Halibutt]] 20:14, Oct 11, 2004 (UTC)

Taken from the main page

 * TODO trauma for Poles, never-ending source of troubles for Europe (alliance with Napoleon, uprisings: 1830-1, 1846, 1848, 1863, 1905...)

This article is falsificated
There were partitions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth not poland. 85.206.195.99 13:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * They are commonly known as Partitions of Poland in English language. While Poland was partitioned between three neighbours, Lithuania was simply occupied by Russia. Lysy 13:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

The term of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was started using in English historiography short time ago - until that was Poland. It was because of lack of possibility for Lithuanian historians to speak worldwide because of soviet occupation. So polish falsificators did their job. The term 'partitions of poland' is an atavism from those times. It is completely wrong and must be changed. Lysy, your knowledge in Lithuanian history seems very poor - Lithuania was occupied in 1795 by Russia (the larger part), Prussia (Sudovia) and Austria (small district near Brasta (Brest)). 85.206.195.28 20:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Just correcting - Actually, Lithuania was partitioned between Russia and Prussia (province of New East Prussia) DeirYassin 14:54, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, you're right on this, obviously. Thanks. Lysy 17:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

As Lysy sais, the most common title (and policy of Wiki is to use that one) is 'partitions of Poland'. True, it was in fact partition of PLC - and it sais so in the lead. I see no problem with this. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:58, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

I made a compromissional version, with both versions of the name bolded and explaining the more common usage of partitions of Poland, would both sides agree to the usage of this? DeirYassin 19:17, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I think that the article should start with its title, for consistency. Also, it should be kept in mind that the Polish Constitution of May 3, 1791 created a unitary state, abolishing the union of Poland and Lithuania.  So at least the last two of the three partitions were formally partitions of Poland only. Balcer 19:34, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Gosh, I hate edit conflicts... Here's what I wanted to point out before Balcer beat me to it: Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't GDL dissolved by the constitution of 1791? If so, then there could be no Partition of PLC since the PLC did not exist any more... Halibutt 19:37, May 3, 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm I don't know, afak constitution was abolished by certain "units" after a year of it's coming into power, and anyways at least first partition was actually of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. And decapitalizing Commonwealth was incidental. Maybe "Partitions of Poland-Lithuania" would be better then as a compromissional reference to them all...DeirYassin 19:52, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Three Partitions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth
Dear Polish friends, what do you learn in your Poland?
 * The Gardinas (Grodno) seimas (sejm) in 1793 abolished all decisions of Constitution of May 3, 1791 and ratified Second partition of PLC.
 * But even at the time when Constitution of May 3, 1791 was in force, was passed Act of Guarantees of Both Nations ('Zar&#281;czenie Obojga Narodow') which guarantied continuation of PLC. PLC was in force from 1569 to 1795. All tree partitions were of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth not Poland.
 * Do you understand? 85.206.195.28 20:21, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The Grodno Sejm of 1793 was a farce set up by Russia so I would not worry too much about it.
 * However, there may be some point to what 85.206.195.28 is saying. Here is what the Polish Encyclopedia PWN says about this:


 * Uchwalona na Sejmie Czteroletnim Konstytucja 3 maja 1791 przemilcza&#322;a kwesti&#281; wzajemnego stosunku Korony i Litwy; uchwalone 20 X 1791 Zar&#281;czenie Wzajemne Obojga Narodów nawi&#261;za&#322;o do unii lubel. 1569 i, koryguj&#261;c milczenie aktu Konstytucji 3 maja, potwierdzi&#322;o federacyjny charakter Rzeczypospolitej.


 * Passed by the Four-Year Sejm, the Constitution of May 3, 1791 passed in silence over the question of the relation between Lithuania and the Crown; passed on October 20, 1791, the Act of Guaranees of Both Nations (correct translation, I hope) referred to the Union of Lublin of 1569 and, correcting the silence of the Constitution act of May 3, confirmed the federetive character of the Commonwealth.


 * So, this needs to be cleared up. Balcer 20:50, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes. I don't think that the PLC was ever officially dissolved (unless we count act of partition from 1797, but it was never signed by PLC representative, obviously). While the May Const. did not use the word 'Lithuania' even once, there was the mentioned 'Zar&#281;czenie Obojga Narodow', which...well, I am not sure what it did (gotta read up on this, anybody got any links?). However after reading Jasienica and Davies recently with emphasis on May Const., I don't think that the phrase 'PLC was abolished in favour of a unitary Poland' is true. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:56, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Here is the text: Wikisource, maybe a better link here.
 * Clearly the text refers many times to the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, so obviously it was not considered abolished at the time.


