makes a claim in the first paragraph (eastern half is the way it is because russian occupied) and provides clarifying context in the second (and not because there was anything good about german occupation in west)
> the first map with Poland [...] doesn't explain much.
Reasoning that disputes it:
> The Russian partition [...] was the cause of the area in blue being poor and underdeveloped
For these to be contradictory statements, the Russian partition must refer to something meaningfully different than what the map with Poland refers to. Is that true? I'm no history buff, I'll leave it up to others to say.
