Suchergebnisse

Liquidation of neutral zone, existing from 1920, was the last stage of forming the Polish-Lithuanian border after World War I. Process of its liquidation began after incorporation of Vilnius into Poland in April 1922, when in Warsaw the question of the existing neutral zone become urgent. By contrast, completely different was the position of Lithuanian side. The incorporation of Vilnius to Poland was not recognized, and it was feared that the settlement of border can determine the belonging of this region to Republic of Poland. The seizure of Klaipeda by the Lithuanian on January 15, 1923, inspired Polish diplomacy to intensify efforts to eliminate the neutral zone. On the 22nd January the Polish Foreign Ministry has sent a note to the Powers demanding liquidation of neutral zone, accompanied by the project of division. On the 3rd of February this project was presented at the meeting of the League of Nations. Lithuanian delegates argued that it is not acceptable for Lithuania, because there is a danger of leaving Vilnius at the Polish side, however, it has had no effect and the Council of the League of Nations issued a resolution of the distribution of the neutral zone. It was assigned that the zone will be seized on February 15, 1923. The Poles were afraid of sneak attacks and the resistance of the Lithuanians. The Polish side very carefully prepared to accomplish this task. Before the action began, the Polish side had warned the Lithuanians. According to the Lithuanians, Poles, first began to attack the Lithuanian posts. After February 18 ceasefire, negotiations began to settle the dividing line. At the end of February, France presented the proposal of final settlement of the matter at the meeting of the Conference of Ambassadors. The decision was made 15 March 1923, confirming the territorial decision taken on the 3rd of February 1923. This was equal with admission of Vilnius region to Poland. ; Liquidation of neutral zone, existing from 1920, was the last stage of forming the Polish-Lithuanian border after World War I. Process of its liquidation began after incorporation of Vilnius into Poland in April 1922, when in Warsaw the question of the existing neutral zone become urgent. By contrast, completely different was the position of Lithuanian side. The incorporation of Vilnius to Poland was not recognized, and it was feared that the settlement of border can determine the belonging of this region to Republic of Poland. The seizure of Klaipeda by the Lithuanian on January 15, 1923, inspired Polish diplomacy to intensify efforts to eliminate the neutral zone. On the 22nd January the Polish Foreign Ministry has sent a note to the Powers demanding liquidation of neutral zone, accompanied by the project of division. On the 3rd of February this project was presented at the meeting of the League of Nations. Lithuanian delegates argued that it is not acceptable for Lithuania, because there is a danger of leaving Vilnius at the Polish side, however, it has had no effect and the Council of the League of Nations issued a resolution of the distribution of the neutral zone. It was assigned that the zone will be seized on February 15, 1923. The Poles were afraid of sneak attacks and the resistance of the Lithuanians. The Polish side very carefully prepared to accomplish this task. Before the action began, the Polish side had warned the Lithuanians. According to the Lithuanians, Poles, first began to attack the Lithuanian posts. After February 18 ceasefire, negotiations began to settle the dividing line. At the end of February, France presented the proposal of final settlement of the matter at the meeting of the Conference of Ambassadors. The decision was made 15 March 1923, confirming the territorial decision taken on the 3rd of February 1923. This was equal with admission of Vilnius region to Poland.

