Talk:Anti-Polish sentiment

This article has gone through VfD. Please consult the voting and the results.

Archived portions of this talk page

• Talk:Anti-Polonism Archive of discussion in Polish

I moved here the segments of discussion conducted in Polish, to make the page easier to read for users who don't know the language. This might introduce some discontinuities.

• Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive 2 Discussions concluded by July 31, 2005 are archived here.
• Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive 3 Discussions until August 14 2005 are archived here.
• Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive 4 Long discussion between users Nightbeast and Molobo.

Disputed

Rudi Pawelka

Couldn't find Rudi Pawelka's remark on the net. If he really said so, it would surely have caused a scandal whose traces could be find on the net easily.NightBeAsT

This information was reported by Polish Press Agency on July 3rd, 2005. Source: 1. It was also published in Gazeta Wyborcza2 and actually many other Polish press. He also accused Poland of not being a law-abiding state, because of which Polish Silesia Civic Movement appealed for recognizing him persona non grata in Poland. 3 English

How about: Polish Press Agency reported that Rudi Pawelka the president of the Preußische Treuhand and the Territorial Association of Silesia in his speech made during the society's congress in Nuremberg blamed the outburst of the World War II on, in his opinion, acts of aggression committed by Poles during the period 1918-1938. --SylwiaS 05:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

~Please, I want quotes for any alleged sentence he has said. I know the Preußische Treuhand is very unpopular in Poland. And what is not liked may be treated not quite fairly, eg one might make a false statement of fact that injures someone's reputation. Make sure it's credible and not some lie to earn money withsensationalism. I would quite honestly see another source from a country besides Poland. There are enough news agencies on the net and quotations can be found easily. And I highly doubt that the statement could be real if it is so unpopular. If it was a fact, it would probably have caused a scandal.

Discussion on the Pawelka's speech

I guess this is the German original. Please, let us read it carefully. Alx-pl 14:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

No, sorry, I've read through it but couldn't discover any grounds for the accusations. In his speech the accused criticises the Eu, the Polish government and the german one for their attitutude towards his de:Preußische Treuhand but does not allocate guilt for the war. I'm pretty sure this man is very unpopular by some here and criticising the polish government (or anything related to Poland) alone is considered in the article as anti-polonistic. And criticising the article, like I did, is considered by some as "German POV-pushing". No surprise then, that the propaganda article is "vandalized" so many times. NightBeAsT 16:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I doubt Gazeta Wyborcza is a nationalistic source :)Molobo.

Who cares? If its article is based on the speech posted by Alx-pl but makes such weird accusations, it is simply a misunderstanding or anything else unworthy of inclusion.NightBeAsT 17:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

To clarify. Gazeta Wyborcza is not a nationalistic journal. Its editor in chief Adam Michnik was awarded by European University Viadrina in Frankfurt upon Oder for his contribution to Polish-German reconciliation [1]. Alx-pl D 12:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

But he didn't write this article, did he? And why couldn't that person write another article if he was right and so many other magazines and newspapers ignorant?12:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

No, he did not write this article. The aim of my remark was just only to underline that this daily treats Polish-German relations in a serious manner and if it presents something as a problem in Polish-German relations then it is really a problem and not a seeking of cheap popularity. From my analysis below, you can clearly see that Pawelka's argument is on the verge of accusing of Poland for the guilt for WW2. Gazeta Wyborcza just took the side of the interpretation that he really said so, because they think he wants to slowly revise the current European order at the cost of Polish citizens. Alx-pl D 13:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

One long speech of Pawelka (over 130 sentences) to Silesians shortly commented (5 sentences -> less than 1/25 of the speech) on the Treaty of Versailles and the forcible expulsion of Germans after the first World War in the context of "problems and tensions" before 1933 that "people don't talk about" but which also contributed to a "situation in Europe" that "Hitler" then managed to "explo[de]" when he started the second World War. A journalist of the most popular daily in Poland jumped to the conclusion that Pawelka wanted to completely blame Poland for World War II and although that was not Pawelka's point in the speech, the journalist, who certainly didn't win a prize for the story, succeeded in creating a scandal in Poland. Scandals often increase the rate of sales of the magazines who cause them. That summarizes this entire problem in my opinion. Actually I don't even want to know Molobo's summary because I can see it in the article: Pawelka said Poland, not Germany, is guilty for the second World War! That's why all the organizations in which Pawelka is in must think so too! And the entire CDU and CSU think so too because they were once reported by a Polish source to have met with these organizations!!!NightBeAsT 14:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

You forgot about Polish "agression" in Upper Silesia, lawlessness of Polish state, whose fingers must be watched, and the fact that he is angry about the fact that when WW2 is mentioned Poland isn ;t remembered for her aggression. --Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Was the brutal and deadly expulsion after World War II not aggressive? In what context did he accuse Poland of being a lawlessness state? In the context of their rejection of his demands. And that's what the speech is about, his demands, not your Miss Poland. And I've told you three times already that you don't translate word for word but according to its meaning, so there was no claim of "watching hands". How about you learn German before claiming you're better informed about the German language than me, the Collins Dictionary or the Honos dictionary?NightBeAsT 22:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"And the entire CDU and CSU think so too because they were once reported by a Polish source to have met with these organizations!!!" I don't know if they think so(Stroiber is a bit antipolish but I will have to look) but they tolert such person who uses Hitler's rhetoric. --Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Any reasnoble person cares, well except German nationalists I suppose :)--Molobo 22:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

So every reasonable beings except "German nationalists" cares whether or not you think Gazeta Wyborcza is a nationalistic source? Delusion of grandeur? It's this simple: If its article is based on the speech posted by Alx-pl but makes such weird accusations, it is simply a misunderstanding or anything else unworthy of inclusion. NightBeAsT 16:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes you are right.Saying that he is angry Nazi Reich is accused of agression when it was Poles that were aggresive doesn't mean he accuses Poles of WW2 or he is antipolish :)--Molobo 18:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC) And of course GW is a right wing nationalist newspaper :) --Molobo 18:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC) Sorry? NightBeAsT 18:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC) And of course this part of the text is very propolish also : Polen ist mit einer solchen Rechtsprechung kein Rechtsstaat. Unser Appell an Europa: Schaut diesen Epigonen des kommunistischen Unrechtsstaates auf die Finger !--Molobo 18:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

But does it mirror an "irrational or malicious histility towards Poland"? Maybe in your opinion. In my opinion he was argueing in favour of his organisation and this sentence, one of hundreds in his speech, is an overstatement he uses as rhetorical device to argue for his cause, not argument why Polish should be detestable. NightBeAsT 18:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

How silly of me to forget that "showing the finger" is a friendly "rhetorical device" :) --Molobo 20:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

No, giving someone the finger is not a friendly rhetorical device as such. It is a gesture venting anger that has nothing to do with what we are talking of because "auf die Finger schauen" means "to keep an eye on someone", not "give sb a finger". NightBeAsT 21:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't Poland is a thief that needs her hands watched.Also I don't think claiming that the treaty that restored Poland from occupation was "unjust", or diktat, nor do I think liberation of Poles was "aggression", that we need to remember besides Nazi Reich...--Molobo 00:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Allright, do you consider a person an anti-polonist who says, "which hand that has put itself and us in such chains [meaning the Versailler Vertrag] wouldn't whither?" And if that person added, "this treaty is unbearable and unattainable!", would you see him as an anti-polonist or rather a nazi?NightBeAsT 20:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic and aks me personal questions on my talk page.What we are talking is Pawelka speach against Polish state in which he among accusing Poland of aggression, blaming Poland for WW2, insulting remarks that Poland must have her hands watched, also said that liberation movement of Poles was aggression, and treaty that created Poland was injust.--Molobo 20:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I never made an off-topic edit and this was not an attempt to do so either. As for aggression: was the Expulsion of Germans after World War II not maybe a bit aggressive considering millions of Germans died in an aggressive way? As for your thief theory: you guys personalised Poland by calling it "her", like a woman, now, Molobo, you're complaining that someone applies the personalisation "to keep an eye on someone" to Poland, like Poland were a woman or man. And get over these thief theories. Collins dictionary: 'jdm auf die Finger sehen/schauen='to keep an eye on sb', 'jdm scharf auf die Finger sehen/schauen='to keep a close eye on sb'; the latter is more emphatic ... but Pawelka only said the former thus less emphatic - therefore less inflammatory - one. We translate the meaning of the term, not word for word, or else saying "to let the cat out of the bag" would certainly not mean "to tell a secret carelessly or by mistake" if you translate it to Polish for example - if you translated it word for word it would sound like an accusation of cruelty to cats, whereas a "cat burglar" would not be "a thief who climbs up the outside of a building in order to enter it and steal sth" but translating it word for word you'd have a "burglar that steals cats". If keeping an eye on sth is a crime, then I'm guilty of keeping an eye on the article, and so are you. Do you accuse the article of being a thief? As for your accusation of war guilt: I think I've explained why it is nonsense now (read the comment below starting with "No, that's overstated etc". Even if you still accepted this conspiracy theory, what difference would it make? If you ask Pawelka whether he thinks Poland is responsible for the situation that led to WW2, would he confirm it? No. Has he accused Poland for the situation that led to WW2 in other speeches? Certainly not (unless you could find a source). Even if you didn't change your mind, no source except for one little source thought so too. Politically Pawelka played a relative large role last year and attention from the media was not missing, yet no source thinks he blames Poland for WW2? And a scandal is usually good for a magazine's rate of sales and Pawelka's approving rates were not really high so who should want to gloss over such things? Not even those who'd even care about Prince Charles and other such worthless gossip, right? By the way, are you accusing Prince Harris of being a nazi after he wore a nazi uniform? Certainly not. Because you could guess that he would deny any such accusations, because that would only be speculative, because that person himself is actually irrelevant. So why are you so pedantic about small parts of that long but irrelevant speech? As for the question I asked you about the treaty: what I was trying to point out was that objection to the Treaty of Versailles was dominant in Germany. That statement came from Scheidemann by the way, the important politician who called out the beginning of the Weimar Republic, not some anti-polonist. I argued that he Pawelka used the treaty as argument that injustice doesn't justify injustice. The treaty of Versailles, believe it or not, is known to have been a factor for the Weimar Republic's end and Hitler's success. The treaty intentionally humiliated Germany - for example the place and time of that treaty are those of Bismarck's foundation of Germany. Because the Germans were dazzled by Wilson's 14points, they were all the more shocked about the incredibly high demands of the treaty. Don't forget that WW1 has been a tragedy for Germany too. The treaty meant a shock and decreased Germany's right of self-determination, which Pawelka said too. Sprengler, a historian, summarized the entire treaty with a "continuation of the war with other means" and that's how they were seen in the tragedy of the Weimar Republic. The treaty was a "mortgage for the Weimar Republic" according to my history book. I know the treaty has also to do with the history of Poland, but the territorial changes weren't even the core of the treaty and Poland was just one - Lithuania, France, Belgium and Denmark profitted too and there was also the loss of Saarland and all the German colonies in Africa and elsewhere. These are just details. When Pawelka shortly mentioned the treaty, he wanted to remind of the treaty as a whole. Maybe to Poles the treaty meant a big change for Poland's territory. To Germans this meant just an insignificant detail - there was never much controversy about Poland about the treaty. And Pawelka and the listeners were Germans and most probably didn't even know that the treaty had something to do with Poland too. To them it was a humiliation, a shock, a continuation of the war with other means, a Diktat, anything associated with injustice. And this is what Pawelka is arguing with. Please don't forget that Poland is not the centre of the universe, not saying that Germany is, but when people in Germany hear 'Prussia' or 'Treaty of Versailles', they are not often reminded of Poland. In the history class tests about Bismarck and later about WW1 and the treaty of Versailles, I wrote 0 words about Poland and still I got the best marks in my history course back then (not saying I was so good in others subjects too), I just can't imagine I've missed the point.NightBeAsT 23:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes we can add to the article that history about Bismarck's campaigns of germanisations and persecutions of Poles aren't mentioned in German schools.Thank you for pointing that out.--Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure and on doing so we delete it for original research and lack of verifiability. Is it too hard to understand that any country focuses on history relevant to their country? Do you guys in Poland learn about the history of China? No? Aren't you anti-Chinese then? No, because the history of China has actually only little effect on your country's history. And that Germans gloss over important parts about Polish history is ridiculous: why don't they spare German students all those nasty details about the Third Reich, of course, including Poland.NightBeAsT 22:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