 * Tnx. I thought it would be much bigger. It does show one thing clearly: the state name is Rzeczpospolita Polska (Polish Commonwealth or Republic, ABBREVIATED - Poland), and it consists of Oboje Narodów (Two Nations): Korona Polska (Polish Crown, i.e. Poland proper) and Wielkie Ksi&#281;stwo Litewskie (Grand Duchy of Lithuania). In addition, nowhere in the May Constitution I can find anything that could be interpreted as change of name. As we discussed on Talk:Ignacy Domeyko, what was known as Poland in that time was not the same as what we call Poland today. In 18th century, Poland reffered to what call the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (thus Rzeczpospolita Polska in the name of the mentioned act), not modern Poland without (obviously) Lithiania - hence the confusion. The main problem is not the 'partitions of what?', since the correct answer is 'partitions of Rzeczpospolita Polska' or 'partitions of Poland' (but in the 18th sense! - perhaps a note would be appropriate), but rather - how do we translate those names, and what was the name(s?) used in documents from 1569 till 1791? While the term 'Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth' makes a rather good NPOV name, I don't recall ever reading about 'Rzeczpospolita Polsko-Litewska'. IIRC, both Polish and Lithuanians used the term Republic of Two Nations (Rzeczpospolita Objoga Narodów, Abiej&#371; taut&#371; respublika) or just Rzeczpospolita (Že&#269;pospolita). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 22:28, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Mentioning of 'Rzeczypospilita Polska' is only in one place in this text. Many all others deny that. It only shows trying of polish 'executors' to make unitarian state (this trying unsuccessfully lasted many centuries). Lithuanians always resisted to that. This act is a product of this resistence. But even this situation didn't satisfact many Lithuanians. That trying of unitarism was one of the reasons why 'Lithuanian Confederation' was made in 1792. Gardinas (Grodno) seimas (sejm) abolished all decissions of Constitution of May 3, 1791 and returned all to pre-1791 situation.
 * Very important thing is pointed in Act - confederation of GDL and KP - Skonfederowanych Stanow. This is an answer to polish federationalistes and unitaristes.
 * The very best wishes from Vilnius, Lithuania. 85.206.193.46 05:19, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * To the Lithuanian editors: we are not Polish nationalists, believe it or not, but are really trying to write the best article possible. Please, let's stay civil. Balcer 21:08, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As to the "Zar&#281;czenie wzajemne Obojga Narodów" document mentioned by the anon - it indeed mentioned GDL, but only as one of two provinces (or cantons) of the Rzeczpospolita Polska, or the Republic of Poland (the other province being called Korona Polska - the Crown of Poland). The full text of the decree is available from wikisource (sadly in Polish only).
 * Also, the "stany skonfederowane" should be translated as "unbreakable parliament or simply as Confederated sejm'' and not as "States united in a confederation", since that would have little sense. The same with "Lithuanian confederation" mentioned by the anon - it did not mean that Lithuania was composed of many federated states... Halibutt 07:09, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Its only your bla-bla-bla, dear Hello-but. 85.206.194.143 07:17, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Come back when you think of some arguments to post, ok? Halibutt 18:13, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Dates
Lead sais: ''The three partitions occurred in: This is incorrect. Partitions took months, and years in case of the first one (Austria invaded in 1769 already). Do those dates refer to the dates Sejm accepting the treaties? If so, we need to expand on the third one. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:03, 3 May 2005 (UTC)
 * February 17, 1772
 * January 21, 1793
 * October 1795.''

Wrong pictures
Two first pictures are correct. Three last are wrong. The last - old (possibly from 19th century) - picture just shows polish historic chauvinism. 85.206.192.120 21:12, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Care to elaborate? I agree that the last, old picture, which is from an old British atlas by the way, shows a lot of the historical prejudices of the time. If anything, it reflect pro-Russian bias, showing White Russia and Little Russia. I find it interesting as a snapshot of the historical view of the time. Plus it is a nice looking map. Still, if you find it so objectionable, I will unlink it. Balcer 21:27, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Balcer I see you are honest man without that bestial nationalistic chauvinism (shadow of past) which is very characteristic to many (unfortunately) your countryman. Thank you very much for that! 85.206.192.120 21:35, 3 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I am happy to report that in fact most Poles I know are pretty reasonable people. Certainly I have not met any Polish bestial nationalistic chauvinists.  Are you sure they exist? Balcer 21:45, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