Liquidation of neutral zone, existing from 1920, was the last stage of forming the Polish-Lithuanian border after World War I. Process of its liquidation began after incorporation of Vilnius into Poland in April 1922, when in Warsaw the question of the existing neutral zone become urgent. By contrast, completely different was the position of Lithuanian side. The incorporation of Vilnius to Poland was not recognized, and it was feared that the settlement of border can determine the belonging of this region to Republic of Poland. The seizure of Klaipeda by the Lithuanian on January 15, 1923, inspired Polish diplomacy to intensify efforts to eliminate the neutral zone. On the 22nd January the Polish Foreign Ministry has sent a note to the Powers demanding liquidation of neutral zone, accompanied by the project of division. On the 3rd of February this project was presented at the meeting of the League of Nations. Lithuanian delegates argued that it is not acceptable for Lithuania, because there is a danger of leaving Vilnius at the Polish side, however, it has had no effect and the Council of the League of Nations issued a resolution of the distribution of the neutral zone. It was assigned that the zone will be seized on February 15, 1923. The Poles were afraid of sneak attacks and the resistance of the Lithuanians. The Polish side very carefully prepared to accomplish this task. Before the action began, the Polish side had warned the Lithuanians. According to the Lithuanians, Poles, first began to attack the Lithuanian posts. After February 18 ceasefire, negotiations began to settle the dividing line. At the end of February, France presented the proposal of final settlement of the matter at the meeting of the Conference of Ambassadors. The decision was made 15 March 1923, confirming the territorial decision taken on the 3rd of February 1923. This was equal with admission of Vilnius region to Poland. ; Liquidation of neutral zone, existing from 1920, was the last stage of forming the Polish-Lithuanian border after World War I. Process of its liquidation began after incorporation of Vilnius into Poland in April 1922, when in Warsaw the question of the existing neutral zone become urgent. By contrast, completely different was the position of Lithuanian side. The incorporation of Vilnius to Poland was not recognized, and it was feared that the settlement of border can determine the belonging of this region to Republic of Poland. The seizure of Klaipeda by the Lithuanian on January 15, 1923, inspired Polish diplomacy to intensify efforts to eliminate the neutral zone. On the 22nd January the Polish Foreign Ministry has sent a note to the Powers demanding liquidation of neutral zone, accompanied by the project of division. On the 3rd of February this project was presented at the meeting of the League of Nations. Lithuanian delegates argued that it is not acceptable for Lithuania, because there is a danger of leaving Vilnius at the Polish side, however, it has had no effect and the Council of the League of Nations issued a resolution of the distribution of the neutral zone. It was assigned that the zone will be seized on February 15, 1923. The Poles were afraid of sneak attacks and the resistance of the Lithuanians. The Polish side very carefully prepared to accomplish this task. Before the action began, the Polish side had warned the Lithuanians. According to the Lithuanians, Poles, first began to attack the Lithuanian posts. After February 18 ceasefire, negotiations began to settle the dividing line. At the end of February, France presented the proposal of final settlement of the matter at the meeting of the Conference of Ambassadors. The decision was made 15 March 1923, confirming the territorial decision taken on the 3rd of February 1923. This was equal with admission of Vilnius region to Poland.

Liquidation of neutral zone, existing from 1920, was the last stage of forming the Polish-Lithuanian border after World War I. Process of its liquidation began after incorporation of Vilnius into Poland in April 1922, when in Warsaw the question of the existing neutral zone become urgent. By contrast, completely different was the position of Lithuanian side. The incorporation of Vilnius to Poland was not recognized, and it was feared that the settlement of border can determine the belonging of this region to Republic of Poland. The seizure of Klaipeda by the Lithuanian on January 15, 1923, inspired Polish diplomacy to intensify efforts to eliminate the neutral zone. On the 22nd January the Polish Foreign Ministry has sent a note to the Powers demanding liquidation of neutral zone, accompanied by the project of division. On the 3rd of February this project was presented at the meeting of the League of Nations. Lithuanian delegates argued that it is not acceptable for Lithuania, because there is a danger of leaving Vilnius at the Polish side, however, it has had no effect and the Council of the League of Nations issued a resolution of the distribution of the neutral zone. It was assigned that the zone will be seized on February 15, 1923. The Poles were afraid of sneak attacks and the resistance of the Lithuanians. The Polish side very carefully prepared to accomplish this task. Before the action began, the Polish side had warned the Lithuanians. According to the Lithuanians, Poles, first began to attack the Lithuanian posts. After February 18 ceasefire, negotiations began to settle the dividing line. At the end of February, France presented the proposal of final settlement of the matter at the meeting of the Conference of Ambassadors. The decision was made 15 March 1923, confirming the territorial decision taken on the 3rd of February 1923. This was equal with admission of Vilnius region to Poland. ; Liquidation of neutral zone, existing from 1920, was the last stage of forming the Polish-Lithuanian border after World War I. Process of its liquidation began after incorporation of Vilnius into Poland in April 1922, when in Warsaw the question of the existing neutral zone become urgent. By contrast, completely different was the position of Lithuanian side. The incorporation of Vilnius to Poland was not recognized, and it was feared that the settlement of border can determine the belonging of this region to Republic of Poland. The seizure of Klaipeda by the Lithuanian on January 15, 1923, inspired Polish diplomacy to intensify efforts to eliminate the neutral zone. On the 22nd January the Polish Foreign Ministry has sent a note to the Powers demanding liquidation of neutral zone, accompanied by the project of division. On the 3rd of February this project was presented at the meeting of the League of Nations. Lithuanian delegates argued that it is not acceptable for Lithuania, because there is a danger of leaving Vilnius at the Polish side, however, it has had no effect and the Council of the League of Nations issued a resolution of the distribution of the neutral zone. It was assigned that the zone will be seized on February 15, 1923. The Poles were afraid of sneak attacks and the resistance of the Lithuanians. The Polish side very carefully prepared to accomplish this task. Before the action began, the Polish side had warned the Lithuanians. According to the Lithuanians, Poles, first began to attack the Lithuanian posts. After February 18 ceasefire, negotiations began to settle the dividing line. At the end of February, France presented the proposal of final settlement of the matter at the meeting of the Conference of Ambassadors. The decision was made 15 March 1923, confirming the territorial decision taken on the 3rd of February 1923. This was equal with admission of Vilnius region to Poland.