And please your nationalistic rant about Germany being "humilitated" by losing what it grabbed in XIX century from others isn't ontopic.Of course its nice to forget about other aspects about Pawalka's speech.--Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

(No, Molobo, the Treaty of Versailles was an intentional humiliation and you could know that ... or do the Polish schools gloss over that fact to reinforce their anti-Germanism? An impartial Molobo would now suggest to add that to the article) If it is so off-topic, why are you too commenting on it? Are you trying to distract from Pawelka's *world-shattering* speech?NightBeAsT 22:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"And Pawelka and the listeners were Germans and most probably didn't even know that the treaty had something to do with Poland too." Oh I am sure.Poznan, Pomorze Gdanskie, Gdansk, Upper Silesia have no meaning to Germans.Especially those near Pawalka :)Especially since they want to get possessions in those regions. --Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and what difference does it make to what I've stated? None.

Asking me personal questions is offtopic.--Molobo

The "off-topic" question was aimed at checking whether all objection to the treaty was anti-polonistic to you and the revelation that it was a founder of Weimar and not Hitler or Pawelka should have made you question your views but if you think that was off-topic because it was personal, well, I don't see you criticising yourself for your off-topicness.NightBeAsT

"As for your thief theory: you guys personalised Poland by calling it "her", like a woman, now, Molobo, you're complaining that someone applies the personalisation "to keep an eye on someone" to Poland, like Poland were a woman or man." I never complained at compering Poland to man or women.I complained about Pawelka antipolonist portay al of Poland as lawless communist state that needs her hands watched.--Molobo

I'd like you to show me where Pawelka said Poland needs his/her/its hands watched.NightBeAsTNowhere.::He said that Polands hands should watched, not washed.Look up watched in dictionary.--Molobo

Then check a dictionary for 'watch' yourself because one discussion fragment below your misspell that too. But no, he actually made no mention of "hands" at all. I told you not to translate terms word for word. If you have a more trustworthy source than Collins dictionary, don't come up with your translations. Just like a 'cat burglar' doesn't steal cats, Pawelka never accused Mr Poland of being a thief.NightBeAsT

I made a search on the statement Pawelka used, results were about criminal or illegal activity.

For example http://www.golem.de/0002/6233.html --Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"but Pawelka only said the former thus less emphatic" Actually saying that Poland is lawless state, and appeal to Europe to "watcht there hands" seem quite emphatic.--Molobo

If you still come up with that finger, I told you not to translate word for word but according to the meaning. And Pawelka said didn't just say "Poland is no state under the rule of law", he said with that verdict Poland is no state under the rule of law", intentionally overstating the verdict against him and criticising it sharply.NightBeAsT

"If you ask Pawelka whether he thinks Poland is responsible for the situation that led to WW2, would he confirm it?" And would I ask Hitler as a reporter if he wants to murder all Jews in Poland would he confirm it ?--Molobo

That Hitler killed Jews is a fact. That Pawelka is anti-polonistic is merely your personal speculation. If he confirmed this sentiment, you'd have a fact. If he killed Poles, you'd have a fact too. That Hitler is the devil would be a speculation. There's a nice rule: not guilty until proven guilty. So find facts, not speculations.NightBeAsT

Of course.Saying that Polish liberation from German was aggression, and he is angry that Polish aggresion isn't remembered when talking why the WW2 started isn't antipolish at all :D

--Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Your comment has nothing to do with what I've said. That he called the brutal expulsion after WW2 an aggression even though Poland profitted from it is from the point of view of a Slesian. That he accused Poland of being responsible for WW2 is your personal speculation. Not guilty until proven guilty.NightBeAsT

" Has he accused Poland for the situation that led to WW2 in other speeches" I don't know his other speeches, he did in that.But wait ? You know his other speeches ? Do you listen to his speeches often ?--Molobo

If that strange magazine writes as probably the only magazine out there an article which accused Pawelka of having accused Poland for WW2, why should it not write another if it had more proof so it could demonstrate it was right? So obviously it has no more proof. And no, I have never read or heard any other speeches apart from what Alx-pl posted and why are you accusing me? You appear to have a passion for jumping to conclusions (you migh like to look 'to jump/leap to conclusions' up in a good dictionary if you don't know the term).NightBeAsT

"yet no source thinks he blames Poland for WW2" Actually the largest and most respected Polish paper(often accused of antiPolish attiude by nationalists) thinks so.--Molobo

A Polish newspaper for the bulk of the population, thus comparable to the Bild Zeitung. That was the "little source" (little because I consider it to be as unreliable as the Bild Zeitung) I was referring to.NightBeAsT

Actually Gazeta Wyborcza is one of the most respected papers in Poland.Please don't comment about things you have little knowledge about.--Molobo

Not unlike the Bild Zeitung. Like my old English book, you can distinguish between 'popular' newspapers and 'serious' newspapers.NightBeAsT

" By the way, are you accusing Prince Harris of being a nazi after he wore a nazi uniform? Certainly no" Please stay on topic.This has nothing to do with antipolonism.--Molobo

Not so fast. A hasty conclusion might be that he is a nazi after wearing that nazi uniform. So add him to the article because being a nazi means being anti-polonistic. It's only about as far fetched as your other stories including Pawelka's.NightBeAsT

"As for the question I asked you about the treaty: what I was trying to point out was that objection to the Treaty of Versailles was dominant in Germany. " Dislike for Poland and desire for its destruction was commonplace in Weimar Republic.See Stresseman and his attempts to destroy Poland by economical means.--Molobo

Again you miss the big picture: Germany's foreign policy mainly consisted of an attempt at reverting the Treaty of Versailles in general, until Hitler succeeded in doing so --> a continuation of the war with other means. (It's Stresemann btw)NightBeAsT

Ok lets see how our Stressi viewed things

"[A] final and lasting recapitalisation of Poland must be delayed until the country is ripe for a settlement of the border according to our wishes and until our own position is sufficiently strong." According to Stresemann's letter, there should be no settlement "until [Poland's] economic and financial distress has reached an extreme stage and reduced the entire Polish body politic to a state of powerlessness".2"

Stresemann in a letter to the German ambassador in London, quoted after Broszat (see above), p. 224. Martin Broszat, 200 Jahre deutsche Polenpolitik, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1972, Oh what a lovely peacemaker and friend of Poland ! --Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

He actually won the Nobel peace prize despite trying to revert the treaty of Versailles like any other German politician at that time.NightBeAsT

Good we shall add that German politicians at that time ware hostile to Poland.Good contribution from your side :) --Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Molobo, Wikipedia is no vehicle for propaganda. If you want to mention that all the German parties were against the Treaty of Versailles and tried to revert it, you can do so (to get the statement deleted due to irrelevance to the topic), or if you only cherrypick the Polish part, you'll get it deleted for trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for propaganda.NightBeAsT 22:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"The treaty of Versailles, believe it or not, is known to have been a factor for the Weimar Republic's end and Hitler's success." Really ? That is your POV.In fact I could claim that it was the lack of enforcing it that was the source of German Nationalists success(surely you don't want to claim was an invidual set apart from all the rest of politicians in his views).--Molobo

My POV? "mortgage for the Weimar Republic", says one history book. Another ranks the Treaty of Versailles as one of the 10 reasons for the death of the Weimar Republic. But of course in your opinion they must be biased against the treaty. Surprisingly, however, they do not gloss over the crimes and all those nasty details of the Third Reich.NightBeAsT

"The treaty intentionally humiliated Germany - for example the place and time of that treaty are those of Bismarck's foundation of Germany."The WW2 was started to destroy Poland not to avenge signing of the treaty.--Molobo

Oh yes, to destroy the centre of the universe.NightBeAsTI see that you have no objective counterarguments.This is expected, since WW2 started over Polish territory desired by Germany.

--Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC) "Don't forget that WW1 has been a tragedy for Germany" Somehow I can find little sadness that the plan for economical exploitation of Central Europe to achieve German hegemony failed.If Germany hadn't purused dreams of being world power WW1 wouldn't happened.--Molobo

Not a tragedy? Millions were killed, millions injured, millions went missing in action, entire landscapes and cities were destroyed. Considering they only wanted a short war, not a world war, like the three previous wars (who did much to unite Germany), something like a war Poland wanted to have when it entered the Iraq war, yes, it was a tragedy. No one wanted a world war. German hegemony? No, not world domination, but a position equal to the world powers Great Britain, the USA and Russia was the aim of the German Empire. The central powers doubtlessly contributed much to the outbreak of the war, but at that time peace was very unimportant to most countries. I remember a nice quote by a historian who said that almost any country involved could have prevented the war ... if they really wanted to. And if you're really so indifferent to German suffering, like Pawelka is or was to Polish suffering or (since you like comparisons to Hitler) like Hitler was to Jewish suffering, just try to avoid indications because as you can see in the paragraph about Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it just forces the conversation off-topic.NightBeAsT

"Millions were killed, millions injured, millions went missing in action, entire landscapes and cities were destroyed. Considering they only wanted a short war, not a world war, like the three previous wars (who did much to unite Germany)"

Oh poor German imperialists.Theire short war to create empire failed.How sad I feel...--Molobo

I don't expect any more humane sympathy of you for the suffering of anyone except for Poles. See, that's the difference between the two of us - even though I'm an opponent of the Iraq war, I still don't think that 9/11 was right. I'm not anti-americanistic because of it. You? You blame every German without exception for their imperialistic, monarchic government. That Bismarck left and an imperialistic course was taken - much like any other government of a great power - was not their fault. I'm getting off-topic, but you actually want me to go off-topic because I've just told you to stop unnecessarily indicating your indifference to German suffering (comparable to Hitler's indifference to Jewish suffering) and what do you do? You immediately only voice your indifference even with sarcasm. You're either trying to force the conversation off-topic or you're just trying to make me angry. Whatever it is, stop it.NightBeAsT

"German hegemony? No, not world domination, but a position equal to the world powers Great Britain, the USA and Russia was the aim of the German Empire."

I already provided a quote of German war aims in Central Europe in the talk page.Maybe it seems strange to you but depopulation of Poland and turning into exploited economy isn't something which I would like...--Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Fine, you quoted a letter or whatever and I quoted a history book on the question whether Germany was trying to become a hegemony. Does that make anyone wrong?NightBeAsT

"And if you're really so indifferent to German suffering"

German failure to achieve a hegemony in Europe and conquer other nations doesn't fill me with sadness.And that is what made those "sufferings". --Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Germans usually thought it was defensive warfare, not an agressive war. Stop generalising from the government and using it to argue against Germans in general. You're unnecessarily expressing your indiffernce to their suffering again after I told you to stop doing so. What reasonable purpose does this serve?NightBeAsT

"To Germans this meant just an insignificant detail - there was never much controversy about Poland about the treaty. And Pawelka and the listeners were Germans and most probably didn't even know that the treaty had something to do with Poland too" If you think so, then please learn more about history.Destruction of Poland was one of main targets of German policy since 1918.Pursued by collaboration with Soviet Union, support for bolshevik invasion by von Seeckt, and economical war of Stresseman.--Molobo

Oh, was it? Yes, somewhere behind the Dolchstoßlegende, the Novemberrevolution, the treaty of Versailles, the Weimar Constitution, the seperatism, the attempted coup d'états by Kapp and Hitler, the inflatation, the fight about Ruhr, the new currency, the stabilisation of economy and state, the economic crisis caused by the black Friday, the collapse of parlamentarism, Hitler, NSDAP, SS, Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, the reasons for the collapse of Weimar, etc. I forgot about Poland? No, actually that's what pupils basically learn in the twelfth class of German grammar schools on the Weimar Republic and what is important to know in the subject History in what is equal to the A-levels. So yes, to Germans, Poland in the time of the Weimar Republic means just another insignificant detail, not to Poles, but I'm afraid Pawelka is not addressing Poles.NightBeAsT

How nice of you to forget German involvment in Bolshevik invasion, or the German aggression against Poles in Poznan or Silesia, Stressi's attempts to destroy Polish economy, Freikorps persecution of Polish civilians, and German cooperation with SU against Poland.

--Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Big deal! I was talking of the (lack of) German knowledge of Poland, not the (lack of) Polish knowledge of Germany, so what difference does your comment make?NightBeAsT

"Please don't forget that Poland is not the centre of the universe, not saying that Germany is, but when people in Germany hear 'Prussia' or 'Treaty of Versailles', they are not often reminded of Poland" How true.Upper Silesia, Poznan, Pomorze, Gdansk meant nothing to German politicians in postWW1 period I guess...--Molobo 23:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I was talking about Germans TODAY or did Pawelka held his speech in the first half of the 20th century?NightBeAsT 19:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear.How many members are there in expeeles organisations 2 or 3 milion ? Quite unimportant it seems indeed...

Btw how many votes did the NPD and other nationalist organisation received in local elections.How many Germans are in neonazi parties ?

--Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

First sentence: what are you talking about??? Second sentence: the surge of right-wing extremism is not uncommon of countries at the moment, or so I've heard. But anyway do you really think that more than 1-4% of Germans would vote for the NPD in the upcoming general elections in Germany?NightBeAsT

I don't care.If they exist, they will be mentioned.molobo

No rambo trips, molobo, please. I already argued that the NPD objects to foreigners in general, which is xenophobic, not anti-polonistic. And even then the number of votes they get can always be counted with a single hand. If you don't care about arguments or consensus and still do some ego-trips, maybe we should address further instances of dispute resolution.NightBeAsT 22:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The text I mentioned is indeed the text in question. I've checked it thouroghly by now. Let me point out the main problematic passage which sounds most offending for us Poles:

Es erzürnt mich aber auch, wenn alle Untaten von Deutschen ständig benannt, wenn Aggression und Schuld anderer Länder plötzlich nicht mehr zählen und mit dem Verweis auf 1933 oder 1939 weggewischt werden. Die Geschichte des zweiten Weltkrieges fängt aber nicht 1933 an, ungelöste Probleme und Spannungen in Europa waren auch vor 1933 vorhanden. Es bedurfte nur eines Diktators Hitler, der diese Situation zur Explosion brachte.

Es ist unredlich, wenn man von dem ungerechten und das Selbstbestimmungsrecht missachtendenden Diktat von Versailles 1919 nicht mehr spricht, das der britische Premierminister Lloyd George als Keim für den nächsten Krieg bezeichnete. Es kann in diesem Zusammenhang nicht verschwiegen werden, welchen Leidensweg die 2,4 Millionen Deutschen in Polen bis 1939 gehen mussten, in der Tschechoslowakei waren es über 3 Millionen, die gegen ihren Willen in den neuen Staat gepresst wurden. Eine große Fluchtwelle und Vertreibungen aus Polen erfasste etwa eine Million Deutsche bis 1939.

Wer 1933 anfängt, geht auch hinweg über polnische Aggressionen gegen seine Nachbarn: 1918 / 19 Einfall in Russland und Annexion großer Gebiete, Mai 1921 Überfall auf das deutsche Oberschlesien verbunden mit unsäglichen Grausamkeiten an der deutschen Bevölkerung, Oktober 1938 Einmarsch in das tschechische Olsagebiet und Annexion des Gebiets.

these are translated into Polish like this:

Zloszcze sie jednak takze wtedy, gdy mówi sie stale o przestepstwach Niemców, podczas gdy agresja i wina innych krajów przestaje odgrywac role i jest zamazywana ze wzgledu na lata 1933 lub 1939. Historia drugiej wojny swiatowej nie zaczela sie w 1933 r.; nierozwiazane problemy i napiecia istnialy w Europie juz wczesniej. (the sentence: Es bedurfte nur eines Diktators Hitler, der diese Situation zur Explosion brachte. is not translated)

The second paragraph is not translated but related like this: Za jedna z przyczyn wybuchu wojny uznal Traktat Wersalski z 1919 r., który, jak powiedzial, byl niesprawiedliwy i ignorowal prawo narodów do samostanowienia. W tym kontekscie wspomnial o cierpieniach 2,4 mln Niemców, którzy wbrew swej woli zostali "wtloczeni" w granice nowego panstwa polskiego.

Kto zaczyna rokiem 1933, ten pomija polskie agresje przeciwko sasiadom - w 1918/19 wkroczenie do Rosji i aneksje duzych obszarów, w maju 1921 r. napad na Górny Slask i popelnienie niewypowiedzianych okrucienstw na ludnosci niemieckiej, zas w pazdzierniku 1938 r. wkroczenie na czeskie Zaolzie i aneksje tego terenu.

Oh, I begin to understand the origin of "Rudi Pawelka [...] blamed the outburst of the war on, in his opinion, acts of aggression committed by Poles during the period 1918-1938.". It must be this sentence: "Die Geschichte des zweiten Weltkrieges fängt aber nicht 1933 an, ungelöste Probleme und Spannungen in Europa waren auch vor 1933 vorhanden." (English: "The history of World War II, however, doesn't begin in 1933, unsolved problems and tensions existed in Europe before 1933") Furthermore he also mentions acts of Polish aggression in the thirties. But did he blame the outburst of the war on Poland? No. Thus "Rudi Pawelka [...] blamed the outburst of the war on, in his opinion, acts of aggression committed by Poles during the period 1918-1938." is a meaningless statement based on opinion. And that led some here to denounce the entire Preußisch Treuhand as 'anti-polonistic'???NightBeAsT 18:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

And of course Hitler killed Jews because they were bolsheviks not because they were Jews... Just like Pawelka doesn't blame Poland for WW2, he just wants us remember Polish "aggresion" before WW2 ;) Molobo Asking for "showing the finger" towards Poland isn't antipolish as well of course --Molobo 20:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't get it right, just get it written, huh? No, actually having an eye on sth or sb is not being hostile, or else you must be anti-german for having an eye on Polish articles related to Germany.NightBeAsT 21:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Watching somebodies hands is different and means usually that the other is not to be trusted or a thief. --Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Just like a 'cat burglar' steals cats, yes. Are you claiming to be more reliable than Collins dictionary when it comes to German words? Then let's ask another dictionary: "jmdm. auf die Finger sehen/schauen/gucken: [ugs.] auf jmdn. achten, jmdn prüfen <<Wenn du dem nicht genau auf die Finger schaut, tut er nichts>> (English: (colloquial) to pay attention to sb, to check sb <<if you don't check him, he's going to do nothing.>>) But I guess, as you're a native speaker of German (or not...), you know the German language better than anyone else, especially German dictionaries and other native speakers of German (like me who is also the son of a teacher of the German language).NightBeAsT 11:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

These quotes above are taken from the first source by SylwiaS. I ask you all to point out in the list

1. what makes you think that the text in the article is legitimate and
2. what makes you think that the text in the article is propaganda.

I realize that the paragraphs are in certain context within Pawelka's speach, so it is OK to refer to the surrounding of these paras in the German source. (And yes, indeed 'Gazeta Wyborcza' is often called philogermanic.)

