Discussion: Was Partitioning the PLC a good idea in the long run?

[GameBawesome]

So, we're all familiar with the Partitions of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. If not, to overgeneralize it, the Partitions of Poland is when the powers of the Russian Empire, Kingdom of Prussia, and the Habsburg Monarchy divided the once mighty Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth on three separate occasions, until it was literally wiped off the face of the map. For the time previous, due the electoral nature of the PLC, the powers around just set up a puppet-king, and also due to the Liberum veto, it made things more complicated for anything to happen and left the PLC weak. Then Stanisław II August, former lover of the Russian Queen (Catherine the Great) was elected, but instead tried to strengthen the PLC by trying to pass some reforms, which the powers didn't like. There also the Bar Confederation, who opposed foreign meddling the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and caused internal fighting within the PLC. To further add to all this, the Russians were at war with the Ottoman Empire and potentially could've upset the balance of power.

So, King Frederick the Great of Prussia proposed an idea: Let's take Polish Lands. And so, the powers of Russia, Prussia and Austria First Partition took parts of the PLC in 1772, the Second Partition happened in 1792 with Prussia and Russia, and then finally the Third Partition happened after the Kościuszko Uprising, and Russia, Prussia and Austria took what remained, dissolving the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth.

In the next incoming years, the Polish would gain some sort of independent in the form of the Napoleonic Duchy of Warsaw, but then was dissolved after the Congress of Vienna. After that territory were swapped, Congress Poland was formed, the Polish would rebel against mainly the Russians in 1830 and 1848, before many Poles fought on both sides of WWI, and gained an independent Poland afterwards...and then was again Partitioned in 1939.

Anyway, with all that out of the way, there is something I want to discuss. Was it worth it in the grand scheme of things? Was Partitioning the PLC a good idea? It had it benefits in some areas, like some economic benefits and stabilized the balance of power for the time, and its complications in other, like or the large Polish ethnic group in each empire or bringing the three of the Great Powers with a larger border with each other.

But overall, was Partitioning the PLC a good idea for the three powers (Russia, Prussia, Austria) in the long run?

 

[Wendell]

It was a good idea for the powers involved, especially Russia and Prussia.

 

[Kohlticus Euraleth]

Prussia and Austria may have gained some benefit, but since the PLC was a de-facto Russian client before the partitions, I'd say Russia didn't gain as much. They traded de-facto control of the whole for de-jure control of half (and until 1815 and the gain of Congress Poland, they arguably got the least valuable half too).

 

[Steno]

Fantastic idea for Prussia, at least regarding the first partition. Decent for Austria, although a strong PLC might’ve been to their benefit at one point, it certainly seemed far too late for that by now.

Terrible idea for Russia, however. Russia essentially controlled the entire country before the partitions, until Catherine and her ministers bungled everything. It provided a buffer and place for supply depots—basically all that was needed. Russia certainly wasn’t in need of more poor territories like the first partition lands they acquired—they had enough of those already.

 

[Hastings]

I think it was worth it for all three to varying degrees. Except during the War of the 5th Coalition, Austria's share of the partition was not very troublesome. If a Poland-Lithuania dominated by them was not really feasible, gaining a nice buffer zone with some of the most densely populated areas in central/eastern Europe wasn't bad. They were the biggest beneficiary of the 1st Partition, but didn't got nothing out of the 2nd and less out of the 3rd since they had their hands full with the Napoleonic Wars.

For Prussia, the Poland-Lithuanian lands as much as Silesia helped build their great power status in the long run. Prussia nearly doubled its population with its Polish gains. West Prussia was valuable and not too much trouble. Poznan was a little more unruly, but still valuable with large German population. The remainder was a pain. However, Russia gaining those lands in 1815 was great for them as Prussia generally was roughly compensated for territorial adjustments and gaining a couple million extra Germans was a great return on investment for them.

The 1st Partition was a Russia-screw with some scraps to conceal this. Russia's puppet was being carved up by their neighbors and they got the share with the smallest population that was also the poorest for good measure. The 2nd and 3rd partitions were much, much fairer and gave them millions of East Slavs which meaningfully increased Russia's population. Yes, it was a Russian puppet, but puppets aren't forever while directly controlled territory largely is.

Alexander's pet of Congress Poland, however, gained in 1815 was not worth it at all. It was very unruly with two major revolts and formed an indefensible salient wedged between Prussia and Austria. That proved a problem in WWI and Russia was really lucky that the period between Vienna and Sarajevo saw incredibly little war and no war with either Prussia or Austria. With active support of Polish revolutionary movement, there is a risk at some point a friendly state gained at Russia's direct expense by one of the two German realms. Really OTL Congress Poland situation was probably closer to Russia's best-case than worse-case scenario in that mess.

 

[JohnBull]

I guess Austria would be more cohesive and would have more chances to survive indefinitely without the Polish and Ukrainian lands.

 

[Sardar]

In the absolute long run, no. IMO without Poland being a buffer, Russia was free to further expand into Europe. This is eventually what Germany, when formed a century later, feared happening to itself. I think if PLC survived it would have created a more stable alliance system in Europe during the 2nd Industrial Revolution.