There are grave problems in the maps: the OTHER changes in neighboring borders (after 1500's and before any of the partitions) are not accounted and thus certain neihgbors are shown wrongly. Estonia did not belong to Sweden in 1772, it and Livonia belonged to Russia. Hungary did not belong to Ottomans in 1772, it belonged to Habsburgs. And Silesia did not belong to Habsburgs in 1772, it belonged to Prussia. Therefore the maps are basically crap.

Additionally, the partitions itselves are nor correctly shown in these maps. The area ceded to Russians in first partition is not shown by a lucid bordering (also against the previous Russian border). And the clarity of ceded areas in each time could be better shown. 62.78.106.50 17:30, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that especially the 1772 map needs some work. The other maps just need some minor tweaks. I would suggest unlinking the map for now, until corrections are made.   Balcer 17:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Nu i jak panowie?
Balcer - RESPECT! Zuch. A&#269;i&#363;! 85.206.192.120 21:22, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggestion
This is a suggestion to both sides. How about writing Partitions of Poland-Lithuania? Poland-Lithuania term is used sometimes, similar to Austria-Hungary, and if this term would be used there would be no need to discuss if it was commonwealth or no, etc. (as these discution the way they goes now probably won't lead to much compromise). The fact still would remain that the country, however it was called, was made out of merged countries of Poland and Lithuania, so term Poland-Lithuania would be more or less accurate maybe. What do you think about it? Or suggest something else... Because the way it goes it won't lead anywhere, revert after revert. DeirYassin 10:56, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree with you. This term is using in world historiography. Could be used and term Partitions of Republic of Both Nations. 85.206.194.121 12:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, it would most surely be a compromise version, although it would be both misleading and incorrect. The more correct term would be "Partitions of Crown and Lithuania" since that were the names of both parts of the Republic of Poland at that time. Which is, of course, not a good name either. Halibutt 11:03, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Hello-but, "Republic of Poland" never existed before 1918. 85.206.194.121 12:00, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * Dear anon, Republic of Poland is one of the possible translations of Rzeczpospolita Polska. Try working on your English skills. And why is the 1918-1939 Poland called Second Polish Republic? :> --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

Dear Piotr-Piotrus, try working on your logic and English skils. "Republic of Poland" ("Rzeczpospolita Polska") never existed before 1918. In 1569 - 1795 existed Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth - Republic of Both Nations  (Abiej&#371; Taut&#371; Respublika, Rzeczpospolita Obojga Narodow) - confederal state consisted from Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Kingdom of Poland. Not "Rzeczpospolita Polska". Do you understand? How to call Poland (1918 - 1939) is a problem of polish nationalistes. 85.206.194.143 17:58, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, one of the anons (was it you?) mentioned the Zar&#281;czenie wzajemne... act of 1791 as a proof of something. It might be interesting to read the text of that act. The preamble starts with the following words:


 * Za zgod&#261; Panów Rad Senatu, tak Duchownych, jako i &#346;wieckich oraz Pos&#322;ów Ziemskich Korony Polskiej i Wielkiego Ksi&#281;stwa Litewskiego, bacz&#261;c ustawicznie na powinno&#347;&#263; Nasz&#261;, ku wspólnej Ojczy&#378;nie swej, Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej, której wszystk&#261; ozdob&#281;, po&#380;ytek pospolity, a najwi&#281;cej umocnienie od niebezpiecze&#324;stwa tak wewn&#281;trznego, jak zewn&#281;trznego, opatrzy&#263; powinni&#347;my (...)
 * which could be roughly translated as:
 * With consent of the Councillors of the Senate, both clerics and lay people, as well as members of the Sejm from both the Crown of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, bearing in mind our obligations towards our fatherland, the Republic of Poland (lit. Rzeczpospolita of Poland - Halibutt), to which we owe securing of its beauty, common benefit, and most of all its strengthening against both internal and external dangers(...)