My friends, Poles, please indicate if there are other offending quotes in the sources by SylwiaS, so that I could present them to others. Alx-pl 17:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on the WDR source

This article from German WDR may also help. Can anybody translate into English the section Rückgabe vor Entschädigung? Alx-pl 18:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Translation: In the interview with wdr.de, Pawelka counters with his own ideas of reconciliation: "No politician wants to get into the storm of protests which comes from Poland and which is spread in the media here." The Preußische Treuhand had only one aim: "We want the healing for the criminal expulsion." For, Pawelka continues, "every exile must have a right to decide whether he wants to have his property or not". This belonged to the "right of domicile" of the Germans who were driven out of Poland. "On the question of property, we're trying to do all that we still can." Primarily the demand was "Return instead of recompense". Only there "where restitution does not work anymore, because for example a hospital has been built there, we also accept payments of compensation", says Pawelka, who was the leading director of the police in Essen. Today he sits in the city of Leverkusen for the CDU in the city council. "We eventually want to achieve peace under the law for the future and complete human rights in Europe." Pawelka is also the chef of the Silesian national team, which has its headquarters in Königswinter, near by Bonn. Does not justify the accusation either.NightBeAsT 22:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't do it myself, but my German is quite weak and it would take me ages to accomplish it. Thank you very much NightBeAsT! What can be summarised by now:

• Rudi Pawelka and The Preußische Treuhand want to restitute the property that was in German hands before WWII
• They intend to use human rights and the European courts to gain this aim
• Poles commonly think that this implies coming back to the ethnic situtation from before WWII
• Poles are afraid of this because it means coming back to all the problems from before WWII and thus treat such claims as hostile anti-Polonism

Are there any objections against the summary? Can we make a text based on this? Is it well documented by both Polish and German sources? Alx-pl 00:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Alx-you forgot to add that it wasn't Nazi German that started the WW2 alone,"Polish agression" is also responsible--Molobo 22:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

And you must have forgotten that he never said so, but that you just interpreted that this way. Wikipedia isn't a place to express personal interpretations in articles as if they were facts NightBeAsT 16:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course he said.We have to rember the "injust Diktat"(oh how injust indeed it restored Poland, terrible) and Polish aggression.Thus not only Poland is to blame for war its also equal to Nazi Reich according to his words.--Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The WDR is part of the German Das Erste, a serious tv channel comparable (albeit worse in my opinion) to the British BBC. Compared to channels like ProSieben, WDR is quite unpopular, like most serious stuff is in relation to that containing more gossip (compare The Sun to The Guardian or Der Spiegel to Bild Zeitung). The article distances itself from the comments and doesn't give its opinion. I don't think its credibility is dubious, or does anyone think so? But what I'm certainly not sure of is how the information could be included if they should be included.NightBeAsT 02:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it your concern that Pawelka's action is not supported by majority of Germans? Maybe we could somehow mention it in the Polish-German friendship section? Maybe we could provide a better evidence for this information? Maybe you can see another constructive solution? Note that Pawelka's case is mentioned and/or criticised by the major Polish dailies: Rzeczpospolita (newspaper), Gazeta Wyborcza, and a very credible news agency (a kind of Reuters) Polska Agencja Prasowa. Alx-pl 02:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand what you meant. It's a good idea in my opinion.NightBeAsT 16:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposal with stress on Preußische Treuhand and retribution

Can we agree on this formulation (it takes into account the remark that Molobo wanted to be included in the passage above):

The Preußische Treuhand want to restitute whenever possible the property that was in German hands before the World War II. To this end, they want to use human rights in the European and Polish courts [2]. This together with allusions of Rudi Pawelka, the leader of the Preußische Treuhand, concerning the guilt for the start of the World War II [3] are recognised by major Polish newspapers as anti-Polish [4], [5], as such a solution would result in humiliation of many Polish citizens.

I did not mention the PAP source by SylwiaS, because it seems for me a little bit suspicious. I've never seen a signed notice from PAP, and the one pointed out by Sylwia is signed. Maybe the notice is form another medium? I am in favour of adding the source, but after the real origin is sorted out. If this proposal is not acceptable, please, point out what should be improved. Alx-pl 22:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC) Please this is not the article about German revisionist organisations.What is important here is there antipolonistic ideology which they continue to spread.As to other goals, feel free to add them in articles about such organisations.--Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC) To be honest, I wouldn't agree fully on this. Apart from the formulation (eg Pawelka doesn't want to use the human rights but he sees the right of property as a human right and he wants to fight for this right), there were absolutely no allusions, simply statements of a speech taken out of their context. Pawelka didn't excuse the Third Reich in the speech ([6]). He said it was the "dictator Hitler", who lead the "situation" in Europe to "explosion". Shortly before (it's written right under the first long line) Pawelka said "I'm embarassed by what a nationalsocialist state has caused. For culturized people, who had given the world so much, it's almost incomprehensible." Four paragraphs below he said, "It's in no way about a weakening or a relativating of the actions of the NS-state, it is about the truth, human rights and the defence against the attempt to hide atrocities behind German atrocities." This is mirrored by a sentence in the sixth paragraph of the speech, which says: ""Concealing one's own atrocities behind the German atrocities is a European norm", this is how the Hungarian writer Esterhàzy put it in the Frankfurter Paulskirche." The entire speech argues in favour of his organization, not who or what was responsible for WW2. This is the context. Those who claim he put the blame for WW2 to Poland only want to bad-mouth him. That's why I cannot agree with you on these alleged allusions because in the context of his speech the allegations look ridiculous. And that's why I was so critical of an inclusion of the whole dispute: his allocation of guilt is just a meaningless allegation to shock some readers and earn money with sensationalism, based on the assumption that next to no one likes the Preußische Treuhand anyway. I'm 100% sure these journalists didn't even believe what they wrote themselves.NightBeAsT 23:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC) Nobody needs to bad mouth them my dear German citizen, he badmouthed himself when ha talked about Poland as thief(we need to look at Polands hands), accused Poland of agression in Upper Silesia, told that the treaty that restored Poland was injust, and that oh he doesn't like Hitler but please remember the Polish aggression.Such blunt revisionistic statements and insults against Poland and Polish people speak for themselfs.--Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I've read the paras several times now. I agree that Pawelka and PT are marginal. The main Pawelka's sin is that he wants the retribution of the property, not that he wants to revert the guilt. And I agree with you, that he does not allude. He simply states that the guilt for the war is partly on the Polish side and in the way Poland handled Germans within its territory. I agree also that he distances himself explicitely from the nazi regime. He even stays that Es geht keineswegs um eine Aufrechnung oder um Relativierung des Handelns des NS-Staates (The intent is not to recalculate or relativize the deeds of nazi state in any way) But in fact he does recalcutates and does relativizes its deeds stating that:

• Es bedurfte nur eines Diktators Hitler, der diese Situation zur Explosion brachte. (A dictator like Hitler was needed only to bring the situation to the explosion point).
• Wer 1933 anfängt, geht auch hinweg über polnische Aggressionen gegen seine Nachbarn (Who starts with 1933 puts aside the Polish aggressions against their neighbouring nations [in 1918/19/21/38]).

Pawelka just puts aside these two things so he relates them and thus in fact makes their mutual relativisation; he also recalculates the deeds of nazis because he says that there were certain sufferings and they were stopped by the explosion ignited by Hitler (but this is only alluded, of course).

I don't say that the situation before WWII should not be analysed and that the sufferings of Germans should be forgotten due to Hitler, of course. (Erich Maria Remarque's books are worth reading to gain more intuition on what was happening in Germany before WWII, by the way).

To make the long story short Pawelka states: I feel ashamed of Hitler, but Poland is guilty for the situation that led to WWII And this is one of his ways to make Preußische Treuhand property claims legitimate. Or at least it is one of his ways to be seen as a bold German property rights defender, as far as the properties before WWII are concerned. Am I not right? Alx-pl 01:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

"but Poland is guilty for the situation that led to WWII That is the exact sentence relevant and proper to be put into the article.As whetever they are marginal or not, that is of lesser importance.They do receive visits from top German politicians however.--Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No, that's overstated, in this paragraph he argues that Poland because of its aggressions is not completely without blame in the situation that Hitler managed to explode, like he condemns the Versailler Vertrag (which is historically correct by the way). Of course he doesn't intend to use this argument change a line in a history book that would put more blame for WW2 on Poland, but his argument allows him to say that these injustices against Germany didn't do the world good either. This, in turn, strenghtens his main argument, namely that injustice simply doesn't justify injustice, that atrocities against Germany cannot be justified by Germany's atrocities against other countries. Because of this argument he wants the listener to conclude that the expulsion of Germans after World War II cannot be justified by Germany's injustice, put simply, those exiles have a right to their property they lost. To make this long story short Pawelka states: I know the Third Reich must be condemned and, for consistency, so must be all injustices because injustice never justifies injustice. For this reason the German exiles who had property before WW2, too, must get their property back.NightBeAsT 13:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Please spare the revisionistic "atrocities against Germany".Btw he says clearly"Remember polish aggesion", and shows that Poland is a thief"Look at their hands".--Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Why are atrocities against Germany revisionistic? And for the fourth time: he never said to "look at their hands". That's slander. He said "keep an eye on it" because of what he considers to be an injust and nationalistic verdict.NightBeAsT 23:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It is probably wiser to practice an edit war containment policy, and I will probably regret mentioning it, but some of this should be discussed at the new reprivatization article