 

[Arkenfolm]

I guess Austria would be more cohesive and would have more chances to survive indefinitely without the Polish and Ukrainian lands.

It made a good buffer for the heartland and later provided additional wealth in the form of oil reserves.

 

[Metempsychosis]

It definitely fucked up the empires when nationalism came up in the 19th century.

 

[Gloss]

I honestly don't see how it was a negative for any of the parties involved, even if if meant mostly denying the land and resources to other empires.

 

[Metempsychosis]

I honestly don't see how it was a negative for any of the parties involved, even if if meant mostly denying the land and resources to other empires.

It was a negative for the Poles and Lithuanians, certainly.

 

[Gloss]

It was a negative for the Poles and Lithuanians, certainly.

One could make the argument that Lithuanians could have been assimilated by Poles even more under a continued PLC.

 

[JohnBull]

It made a good buffer for the heartland and later provided additional wealth in the form of oil reserves.

Yeah, but made the empire more complicated, with two more ethnicities to be accommodated. Without it, the German, Bohemian and Hungarian core would be much sronger relatively.

Germany is the major beneficiary: without the wars they would have no problem to absorb Polish minorities along their eastern borders, specially as there were lots of Germans amongst them. Russians, on the other hand, dealt with a massive number of Poles forming a very cohesive and densely populated region.

Maybe in an ATL timeline, we could have a Polish state formed by the Russian and Austrian bits while Germany would retain its Polish minority.

One could make the argument that Lithuanians could have been assimilated by Poles even more under a continued PLC.

I don't like this idea much, that's why I never cared about Poland-Lithuania. I'm fond of a Lithuanian state, I like their flag.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

It depends on whose perspective your asking about.

For the Prussians? Absolutely. Prussia became a cohesive state, was quite enriched by the new resources acquired, and gained important ports. Plus, they had no massive problems with their Polish minorities.

For Austria? Again, yes. Galicia's acquisition made up for the loss of Silesia and gave the Austrian state significant resources. Moreover, Austria had very few problems with their Polish and Ukrainian citizens. The region had autonomy, wasn't forced to have Russianization/Germanization policies and could be counted upon to support the government during most of the 19th and early 20th centuries.

For Russia? Hell no. It was a net negative. Russia went from controlling the Polish nation as a client state to having millions of rebellious, alien citizens within the Empire. They were a constant source of trouble, had two massive rebellions and pushed Russia into direct borders with Prussia and Austria. It was one of many short-term positive, long-term disaster politics perused by Catherine the Great. Personally, I don't think a blood Romanov with an actual right to the throne would have supported letting their geopolitical rivals encroach on their "turf".

 

[Augenis]

I don't really see the argument that annexing the Commonwealth was a net negative for Russia. If anything, the Commonwealth as a client state was more rebellious and with more dangerous uprisings than an annexed Commonwealth. From 1717 when Russian dominion over the Commonwealth became more or less effective (Silent Sejm), to the end of the Commonwealth in 1795, Russia had to intervene to wage war against Polish nobles four times (1733, 1768, 1791, 1794), and all four of them (except maybe 1794) were more dangerous to Russian rule than either the rebellions of 1830 or 1863, which collapsed upon first contact with Russian forces. Shouldn't be surprising that they were more effective, the Commonwealth was a free state whose freedoms Russia explicitly sought to defend, so they couldn't stamp out unrest or opposition to Russian rule as effectively as they could after 1795.

Demographically and economically, the annexed Polish-Lithuanian territories were considerably more wealthy than Russia itself. Warsaw and Vilnius were some of the largest cities in the Empire, after Moscow and St. Petersburg. Instead of the utterly miniscule army of the Commonwealth, which by the late 18th century was just for show and was smaller than that of Saxony, Russia could press a large armed force from those territories and actually make them useful in wartime, instead of just basing grounds.

Yes, they came with quite a few negatives, it dragged Russia too deep to European affairs, they developed national consciousness and started causing problems down the line, and it started to lag behind economically later on for a few reasons, but a lasting Commonwealth to the 19th century and later would be much more problematic imo. Their malaise would not last, and Russian control over their "client state" was always really, really frail.

One could make the argument that Lithuanians could have been assimilated by Poles even more under a continued PLC.

Maybe, but on the other hand it's not like the Tsarist oppression and bans on all Lithuanian press did much benefit for Lithuanian national revival. The Commonwealth would 100% abolish serfdom earlier than Russia (it was already being considered by the founders of the May 3 Constitution in 1791, it was explicitly an unfinished document after all), and the abolition of serfdom was the primary vehicle behind the formation of nationalisms in the Baltics, Belarus, Ukraine etc.

 

[raharris1973]

I guess Austria would be more cohesive and would have more chances to survive indefinitely without the Polish and Ukrainian lands.

I tend to think of those borders as the least contested and those minorities as the least contentious for Habsburg rule.

 

[Fabius Maximus]

I tend to think of those borders as the least contested and those minorities as the least contentious for Habsburg rule.

On the other hand, it meant trading a defensible mountain border for a much less defensible border in the middle of the North European Plain. I think Austria-Hungary would have been in a stronger position in WW1, at least, if its armies had been able to just dig in in the Carpathian passes and not worry about defending Galicia.