 * So, according to the kings of Poland and grand dukes of Lithuania, Poland was a republic well before the first World War. Halibutt 18:10, May 4, 2005 (UTC)

Dear Hello-but, I will not repeat 10 times the same what is in commentaries above. See Talk here -> Three Partitions of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. And see carefuly the text of Act. 85.206.194.143 18:33, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

--Halibutt 19:12, May 4, 2005 (UTC)
 * 1) My nick is Halibutt, please at least try to put it down correctly.
 * 2) Above I could see only your wishes, not actual arguments. You don't have to repeat them, but trying to support them with data or sources would be a good move
 * 3) I've read the document I quoted repeatedly before I translated the fragment. And it is clear that the king of Poland (and grand duke of Lithuania at the same time) was referring to his homeland as "Rzeczpospolita Polska", which proves your argument about the republic being started in 1918 wrong. The term was used at least 130 years before that year.
 * 4) Finally, the document we quoted (or was it some other anon?) partially proves my point and partially proves yours: from it it's somehow clear that the state called the Republic of Poland or Commonwealth of Poland (depending on how one translates the term Rzeczpospolita Polska was composed of two equal lands, or cantons. This would suggest that Poland was indeed a confederation rather than federation.

Proof and EOT
Remember that Wiki policy is to use the most common name as a title and explain other, less often ussed names after the lead - even if they would be technically more correct. This is why, for example, Polish-Soviet War:3,940 is preffered to Polish-Bolshevik War:745, or World War II:20,700,000 to World War Two:729,000 or Second World War:4,070,000. Google hits: "partitions+of+Poland": 11,300, "partitions+of+Poland-Lithuania": 294, "partitions+of+Polish-Lithuanian": 7 (Commonwealth 6, Rublic 1), "partitions+of+Rzeczpospolita": 4, "partitions+of+Lithuania+Poland": 1, "Partitions+of+Republic+of+Both+Nations": 0, "Partitions+of+Republic+of+Two+Nations": 0, "Partitions+of+Republic+of+the+Two+Nations": 0, "Partitions of Crown and Lithuania": 0. Also, in case of the naming problem which I wrote about earlier: "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth": 21,900, "Rzeczpospolita Polska" (English only):5,940, "Republic+of+Both+Nations": 383, "Republic of the Two Nations": 119, "Republic of Two Nations": 98. Feel free to add any names I could have forgotten to check, but common use is clear: partitions of Poland, but the state name is Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. It is all mentioned in the lead. EOT. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 13:20, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * However, this is only applied when there are three similar namings to the same thing/event (as in World War 2 or Polish-Soviet war case example). But where neutrality is disputed, this is not how it is done. E.g. thre is article Nanjing Massacre, this term gets 87,200 hits. Term "Rape of Nanking", which was once name of article and is about same event, gets 149,000 hits. However, it's neutrality was disputed therefore article renamed. Excluding Wikipedia mirrors/links, "Prussian Holocaust" probably gets slightly more results than Evacuation of East Prussia too, but the article on earlier name was later renamed to the latter name cause of neutrality. The ammount of links IMO just tells the "common" view, which is influenced e.g. by availability of internet in certain countries or population of certain countries or knowledge of English in some countries (e.g. US view will always be represented better than say Indonesian or Kazakh; same for Polish and Lithuanian views (there are more Poles and historically Polish historians had more influence) - but Wikipedia is here exactly to find neutral solutions) DeirYassin 14:28, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Interesting that you can only support your point by providing such extreme and controversial examples. Yes, these entries were controversial because they used highly charged words like "rape" or "holocaust".  I do not see any extreme words like that in the title we are proposing.


 * As for the acceptance of the term, it has little to do with the availability of the internet, and it has been used in English publications for a long time. For example:


 * Encyclopedia Britannica


 * Columbia Encyclopedia


 * So, Partitions of Poland should be first in the title. Still, maybe we can also mention Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth more prominently in the title.  Maybe a slight cosmetic change will ease some of the emotional reponse here by some editors. Balcer 15:59, 4 May 2005 (UTC)

I will repeat what was written above in commentaries: The term of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was started using in English historiography short time ago - until that was Poland. It was because of lack of possibility for Lithuanian historians to speak worldwide because of soviet occupation. So polish falsificators did their job. The term 'Partitions of Poland' is an atavism from those times. It is completely wrong and must be changed. 85.206.194.143 17:41, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
 * As a note, it may be noted that contemporaries usually did use name "Poland" for denoting whole country in XVIII century. If you want, I will dig out the quote by one of Polish hetmans who said something in the sens "I will call you all Poles, since you are all sons of the same mother" when referring to his army, composed of Poles, Lithuanians and Rusins. Idea of calling the whole state "Poland" is not invented in XX century, but rather concept dating to XVIII century (And sometimes even earlier: i've seen articles which said that "nostra Polonia" conscience started to develop in Lithuania in early XVII century). Szopen 07:23, 6 May 2005 (UTC)