Second proposal with stress on Preußische Treuhand and retribution

Well, I am very sorry, but I have to be emotional about this issue. Please, don't take it personally. You are doing a very good job and my feelings are purely against Pawelka's programme. Pawelka calls for justice, but he tries to win this justice by means of another injustice. He has a reasonable project for Germans that were expelled from East Prussia and Silesia (and Bohemia), but does he have a reasonable perspective for these people who live in their previous properties now and who have lived there for the last 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years? Will all these Germans be so generous to allow them live in the same place? I doubt. The people who will be forced to leave their properties, will they not feel that they are expelled (even if it would be not justified). What Pawelka prepared to offer for the neighbour of my mother's house? Before WWII she lived in Ukraine. After Germans and Russians invaded Poland in 1939 she and her family were expelled to Siberia. Her father and mother died there. After the war she returned (or better said was expelled for the second time) to the new Poland within new borders and her original home was left outside the Polish territory. (A good description of a 'journey' of this kind is in this interview; excerpt.) What Pawelka can offer her? Does he speak about retribution of her property? Where can he direct her? To Russian courts? To Ukrainian courts? These countries declined the right for this kind of retribution. Suppose they allowed it. Is it OK to propose someone a property in a country where cases like this take place? Or like this? Suppose Poles are so good that they will not feel any anger against Germans who regained their properties. Will Ukrainians, Belarussians, Lithuanians and Russians be also as good for Poles? What kind of justice can Pawelka offer for my mother's neighbour? Alx-pl 20:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Alx what all of this has to do with Pawalka claims that treaty restoring Poland was injust, Poland is a thief, and its agression should be remembered as one of causes of WW2.--Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong when I defend such persons as him or the CDU - although it might surprise some persons here I've actually only rarely agreed with the CDU's concepts in general and never voted for the party. I know that he and his organization react with indifference to the other side, in a similar way to lawyers in a judicial dispute. I know it's like at court or in a war, or to put it less inflammatory, in a 1vs1 video game or in a football match: two winners are rare. As the chef of the Silesian football team something like this shouldn't be new to him - he's biased in favour of a team and thus inevitably against the other. But it's often not hatred towards the other party that makes you support "your" team, you're just well-disposed towards your team, that's all. Quite honestly I don't think this Pawelka succeeded in his cause either. If the WDR report is right in guessing, Pawelka banged his head against a legal brick wall, so to speak. True or not, his attempt alone certainly injured Polish-German relations and, unintentional though it probably was, he opened up old sores connected to WW2. When Pawelka was bad-mouthed in the Anti-Polonism article, I don't think it were anti-German feelings but pro-polonism feelings involved (I don't know whether this is still the case but the anti-americanism article once had a similar problem). And in the anti-polonism article we have this football effect again: one side (to which for example I belong) feels it faces injustice in the form of slander and POV-pushing while the other feels it is okay, whereas when the side I'm in undoes what they consider to be injustice, the other side (in which for example Witkacy and Molobo are) feels it faces injustice in the form of POV-pushing or vandalism. Since Wikipedia is luckily supposed to be a mirror of the truth and not who may live in a house or who should be expelled to the advantage of another, any dispute can be shifted to the talk page, where it should be discussed over what and why people are devided, and what the truth is. I know that in the final analysis it almost amounts to the same thing: one party is benefitted at the expense of the other, yet there's a third, albeit passive, party profitting: the readers who use wikipedia for education - those who immediately accept it as truth (Last year my speech on Australian history was based on wikipedia to 50% and, given that my English teacher was really obsessed with Australia and therefore knew a lot of the truth, I was very glad that the article was close to the truth and 14/15 points as mark demonstrated the gladness of that teacher too). I thank you for helping to find out what's true and what's fiction (for example you found Pawelka's speech), Alx-pl, and of course your rather impartial mediation here. My proposal for a sentence related to Pawelka would something like this be "Sometimes anti-polonistic sentiment is suspected of people who discriminate against Poles - for example Rudi Pawelka, of the Preußische Treuhand, caused a shock in Poland after he and the Preußische Treuhand tried to initiate legal proceedings against the expulsion of Germans after WW2 from area that belonged to Germany even before WW2. By demanding that German exiles should get their property back or money of the same value, he hurt Polish-German relations, opened up old sores caused by atrocities by the Third Reich against Poland and argued with indifference to Poles whose property he wants to be given to the exiles."NightBeAsT

12:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC) The proposed statement doesn't fit what we talk about.What we talk about is Pawelka's attempts to portay Poland as thief, aggressor and treaty creating Poland as injust.--Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

NightBeAsT, you are doing a very good job. I think your previous reply was very much to the point, and in fact gave rise to much deeper summary of the Pawelka case. I think your proposal is very good. Alx-pl D 13:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Molobo, let me cite the definition of anti-Polonism: Anti-Polonism [...] is a term denoting an irrational or malicious hostility toward Poles as a nation or as a cultural community. The case of my mother's neighbour is an illustration of the way Pawelka's action is hostile against Poles. Thus it is definitely to the point. Unfortunately, one cannot exclude that Pawelka is just stupid and that's why the word suspected is used, and of course the text by NightBeAsT should be illustrated by sources which will give the readers a chance to asses their opinion. The propaganda that Pawelka uses in his speach is just and only a tool to achieve his end of property retribution and with this regard it is of minor importance. What's more it is always the case that when one plans an aggression then he wants to portray his opponent in bad light. That's why it can be OK to omit this issue. Of course, if you think it is of importance here, you can add a suitable sentence so that we all could discuss it.

The CDU/CSU and BdV case is of course worth mentioning, but it can be rationally discussed after the formulation for Preußische Treuhand is settled, because its meaning is totally dependant on the PT thing. There is a suitable section below to discuss in. Alx-pl D 20:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I really don't think Pawelka's IQ is of importance here.He clearly blamed Poland for its aggresion prior IIWW, considered treaty which created Poland injust and described Polish uprising against German state as aggression.--Molobo 20:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I feel like you are reading in my mind. But note that he is using a very peculiar language. A language which sounds in ears of PT in one way, in ears of Poles in another way and in ears of Europeans in yet another way. This is the point where his treachery lies. I understand that you want to mention something about Pawelka's statement concerning the guilt. Let us analyse it once more:

• "ungelöste Probleme und Spannungen in Europa waren auch vor 1933 vorhanden" (unsolved problems and tensions in Europe existed before 1933 as well) - and this is perfectly objective statement; after his enumeration of Polish actions before WWII we Poles have no doubt about his intent, but French or English may think he just enumerates some of the problems;
• "Es bedurfte nur eines Diktators Hitler, der diese Situation zur Explosion brachte." (It needed only a dictator like Hitler to get into an explosion) - I think this is uncivilized, but hardly to the point in anti-Polonism.
• When he refers to the Versaille treaty he cites Lloyd George which makes his statemens sound objective in the ears of (simple minded) "Europeans"; Lloyd George is a respectable politician in their minds.
• Then he refers to sufferings of Germans before WWII which are objective, and it sounds really OK in ears of (simple minded) "Europeans", but it is really suspicious in Polish ones, as Poles were also behind the German border and suffered the same or worse.
• "polnische Aggressionen gegen seine Nachbarn: ..." (Polish agressions against their neighbouring countries:...) which are and were indeed agressions in eyes of Russians, Czechs and Germans; again this is perfectly all right and objective in the eyes of a (simple minded) "European" (while in Polish ears the interpretation is that it was just a protection of Polish ethnic citizens, since all the Poles who were left behind the borders suffered anti-Polish oppression, as this was the mood in the times between the great wars).
• To make this passage less suspicious he concludes: "Es geht keineswegs um eine Aufrechnung oder um Relativierung des Handelns des NS-Staates,..." (The aim is not to recalculate or relativize the deeds of the Nazi state,...) which sounds like he is a man of truth and virtue in ears of a (simple minded) "European", but in Polish ears it is simply a lie (see my analysis above).

Summing up, it is nowhere that he states explicitely that Poland was guilty for WWII. You can atribute him objectively at most a statement that Poland actively took part in injustice after the Versaille treaty and that this injustice should be in the center of the discussion about the reasons for WWII. (This of course is immediately recognized by me and other Poles as a reversal of guilt, especially in the context of the aims of Preußische Treuhand.) And (simple minded) "Europeans" may think that he presented facts.

Let's contemplate a bit this analysis and let's try to find a neutral description of the case. I understand that we aim at adding something to the description by NightBeAsT above. Alx-pl D 22:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

" A language which sounds in ears of PT in one way, in ears of Poles in another way and in ears of Europeans in yet another way. " There are no "Europeans", they are Portugese,Ukrainians, Fins, Lithuanians etc.Wikipiedia aims of objective and neutral portayal of things, not showing every national stereotype as you propose.So from the begining your proposal is flawed.You may start articles Ukrainian-Polish relations,Portugese-Polish relations.Nothing stops you. However your claim is wrong on other grounds more important-Pawelka address this not to mythical Europeans, but to Germans, who know both German history and German propaganda.He basically repeats the same Nazi slogans used to justify aggresion against Poland.I doubt he doesn't know what he is doing-reinforcing Nazi propaganda by claiming it is true.Any mention about Pawelka should mention fact that he simply repeats propaganda invented and used by Nazis.

Note, that this is not a proposal of content, but an analysis that tries to show different points of view. As for Nazi propaganda, please, give suitable citations from Hitler and Pawelka in one place so that everybody (even Mexicans or Canadians who do not care about Poland) could immediately state that it is really the case. And please formulate it so that it is addressed to a potential Mexican or Canadian as you do not need to explain to me what's already obvious. Alx-pl D 06:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Please bring polls that show Canadians and Mexicans are indifferent to Poland. Molobo.

Do you know the history of Canadian border? Do you know the history of Mexican border? Do you know the border states of both USA and Canada? Do you know the border states of USA and Mexico? Do you know the country with which Mexico has ist southern border? What are the Mexican states at the border? Maybe you know all these facts (or at least you can read it in 10 minutes from Wikipedia), but they are not commonly taught in the schools in Poland, in Germany or France either. Can you give a poll that shows that in spite of the fact that these people (I mean at least Poles) are not taught those things they somehow acquired the knowledge? Alx-pl D 13:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I fear such discussion is irelevant to the article.I am still waiting for polls confirming your POV.Please ask me personal questions on my talk page in the future.However I don't think it is that all important compared to Pawelka using Nazi propaganda, so for now we may leave it.--Molobo 17:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Pawelka speech and Hitler ones

As to speeches http://www.hitler.org/speeches/10-06-39.html "Versailles was the cradle of a Polish State which had emerged from the untold sacrifice of blood - not of Polish but of German and Russian blood. Poland, who for centuries past had proved herself incapable of existence, was in 1916 artificially begotten and in 1919 no less artificially born by a German government just as incapable of existence.

In utter disregard of almost 500 years of experience, without consideration for the lesson of historical development during many centuries, without appreciation for ethnographic conditions and with no regard for all economic expediencies, a State was constructed at Versailles which, according to its whole nature, was sooner or later bound to become the cause of a most serious crisis.

A man who, I am sorry to say, now ranks among our fiercest enemies, at that time clearly foresaw all this. I mean Mr. Lloyd George. Like so many others he sounded warning, not only at the time of the creation of that structure but also in the course of its subsequent expansion which had taken place in utter disregard of reason and right.

At that time he expressed apprehension that in that State an accumulation of conditions was being created containing the risk of conflicts which sooner or later might lead to great European complications.

As a matter of fact, conditions surrounding the structure of this new so-called State, as far as its nationalities were concerned, could not be clarified until now. It requires some knowledge of Polish census methods to realize how utterly alien to truth, and therefore irrelevant, statistics on the national composition of that territory were and are.

In 1919 the Poles laid claims to the territory where they pretended to have a majority of 95 per cent - in East Prussia, for instance - whereas a plebiscite later showed the Poles actually had reached a figure of 2 per cent.