Between 1621 and 1635, Sisigmund III Vasa and Władysław IV Vasa, in seeking finance for the wars waged and those planned, applied to the Holy See for financial aid on many occasions. Papal subsidies were sought at the time of conflicts with Turkey between 1621 and 1634, the Smolensk War, and the intended invasion of Sweden and resuming military action in 1635. The following article presents Polish diplomacy used in this matter. Simultaneously, an analysis is conducted of Pope Gregory XV's and Urban II's attitudes towards the endeavours of the Varsovian court. The article points out which trends in Polish foreign policy were attractive enough for the Roman Curia to be approved for financing by the papacy. For this purpose, the papal correspondence from the period between 1621 and 1635 was thoroughly analyzed. This allowed confirmation of the prevailing historiographic theses, as well as making new assumptions.

In theory, the art of war can meet different approach to the characteristics of the phenomenon of war and peace. Until recently the phenomenon of war and peace could be compared to a magnet, creating a single entity, but having two opposite poles. The new realities of social, economic, political and military relationships between the phenomena of war and peace can be compared to the spectrum of visible light, where peace and war still represent opposite poles, but in between there is the phenomenon (concept) intermediate. Study aims to analyze the situation in the Persian Gulf in the twenty-first century. The article consists of three parts. The first presents the results of research on the origin of the conflict and the assumed political and military objectives. In the second, the conclusions of the Iraqi Freedom operation have been formulated in the context of the goals achieved and their impact on peace-building in the Gulf region. In the last one, an attempt was made to answer the question whether the military intervention of coalition forces in Iraq has led to a solution of the crisis, or rather it has been the beginning of the current problems Europe is facing. ; W teorii operacji wojskowych, sztuce wojennej oraz naukach politycznych można spotkać różne podejścia do pokoju i wojny. Do niedawna jeszcze oba zjawiska porównywano do magnesu, tworzącego jedną całość, posiadającego jednak dwa przeciwstawne bieguny. W nowych realiach społecznych, ekonomicznych, politycznych i militarnych wzajemne relacje pomiędzy wojną i pokojem można porównać do widma światła widzialnego, gdzie oba nadal stanowią przeciwstawne bieguny, ale pomiędzy nimi pojawiły się zjawiska (pojęcia) pośrednie. Celem artykułu jest analiza sytuacji konfliktowej w Zatoce Perskiej w XXI. Artykuł składa się z trzech części. W pierwszej przedstawiono wyniki badań dotyczących genezy konfliktu oraz zakładanych celów politycznych i militarnych. W drugiej, sformułowano wnioski z przeprowadzonej operacji Iracka Wolność, w kontekście sposobów osiągania tychże celów i ich wpływu na kształtowanie pokoju w regionie Zatoki Perskiej. W ostatniej, zaprezentowano próbę odpowiedzi na pytanie: czy interwencja zbrojna sił koalicyjnych w I raku doprowadziła do rozwiązania kryzysu, czy raczej stała się początkiem obecnych problemów z jakimi zmaga się Europa.

Proper organization and functioning of supply to Polish Military Contingents performing tasks outside the country is one of the essential elements of maintaining their proper operational capability. In addition to the National Support Element, a particular role in the procurement proces is provided by the Logistic Supply Unit (LSU) to whom the Polish Military Contingent has been allocated. The forementioned body is also responsible for the organization and implementation of the specialized training process for National Support Element soldiers, and then directing its activities in the field of national logistical support. Apart from a number of undertakings resulting from the obligations of supplying Polish Military Units, LSU also carries out tasks related to the organization of wheeled transport with supply from the country to the mission area, material resources and military equipment withdrawn from the Polish Military Contingents to the country, and the logistics of support the rotation of subsequent PMC shifts. ; Prawidłowa organizacja i funkcjonowanie zabezpieczenia materiałowego polskich kontyngentów wojskowych wykonujących zadania poza granicami kraju jest jednym z zasadniczych elementów utrzymywania ich właściwej zdolności operacyjnej. Szczególną rolę w procesie zaopatrywania w środki zaopatrzenia, oprócz Narodowego Elementu Wsparcia, odgrywa oddział gospodarczy (OG), któremu na zaopatrzenie przydzielono Polski Kontyngent Wojskowy (PKW). Organ ten odpowiedzialny jest także za organizację i realizację procesu szkolenia specjalistycznego żołnierzy Narodowego Elementu Wsparcia, a następnie kierowanie jego działalnością w zakresie logistycznego wsparcia narodowego. Oprócz szeregu przedsięwzięć wynikających z obowiązków związanych z zaopatrywaniem polskich jednostek wojskowych OG realizuje także zadania związane z organizacją transportu kołowego z zaopatrzeniem z kraju do rejonu misji, środków materiałowych i sprzętu wojskowego (SpW) wycofywanych z PKW do kraju oraz rotacji kolejnych zmian PKW.