 * As for internet, I just said the situation about numbers of google hits, but you are right that it was used previously. As anonymous said however, what is used most common is not necessarily most neutral or the best. I don't think it only applies to articles with these words, but any places where the most used name for a thing or event might be non-neutral, or a thing from the past or such. That is my opinion however. DeirYassin 18:05, 4 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Out of respect for DY, I will reply for the last time: What Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is not 5. Primary (original) research such as (...) coining new words. We can explain (and we do - and if anon can prove the history of the term with a source, we can add this to), but we cannot create. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 18:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Just a notice - the other ways to call it are being used too as your websearch showed, just that not as much as the current version; so it wouldn't be same as creating new words or neologisms. DeirYassin 18:56, 5 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe User:Piotrus is right - "Partitions of Poland" is widely used term in English and German (and most probalbly in other languages) historiography and it should be the name of the article. The fact that it was not only Crown but also Grand Duchy partitioned is clearly mentioned in the text. For my compatriots I can only say that there are many such inaccuracies - state Austria-Hungary is often called simply Austria, Denmark-Norway is usually simply called Denmark, Soviet Union is very often called Russia and so on. These names are surely simplifications, which include some taste of stereotipical thinking, however we should remember that it is encyclopedia for English-speakers and the name of the article shall be the most used term, its inaccuracy might be then clearly explained in the article. As User:Piotrus has rightly mentioned - the purpose of Wikipedia is not to coin new terms and words, even if the look more accurate for us.Dirgela 20:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Second Partition in Luxembourg?
Family legend says that Frederik II of Prussia had his headquarters in our family home in Luxembourg when he was planning the Second Partition. Is there any credibility to this? --Stereo 22:50, 8 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Prussia was engaged in fighting revolutionary France just before it turned to partitions of Poland, and IIRC Frederic did in fact participate in some battles, so it is plausible Frederic would've been near French front - and Luxemburg is a good place for it. I don't have any specific sources for that, though. May I ask what your house is/was? If it was a famous palace or such it should be easier to trace. Any more details on the legend - i.e. when was he staying, with how, for how long, etc.? One more thing: Frederic was the brain behind the 2nd Partitions - he blackmailed Catherine into it, saying in a letter that if he wasn't compensated for his recent losses against France he would have to sign a peace with France. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 00:50, 9 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The house was a big farm outside the capital on the road that goes from the capital to the French fortified city of Longwy. IIRC, he is supposed to have stayed there for a day or two. He allegedly gave a baptism robe to the owners to thank them, and that robe has been used for the children of the various owners of the house since. I'll ask the family and see if I can dig up more. --Stereo 03:45, 2005 May 9 (UTC)

Is it really that clear? (Poland/PLC)
Dear friends, I understand my late appearance in this discussion and can foresee your reaction, however I see too much discussions not contributing to correctness of the articles, being some kind of demagogy and advocacy of one's national pov. Here are a few notices: '''The statement "the were partitions of Poland, not the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth" implies that common state of Kingdom of Poland and Grand Duchy of Lithuania did not exist i.e. those were either two separate states or one single state, both being not true. Its simply logical. Stop generating those sophisticated arguments/methods/etc..'''

BTW1: At the same time, an an article Polish-Lithuanian_Commonwealth is talking about the commonwealth, later having a sentence "the country was partitioned in three stages", which implies "Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was partitioned in three stages". Thus these two articles contradict to each other...

BTW2: The same article is talking about may 3 constitution "These reforms came too late, however, as the Commonwealth was immediately invaded from all sides by its neighbors. The latter feared the revolutionary implications of the May 3rd Constitution's political reforms and the prospect of the Commonwealth regaining its position as a European empire. In the end the May 3rd Constitution was never fully implemented, and the Commonwealth entirely ceased to exist only four years after the Constitution's adoption." From this we can derive: a) the constitution did not really create a single state (what i believe to be quite true de facto); b) we had partitions of the commonwealth, not Poland.

There are contradictions in evaluation of events (facts) even if they are evaluated by "the same" editors, which means they are evaluated as needed for some given situation. A bit not seriuos, huh..