In the State finally created, which contained parts of former Russia, Austria, and Germany, non-Polish elements were so brutally ill-treated, suppressed, tyrannized and tortured that any plebiscite depended entirely on the good will of local administrative officials for producing such results as were desired or demanded. " "Unlimited patience and still greater self-restraint were called for because many of the regional Polish administrative officials took the understanding between Germany and Poland to be merely a license for the persecution and annihilation of the Germans in Poland with even less risk. In the few years up to 1922 more than one-and-a-half million Germans had been forced to leave their homes. "

Almost exact copy of Pawelka's speech.Except of course it was made by Hitler.Both even cite Lloyd George... And another : http://www.hitler.org/speeches/09-13-39.html "The fact that a province was torn from the German Reich and that other German territories were given to the Polish State was explained on the grounds of national necessity. Later, plebiscites everywhere showed that no one wished to become a part of the Polish State - that Polish State which arose out of the blood of countless German regiments. It then expanded at the expense of old settlement areas and above all at the expense of intelligence and economic possibility."

"Poland itself was a 'nationalities State.' That very thing had been created here which had been held against the old Austrian State. At the same time Poland was never a democracy. One very thin anemic upper class here ruled not only foreign nationalities but also its so-called own people.

It was a State built on force and governed by the truncheons of the police and the military. The fate of Germans in this State was horrible"

" The world, which immediately sheds tears when Germany expels a Polish Jew who only a few decades ago came to Germany, remained dumb and deaf toward the misery of those who, numbering not thousands but millions, were forced to leave their home country on account of Versailles - that is, if these unfortunates were Germans. What was for us and also for me most depressing was the fact that we had to suffer all this from a State which was far inferior to us; for, after all, Germany is a Great Power, even though madmen believed the vital rights of a great nation could be wiped out by a crazy treaty or by dictation.

Germany was a big power and had to look on while a far inferior people of a far inferior State maltreated these Germans. There were two especially unbearable conditions: First, this city whose German character nobody could deny was not only prevented from returning to the Reich but in addition an attempt was made to Polonize it by all kinds of devices; second, the province [East Prussia] severed from the German Reich had no direct contact with the Reich, but traffic with this province was dependent upon all kinds of chicanery or upon the good will of this Polish State.

No power on earth would have borne this condition as long as Germany. I do not know what England would have said about a similar peace solution at its expense or how America or France would have accepted it. I attempted to find a solution - a tolerable solution - even for this problem. I submitted this attempt to the Polish rulers in the form of verbal proposals. You know these proposals. They were more than moderate.... "

--Molobo 12:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

"Lloyd George is a respectable politician in their minds." However we know that the person is known for his dislike towards Poland.

No doubt about it, but he is still respectable for English, French etc. Alx-pl D 06:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Really ? Show polls that point out that he is respectable to French and English. --Molobo 12:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, some things do not need polls, as they are stated in respectable sources, see at the first paragraph in this BBC page. Alx-pl D 13:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

All statements towards specific attitude of any society need confirmation.So far you haven't provided any confirmation of your Point of View towards several societies.The source given doesn't present such data, nor any info on French views.--82.139.13.231 15:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

"Then he refers to sufferings of Germans before WWII which are objective, and it sounds really OK in ears of (simple minded) " What sufferings ? None existed that weren't made by Germans themselfs.Please don't put the myth of reperations here(it wasn't reason for Germany economy failure).Also I don't think losing colonies exploited was suffering.Please also don't use the myth of German population cut off their "home" since none of Polish areas regained by Polish state had German majority.

So you admit that there were such sufferings. Note it is not my myth or my interpretation, it is an interpretation of a (simple minded) European. Of course, the majority was Polish (on territories with German population) and it was Polish buissnes to fight for the borders since every Pole outside the borders stood in face of persecution. Alx-pl D 06:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Nope, and don't put your views in my mouth.Those "sufferings" are as real as German "sufferings" at the hands of Jewish conspiracy.Pure paranoia. Again you use the figure of some mythical "European".You mean Russian ? Englishman ? Moldavian ? Romanian ? Perhaps Greek citizen ? --Molobo 12:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

In fact, all of them together. I could have written of course English, Irish, Norse, Swedish, Finnish, Danish, Dutch, Belg, Luxembughian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Swiss, German, Austrian, Czech, Slovak, Hungarian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Greek, Serb, Horvat, Slovenian, Bosnian, Albanian, Macedonian, Russian, Ukrainian, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian instead (I guess I missed some nation, my apologies). Alx-pl D 13:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

It would be advisable for you learn the attiudes of several nations, claiming Russians view and judge history sthe same as Finnish, and French the same as British is ignorant. --82.139.13.231 15:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

"which are and were indeed agressions in eyes of Russians, Czechs and Germans; again this is perfectly all right and objective " The article aims of objective and neutral portayal of reality, not of stereotypes.In all cases we know that Bolsheviks aimed for invasion of Poland, and Czechs took Zaolzie in Polish-Bolsheivk war.There was no aggresion against Germany, unless you count liberation from German pesecution as aggression.

The article does not aim at objective description. There is no such a thing in humanities. This article aims at a neutral description of the problem and this means it has to take into account different points of view in a balanced form. Alx-pl D 06:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

"The article does not aim at objective description. There is no such a thing in humanities" Depends on whom you ask. "This article aims at a neutral description of the problem" So you think that neutral description of pedophila, Holocaust, antisemitism and Nazism,should take into account "different views".--Molobo 12:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not undrestand Depends on whom you ask. pedophila, Holocaust, antisemitism and Nazism,should take into account "different views" - yes, provided that there are such important views. In fact, antisemitism contains a sentence like this Poland is actively trying to address concerns about anti-semitism which is clearly out of the POV of those who blame Poland of total anit-semitism. Alx-pl D 13:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Molobo's statements on pushing anti-Polish POV

The antisemitism article doesn't include antisemitic POV on Jews though.When I said that the article will soon include phrases about Polish bandits murdering Germans, you answered that the article should include also that point of view.--Molobo 17:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC) I see no reason why Antipolish view should be presented as one of the opinions.Is antisemitic view presented as one of "opinions".And here are your own words, when I asked .Zapewne niedlugo znajdzie sie w artykule o antypolonizmie zapis iz wywolalo go nieudolnosc Polaków, ich braki cywilizacyjne oraz wzmianki o niewinnie mordowanych Niemcach przez polskich bandytów...--Molobo You answered: Ale oczywiscie artykul koncowy bedzie musial obejmowac tez ich POV, bo taka jest natura NPOV Alx-pl D Now either you consider such views legitamate(which would explain a lot), or you consider citing your own words a personal attack. --Molobo 18:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

You seem to state that to your edits which translate to English as

For the time being I can see that they convince you to your point of view. Soon, the article about antipolonism will probably contain a passage that it is caused by the Polish incompetence, Polish lack of civilisation and about innocent Germans murdered by the Polish bandits...--Molobo 20:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I answered in this edit which translates to English as

You are exaggerating. But of course the final article will have to encompass their POV, as this is the nature of NPOV. Alx-pl D 20:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Note that using the phrase You are exaggerating. I distanced myself from your statement. And in my their I referred to Germans which are mentioned both in the last words of your edit and in what's visible on your talk page right before my answer (respective edit - here is a translation of the edit:

So it is worth convincing for instance Germans to the article, since you can hardly regard 60 mln. people as a margin and the problem of anti-Polonism applies to them to much degree.)

It is worth mentioning that on your further interrogation here which translates as follows

I understand that in the article about Nazism or anti-Semitism you will mention opinions of Nazis and ani-Semits to make the articles NPOV?--Molobo 20:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I clarified my standpoint in this edit which translates into English as:

I don't care about these articles, if you want you can add something like this. Note however a small difference - Nazism and anti-Semitism are non civilised positions. Yet, being German is a civilised one. This means that Germans must be treated in a civilized way which means one has to discuss with them. Ah, by the way, Pawelka is not civilized - no doubt. Please, look also here. Alx-pl D 21:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, this explanation stays in conformance with my attitude not to blame and label or to give any epithet to anyone I discuss with. Alx-pl D 22:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

You believe antipolonism expressed by Pawelka is civilised ? Do you believe antipolonism in contrast to antisemitism and nazism is justified ?

Molobo

Molobo, Alx-pl is less likely to be anti-polonistic than you are because, unlike you, he doesn't make use of the article to slander people or other countries, undermining the article's credibility. And by giving a positive impression of Poles (and yes, if you were German, Molobo, I'd be embarrassed too by your behaviour) Alx-pl and Micha do their best to show us that not all Poles are like you but fair, honest and in possession of a desire to find the truth. A Pole being anti-polonistic would be like a German being anti-German or a Japanese being anti-Japanese, in other words extremely unlikely. So if Alx says that Pawelka must be treated in a civilised manner and knowing that Alx is not anti-polonistic, there might be something wrong with your assertion that Pawelka is such an Anti-Polonist as you call him to be.NightBeAsT 13:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Or American being antiamerican :) --Molobo 16:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Pawelka speech and Hitler ones contd.

"which sounds like he is a man of truth and virtue in ears of" Actually it sounds like simplistic defence.Comperable to "I don't have anything against Jews but...".

I agree, in ears of a person who knows a good deal of history it is really so. Alx-pl D 06:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

"Summing up, it is nowhere that he states explicitely that Poland was guilty for WWII." Oh its here:"Es ist unredlich, wenn man von dem ungerechten und das Selbstbestimmungsrecht missachtendenden Diktat von Versailles 1919 nicht mehr spricht, das der britische Premierminister Lloyd George als Keim für den nächsten Krieg bezeichnete. Es kann in diesem Zusammenhang nicht verschwiegen werden, welchen Leidensweg die 2,4 Millionen Deutschen in Polen bis 1939 gehen mussten, in der Tschechoslowakei waren es über 3 Millionen, die gegen ihren Willen in den neuen Staat gepresst wurden. Eine große Fluchtwelle und Vertreibungen aus Polen erfasste etwa eine Million Deutsche bis 1939." Quite obvious lie and attempt to show Poland as responsible for war. Your type of analysis is similiar to those encountered in people claiming that Hitler never wanted to kill Jews,instead wanted to deport them, or that he never wanted to wage war.I hope you are not a revisionists despite using similar method.--Molobo 23:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You misinterpret my words. I think it is quite legitimate to compare arguments of Pawelka to Hitler ones so please do - give an excerpts from Hitler and Pawelka and relate them I do not have an easy access to proper sources to do it myself.