Memorial sites are a material proof of the Poland-Ukraine military conflict in the Podkarpacie Region, which took place in the years 1944-50. It is here, on the Poland-Ukraine borderland that there is a permanent conflict of interests of the local community of different historical identity. In order to commemorate bloody incidents and numerous victims on both sides memorial sites are erected both in Poland and in Ukraine causing conflicts in the past and present. In the article I have shown thesignificance of the dependence between the memory of the ethnical community and the specifics of the language of the group, which while aiming at the commemoration of events and memorial sites important for them, do not obey the regulations of Polish law. The analysis of the legal basis for erecting these commemorations shows that there is a need to update the law. The importance of the mental layer in context of the intangible value of the cultural heritage of individual ethnic groups, which is often underestimated, can lead to conflicts that reach beyond the border area becoming conflicts of nationwide or even international concern. ; Miejsca pamięci są materialnym dowodem zbrojnego konfliktu polsko-ukraińskiego na Podkarpaciu, który rozegrał się w latach 1944-50. To właśnie tutaj, na południowo-wschodnim pograniczu dochodzi do permanentnego konfliktu interesów społeczności lokalnych o różnej tożsamości historycznej. W celu upamiętnienia krwawych zajść i licznych ofiar po obu stronach, wznoszone są upamiętnienia na ziemiach polskich i ukraińskich, stanowiąc zarzewie konfliktów, zarówno w przeszłości, jak i obecnie. W artykule wykazałam wagę zależności pomiędzy pamięcią społeczności etnicznej, a specyfiką języka grupy, która dążąc do upamiętnienia ważnych dla siebie wydarzeń i miejsc pamięci, nie przestrzega istniejących przepisów prawa państwa Polskiego. Analiza podstaw prawnych wznoszenia upamiętnień pokazuje, że wymagana jest aktualizacja przepisów prawa. Powszechnie niedoceniana wartość warstwy mentalnej w kontekście wartości niematerialnej dziedzictwa kulturowego poszczególnych grup etnicznych doprowadza do sytuacji konfliktogennych, które wykraczają poza teren pogranicza, stając się konfliktami o zasięgu ogólnopolskim, a coraz częściej nawet międzynarodowym.

ISAF operation is one of the hardest missions in the history of Polish Armed Forces in the Post‑Coll War era. Polish Army activity in Afghanistan is also noticeable among other NATO countries. However military involvement in this operation meets a number of challenges, especially when it comes to national security and defence policy. The article discusses these problems, such as: financial aspects of PKW Afghanistan; its influence on the process of modernization of Polish Army; military actitivy in Ghazni province; ideas to withdraw Polish forces prematurely; or political aspects of Polish involvement in Central Asia. Author distinguished several positive and negative aspects of Polish participation in the ISAF operation. Among negative, author listed e.g. the lack of complex solutions (financial, political, organizational) implemented by Poland to improve the security and functioning of PKW Afghanistan. However, it has to be also noted that the military involvement in Afghanistan allows to strengthen Polish position in the Atlantic Alliance. It also caused a major shift in the process of modernization of Polish Army.

Publikacja recenzowana / Peer-reviewed publication ; Celem przedstawionego artykułu jest syntetyczne ujęcie opisywanego tematu. Należy nadmienić, że ze względu na niejawny charakter informacji, przedstawiono tylko niektóre aspekty związane z rozwojem wojsk specjalnych, jako efektu podejmowanych decyzji politycznych. Intencją autora było jednak zebranie najważniejszych faktów i aspektów. Proces rozwijania zdolności wojsk specjalnych wciąż trwa i na chwilę obecną można stosunkowo łatwo, analizując stosunki międzynarodowe, wskazać potencjalne kierunki ich rozwoju. ; The aim of the presented text is the synthetic approach to the described topic. It should be noted that due the classified nature of information, only some aspects of the special forces development as a result of political decisions, were presented. However, the author's intention was to collect and describe the most important facts and aspects. The process of development of the abilities of special forces is still going on, and at this moment, by analyzing international relations, it is relatively easy to identify the potential directions of their development.