1 definition by SlaVoice_Of_Reason
1. (Polish) A born citizen of Poland, Poland being the Slavic country furthest West, which has yet to be conquered by any single nation despite the typically far inferior numbers of the Polish fighters.
2. A derogatory term for any person of Polish descent used by various peoples of Anglo-Saxon descent, especially Australian, American, and British. Use of this term is usually caused by jealousy of various characteristics of these people, these including high tolerance to alcohol, accent (in some cases), physique (caused by poverty levels in their native country, which require a greater amount of unskilled labor on the part of the individual), and in some cases even penis size, all of which are stated by the rational mind to be unimportant though prejudice rarely is built upon a rational foundation), as well as (arguably) intelligence. The British also owe their defeat in the American Revolution in a very large part to the Poles, in particular Kasimir Pulaski and Tadeusz Kościuszko, who provided the best of training in use of cavalry and military tactics, respectively (Kościuszko went on to fight the Russians in the Polish Revolution, distinguishing himself greatly for his victories against overwhelming odds, including the defeat of a Russian army using 40,000 untrained commoners and 20,000 peasants armed with scythes). The Americans have (smaller) grounds due to that the Polish Navy of WWII was the most decorated of any nation, despite that most of the Pacific Theater, which included the majority of American involvement, was fought by the American Navy. Furthermore, Polaks in these and other countries have a tendency to 'stick together', appearing to intentionally isolate themselves out of self-pride. In fact, the Polish sense of nationalism is indeed very (arguably, excessively) high. Those who have read Zamoyski's The Polish Way could understand this.
2. A derogatory term for any person of Polish descent used by various peoples of Anglo-Saxon descent, especially Australian, American, and British. Use of this term is usually caused by jealousy of various characteristics of these people, these including high tolerance to alcohol, accent (in some cases), physique (caused by poverty levels in their native country, which require a greater amount of unskilled labor on the part of the individual), and in some cases even penis size, all of which are stated by the rational mind to be unimportant though prejudice rarely is built upon a rational foundation), as well as (arguably) intelligence. The British also owe their defeat in the American Revolution in a very large part to the Poles, in particular Kasimir Pulaski and Tadeusz Kościuszko, who provided the best of training in use of cavalry and military tactics, respectively (Kościuszko went on to fight the Russians in the Polish Revolution, distinguishing himself greatly for his victories against overwhelming odds, including the defeat of a Russian army using 40,000 untrained commoners and 20,000 peasants armed with scythes). The Americans have (smaller) grounds due to that the Polish Navy of WWII was the most decorated of any nation, despite that most of the Pacific Theater, which included the majority of American involvement, was fought by the American Navy. Furthermore, Polaks in these and other countries have a tendency to 'stick together', appearing to intentionally isolate themselves out of self-pride. In fact, the Polish sense of nationalism is indeed very (arguably, excessively) high. Those who have read Zamoyski's The Polish Way could understand this.
1. What those silly Polaks don't understand is that Poland has itself to blame for no longer being the largest and most powerful nation in Europe, and arguably the world. Going out of its way to save the Western world from the Ottoman in the 17th century was the reason they were betrayed and partitioned by Prussia, Austria (which they directly saved at Vienna), and Russia (who they had previously slaughtered during every Russian invasion attempt). Then in WWII they chose to ally themselves with France (which surrendered the day it was invaded, and switched sides) and England (which spent as much time as possible hiding behind their Channel again, whilst doing as little as possible in insignificant grounds such as Africa, whilst 'borrowing' weapons from its ally of America, which spent up till the time it was bombed hiding behind the Atlantic and Pacific oceans) for the course of the war, which they actually fought the whole of. Had they chosen to side with Hitler instead, the worst-case scenario would include aid from America (as Germany received), and the best-case scenario would include reparations from Russia (no war reparations were received for the role of Poland in WWII). In the future, Poland should consider having allies with balls.
by SlaVoice_Of_Reason June 13, 2008