It is an interpretation to state that he blamed Poland for war. Quite obvious in my opinion, but still. I understand that this is an aim in the discussion to asess whether this interpretation is obvious enough to put it to the article. Alx-pl D 06:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Good.I quoted above similiar propaganda statements of Hitler.If you wish more examples, I posses a copy of scientific paper published by Wroclaw University describing German propaganda in occupied Poland. And another fine example how Pawelka uses Hitler's words: http://www.hitler.org/speeches/04-01-39.html

"For as long as this dictate of Versailles weighed upon the German people it was actually damned to go to the ground. "

And another: http://www.hitler.org/speeches/12-10-40.html "The establishment of a German community was the first item on the program in 1933. The second item was the elimination of foreign oppression as expressed in the Treaty of Versailles, which also prevented our attaining national unity, forbade large sections of our people to unite, and robbed us of our possessions in the world, our German colonies.

The second item on the program was, therefore, the struggle against Versailles. No one can say that I express this opinion for the first time today. I expressed it, my fellowcountrymen, in the days following the Great War when, still a soldier, I made my first appearance in the political arena. My first address was a speech against the collapse, against the Treaty of Versailles"

"They wanted to maintain the Dictate of Versailles in which they saw a second peace of Westphalia" The two sound almost the same...

--Molobo 12:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to compare directly the words of Hitler and Pawelka in the evening. They seem to have much in common, I agree. Alx-pl D 13:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to go to sleep, but I remember about this one. Alx-pl D 22:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Comparison Pawelka-Hitler:

• Pawelka distances himself from Hitler and Nazi state at the beginning: Es beschämt mich zutiefst, was ein nationalsozialistischer Staat angerichtet hat. Für ein Kulturvolk, das der Welt so viel gegeben hat, ist dies kaum fassbar.

Es erzürnt mich aber auch, wenn alle Untaten von Deutschen ständig benannt, wenn Aggression und Schuld anderer Länder plötzlich nicht mehr zählen und mit dem Verweis auf 1933 oder 1939 weggewischt werden. Die Geschichte des zweiten Weltkrieges fängt aber nicht 1933 an, - this sentence has got no direct corresponding one, as it is related to the situation after WW2.

ungelöste Probleme und Spannungen in Europa waren auch vor 1933 vorhanden. can be related with Unlimited [German] patience and still greater self-restraint were called for from 10-06-39; although there is no direct reference to tensions in Europe before 1933.

Es bedurfte nur eines Diktators Hitler, der diese Situation zur Explosion brachte. - no comparison possible, as it concernes Hitler himself.

Es ist unredlich, wenn man von dem ungerechten und das Selbstbestimmungsrecht missachtendenden Diktat von Versailles 1919 nicht mehr spricht, das der britische Premierminister Lloyd George als Keim für den nächsten Krieg bezeichnete. - this can be related quite directly to

In utter disregard of almost 500 years of experience, without consideration for the lesson of historical development during many centuries, without appreciation for ethnographic conditions and with no regard for all economic expediencies, a State was constructed at Versailles which, according to its whole nature, was sooner or later bound to become the cause of a most serious crisis.

A man who, I am sorry to say, now ranks among our fiercest enemies, at that time clearly foresaw all this. I mean Mr. Lloyd George. Like so many others he sounded warning, not only at the time of the creation of that structure but also in the course of its subsequent expansion which had taken place in utter disregard of reason and right.

At that time he expressed apprehension that in that State an accumulation of conditions was being created containing the risk of conflicts which sooner or later might lead to great European complications.

from 10-06-39.

Es kann in diesem Zusammenhang nicht verschwiegen werden, welchen Leidensweg die 2,4 Millionen Deutschen in Polen bis 1939 gehen mussten, can be related to the sentence Unlimited patience and still greater self-restraint were called for because many of the regional Polish administrative officials took the understanding between Germany and Poland to be merely a license for the persecution and annihilation of the Germans in Poland with even less risk although the Hitler sentence is more harsh.

in der Tschechoslowakei waren es über 3 Millionen, die gegen ihren Willen in den neuen Staat gepresst wurden. - this concerns Czechoslovakia, and there is no menion of the case in Hitler's speeches presented by Molobo

Eine große Fluchtwelle und Vertreibungen aus Polen erfasste etwa eine Million Deutsche bis 1939. can be related to the sentence In the few years up to 1922 more than one-and-a-half million Germans had been forced to leave their homes. from 10-06-39, but the sentences concern different periods of time.

Wer 1933 anfängt, geht auch hinweg über polnische Aggressionen gegen seine Nachbarn: 1918 / 19 Einfall in Russland und Annexion großer Gebiete, Mai 1921 Überfall auf das deutsche Oberschlesien verbunden mit unsäglichen Grausamkeiten an der deutschen Bevölkerung, - one can try to compare it with

In 1919 the Poles laid claims to the territory where they pretended to have a majority of 95 per cent - in East Prussia, for instance - whereas a plebiscite later showed the Poles actually had reached a figure of 2 per cent.

In the State finally created, which contained parts of former Russia, Austria, and Germany, non-Polish elements were so brutally ill-treated, suppressed, tyrannized and tortured

but the relation is very vague.

Oktober 1938 Einmarsch in das tschechische Olsagebiet und Annexion des Gebiets. - no direct reference.

Es geht keineswegs um eine Aufrechnung oder um Relativierung des Handelns des NS-Staates, es geht um Wahrheit, Menschenrechte und um die Abwehr des Versuchs, Untaten hinter deutschen Untaten zu verstecken. Pawleka again distances himself from the Nazi state and mentions that he wants to obtain the truth; this cannot be directly related to Hitler.

Summing up, Pawelka presents certain pieces of information that are present in the Hitler's speeches and distances himself from Hitler. Alx-pl D 22:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah certain pieces of information.Why not a more precise word Alx "propaganda". And lets compare our two German leaders Pawelka and Hitler : Adolf Hitler "Versailles was the cradle of a Polish State which had emerged from the untold sacrifice of blood - not of Polish but of German and Russian blood. Poland, who for centuries past had proved herself incapable of existence, was in 1916 artificially begotten and in 1919 no less artificially born by a German government just as incapable of existence." Hitler uses a phrase "Poland, who for centuries past had proved herself incapable of existence" suggesting that Poland can't exist as a country. What does Pawelka use ? "Epigonen des kommunistischen Unrechtsstaates" Hitler-a state incapable of existance. Pawelka-a lawless state Quite similar. Let's see next Hitler:" I mean Mr. Lloyd George. Like so many others he sounded warning, not only at the time of the creation of that structure but also in the course of its subsequent expansion which had taken place in utter disregard of reason and right." Pawelka "Es ist unredlich, wenn man von dem ungerechten und das Selbstbestimmungsrecht missachtendenden Diktat von Versailles 1919 nicht mehr spricht, das der britische Premierminister Lloyd George als Keim für den nächsten Krieg bezeichnete" The same. Let's see next: Hitler

not thousands but millions, were forced to leave their home country on account of Versailles - that is, if these unfortunates were Germans.

Pawelka Es kann in diesem Zusammenhang nicht verschwiegen werden, welchen Leidensweg die 2,4 Millionen Deutschen in Polen bis 1939 gehen mussten, in der Tschechoslowakei waren es über 3 Millionen, die gegen ihren Willen in den neuen Staat gepresst wurden. Pawelka makes more details then Hitler but it is the same statement.

Next: Hitler In the few years up to 1922 more than one-and-a-half million Germans had been forced to leave their homes. (From me-this is a lie.German government encouraged migration of Germans to Weimar Republic) Pawelka Eine große Fluchtwelle und Vertreibungen aus Polen erfasste etwa eine Million Deutsche bis 1939.

The same.

Next: Hitler: The fate of Germans in this State was horrible. Pawelka: Mai 1921 Überfall auf das deutsche Oberschlesien verbunden mit unsäglichen Grausamkeiten an der deutschen Bevölkerung Again both use the same propaganda. Next: Hitler: In the few years up to 1922 more than one-and-a-half million Germans had been forced to leave their homes. They were hunted out, often without being able to take even their most necessary clothing. Pawelka:

Eine große Fluchtwelle und Vertreibungen aus Polen erfasste etwa eine Million Deutsche bis 1939.

The same. --Molobo 22:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hitler:

For, as soon as Poland felt certain of that guarantee, minorities living in that country had to suffer what amounted to a reign of terror. I do not consider it my task to speak of the lot of the Ukrainians, or White Russian population, whose interests now lie in the hands of Russia. 

Pawelka: Wer 1933 anfängt, geht auch hinweg über polnische Aggressionen gegen seine Nachbarn: 1918 / 19 Einfall in Russland und Annexion großer Gebiete Similar suggestions --Molobo 23:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Neither the choice of words nor the grammar coincides except that they both criticise Poland for the same thing and use rhetoric, like any politician does in a speech. Of course you're trying to compare Pawelka to Hitler although you know very well that your assumption is too far-fetched, thus showing us a similar rhetoric because you cherrypicked Hitler's criticism for only one reason: people disapprove of him like of no other and if you can manage to compare Pawelka to Hitler, you'd have done your own little propaganda. Show me a reliable source that too thinks Pawelka copied Hitler's rhetoric, otherwise I'd call it original research if you try to put the idea into article: that's your own theory.NightBeAsT 13:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't need to compare Pawelka to Hitler.He copied Hitlers arguments himself --Molobo 16:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Pawelka also accuses Poland of guilt over the war

http://www.schlesien-lm.de/Deutschlandtreffen/rede-pawelka-politische-hauptkundgebung.htm "Es erzürnt mich aber auch, wenn alle Untaten von Deutschen ständig benannt, wenn Aggression und Schuld anderer Länder plötzlich nicht mehr zählen" --Molobo 22:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Translated: "It also angers me when all the atrocities of Germans are always named, when aggression and guilt of other countries do not count anymore." So what? The brutal expulsion of Germans after World War II is arguable an atrocity. Does he say Poland is guilty for World War II? No, he said it was the diktator Hitler, who brought the situation in Europe to explosion, not a Miss Poland. Again you're leaping to conclusions.NightBeAsT 23:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"The brutal expulsion of Germans after World War II is arguable an atrocity. " Please spare us nationalist revisionism irrelevant to the topic.Population transfer of German and Polish population under Soviet control wasn't an atrocity.

Also Pawelka clearly speaks about Polish guilt: "Wer 1933 anfängt, geht auch hinweg über polnische Aggressionen gegen seine Nachbarn: 1918 / 19 Einfall in Russland und Annexion großer Gebiete, Mai 1921 Überfall auf das deutsche Oberschlesien verbunden mit unsäglichen Grausamkeiten an der deutschen Bevölkerung, Oktober 1938 Einmarsch in das tschechische Olsagebiet und Annexion des Gebiets." In this statement he lies several times, as it was Bolshevik Russia which invaded Poland,Belarus, Balts and Ukraine, and he names Polish uprising in Upper Silesia an attack or invasion, not only that but he accusess Poles of atrocities(like Hitler),he fails to mention that Zaolzie was taken over by Czechs in Polish-Bolshevik war. --Molobo 23:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

No atrocity? Especially not when one or two million Germans "happened" to die? Then it's called a liberation, isn't it? And that's "nationalist revisionism" to say the brutal expulsion of Germans after World War II is not an atrocity? Oh, I too think it was an atrocity and every German government in Germany after World War II thought it was an injustice too. And if you accuse him of lying, you have to prove he was wrong and that he knew he was wrong. So how many new discussions are you going to create for that senseless speech?NightBeAsT 23:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The number of 2 milions Germans "dead" has been largly disputed and is probably just the number of Germans that weren't registared again.Please take this to the topic suitable.So far I haven't seen any evidence of mass murder campaign organised in postwar times against German population.

Molobo.As to the population transfer in Soviet zone of control, Poles were subject to it to and in much worst conditions then Germans. Molobo.

An estimated 2 millions people dead is probably only a mistake in the registry? How naive do you think we are? That's just why I challenge your claims: they're lies in my opinion.NightBeAsT 13:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Well perhaps instead of vandalising pages you should read some books ? How about this one : Rüdiger Overman "Deutsche Militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg" The deaths during flight and expulsion concerned the Germans in the immediate postwar period as much as the fate of the missing soldiers, and similar efforts were made to clarify the fate of the missing civilians or bring families together. A huge scientific project reconstructed the events historiographically, the Federal Statistics Office (Statistisches Bundesamt), the refugees’ associations and the clerical search service did a lot with the financial support of the Federal Government to quantitatively assess the fate of those expelled as accurately as possible. The result can be summarized in the conclusion that about 2 million Germans had been killed during flight and expulsion - not including those from the respective territories who had died during military service.

These casualty figures, however, which for decades have been an integral part of the respective serious literature, are the result not of a counting of death records or similar concrete data, but of a population balance which concluded that the fate of about 2 million inhabitants of the expulsion territories could not be clarified and that it must therefore be assumed that they had lost their lives in the course of these events. In the last years, however, these statements have been increasingly questioned, as the studies about the sum of reported deaths showed that the number of victims can hardly have been higher than 500,000 persons - which is also an unimaginable number of victims, but nevertheless only a quarter of the previous data. In favor of the hitherto assumed numbers it could always be said, however, that the balance didn’t say that the death of these people had been proven, but only that their fate could not be clarified. --Molobo 16:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

He also accuses Polish liberation of atrocities and names it aggression

"Mai 1921 Überfall auf das deutsche Oberschlesien verbunden mit unsäglichen Grausamkeiten an der deutschen Bevölkerung"--Molobo 22:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"Translation: May 1921 attack on the German Upper-Silesia connected to terrible cruelties for the German population." So in what way does that justify your headlingNightBeAsT 23:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

your translation is wrong.unsäglichen doesn't mean terrible, the whole term translates as : inexpressible cruelties.Certainly doesn't suggest any atrocities right ?--Molobo 23:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC) Oh btw, I typed it into internet, it brought a pro-nazi, antipolish book: http://litek.ws/k0nsl/detox/Germany_and_Poland.html --Molobo 23:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

In this piece of his long speech that you took out of its context, he never mentioned any liberation of Poland but just an attack on Germany and I've no idea whether or not he is right, nor whether or not you're right. If he is wrong, post a reliable source which says Pawelka was wrong there, because the respected polish newspaper made no mention of it, so they must have found it irrelevant or right too. I know you like to cherrypick and assume bad faith when it comes to Pawelka, so please find a source which criticises Pawelka there and thus suggests that this part of the speech is relevant and wrong to any extent. Please search for an English or German one or, if you translate it at least this time, a Polish one. I can't imagine that your conspircacy theories are not original research and irrelevant to the article again.NightBeAsT 17:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

He names a Polish uprising an invasion against Germany.Polish papers already said about it. .He named the Polish uprising in Silesia an Polish aggression.

Yes and Scheidemann, that Social democrat who made Germany a Republic and hated the treaty of Versailles to the extent that he threw his political career out of the window with anger, is by far the worst of them all. A history book says his words even mirrored the mood of Germany. All German parties were against the treaty. And let's not forget the "Nazi" Henry Kissinger, who dismissed the treaty as "a brittle compromise agreement between American utopism and European paranoia" and let's not forget the USA, which disillusioned by the fact that it ignored almost all of Wilson's 14 points, didn't even join the League of Nations in protest. The British parlamentarian Philip Snowden called the treaty at that time a "deathblow to all those who had hope the treaty is going to give us more peace. It's not a peace treaty but a declaration of another war." And a caricature was created in Britain (before Hitler came to power) with a man with a spiked helmet crawling out of a rolled-up document which read "Treaty of Versailles" and this man was titled "Hitler party". And yes, according to its definition (see de:Diktat ), it was a diktat. What does the Duden say? "Versailler Vertrag: [...] Reverting the treaty of Versailles, which was overwhelmingly seen by the German population as injust diktat by the victors and blamed Germany completely for WW1, had been the main aim of the German foreign politics since 1919." Even my former history teacher called the treaty of Versailles a diktat. Just read de:Diktat It was a treaty which "exceeded the worst fears", which was a "Diktatfriede" ("Diktatepeace") for Germany and a "Siegfriede" ("Vicorypeace") for France, the German signatories were insulted as "Novemberverbrecher" ("Novembercriminals") or "Erfüllungspolitker" ("Fulfillment-politicians"), it caused an "Anti-Versailles-trauma" or "Anti-Versailles-complex", it meant "humiliation, disgrace, discrimination, fraud, powerlessness, Diktate, an attack at honour and a reduction of self-determination" to Germans which then wanted "revenge, rage and its revision". My history book writes "Schmach- und Diktatfrieden" ("disgrace and diktatepeace") and "Schanddiktat von Versailles" (disgrace-diktat of Versailles) became effective slogans in Germany. Searching for "Versaillerdiktat" with Google leads to 3 hits, "Versaillesdiktat": 14, "Diktatfriede": 99, ""Diktat of Versailles"": 104, "Schanddiktat": 304, ""Versailler diktat"": 605, "Diktatfrieden": 658, ""Diktat von Versailles"": 701 (that's what Pawelka said), ""Diktat Versailles"": 6.430, ""Versailles diktat"": 8.430, (altogether, without inverted commas) "Versailles Diktat": 13.100 and how many hits are connected to the "Versailler Vertrag" in the German language in general: 47.700 --> of all the 47.700 hits, you can find 13.100 mentions of "Diktat". Why's that? Maybe the Duden's 'Lexikon der Allgemeinbildung' (= encyclopedia of general knowledge) can help: "Versailler Vertrag: [...] Reverting the treaty of Versailles, which was overwhelmingly seen by the German population as an injust diktat by the victors and blamed Germany completely for WW1, had been the main aim of the German foreign politics since 1919." No matter how you see it: from the definition of the word Pawelka was right (check a dictionary) and just because he used a word that even Hitler once said as well as millions of Germans, it doesn't make him a Nazi, I'm afraid, or else anyone who speaks German is a Nazi because Hitler wrote and spoke a lot in German. And stop snatching parts of my speech out of the context, molobo. As well as distracting from the main message and making us lose the overview of the discussion, they are going nowhere. Maybe that's your intention: you've managed to make the entire talk page unreadable.NightBeAsT 01:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Good we shall mention that some history books continue to present nationalist worldview in Germany and consider the treaty that created Poland a humiliation to German state.

--Molobo 23:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Which history books? Any names? Any reliable sources supporting your allegations? Anything not original reasearch based on self-righteous conclusion-jumping? Have you actually ever read ANY German history book at all???NightBeAsT 00:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

NB-you brought up the books, I hoped you remembered the titles of books that describe the loss of German conquest from other nations as "humilitation for Germany"?

No, actually I never said any German history book describe the loss of German conquest from other nations as "humiliations for Germany". It's interesting to know that you partially read what I write, yet you're still jumping to self-righteous conclusions and misread.NightBeAsT 13:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"Pawelka was right"

Thanks for showing your true colours.I however do not consider naming uprising of Polish population in Silesia an attack from Poland, nor do I consider right accusing Poles of conducting atrocities in line of Hitler's propaganda "right". --Molobo 23:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

So he was wrong? Was it not a "Diktat" according to the definition of the word? Please that jumping to conclusions. As for the rest, I didn't really get what you mean. I don't suppose you could fill me in there, could you?NightBeAsT 17:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

"'Pawelka was right' Thanks for showing your true colours"? Why are you misqoting me? I said "from the definition of the word Pawelka was right", which doesn't suggest that I'd think he's right in general. Please keep these self-righteous hasty conclusions for yourself.NightBeAsT 00:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Good then.It's nice if you disaggree with antipolonistic statements of Pawelka.I see no reason then not to include what was included before about his speech. Molobo.

Yes, I disagree with anti-polonistic statements but I've yet to see any. And I see a reason not to libel people and that's "what was included before about his speech".NightBeAsT 13:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

A discussion about sources

FYI, here is an article in Die Welt about Pawelka's speach in Nuermberg. Yet another text on Pawelka from Welt am Sonntag Alx-pl D 08:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Two more [7] [8] documentation pieces from Deutche Welle. Alx-pl D 10:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

One more from Bundeszentrale fuer politische Bildung Alx-pl D 11:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

One more source - www.inforiot.de. Alx-pl D 12:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Alx, we should add to the article that the German press didn't mention Pawelka's copying of Nazi propaganda and accusing Poland of aggression, thus hiding those facts.--Molobo 12:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

We should also add that the press misinforms the German society, by hiding the fact that nationalisation wasn't aimed at Germans but at all citizens.I wonder why the manipulation ? --82.139.13.231 15:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

In fact, the source that was given by SylwiaS was not PAP. It was a piece of news prepared by Wirtualna Polska. The note from PAP is here and it does not say anything about guilt for war. Alx-pl D 17:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

GW article does. --Molobo 18:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned the GW article in my proposal above #Proposal with stress on Preußische Treuhand and retribution Alx-pl D 21:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

This source states about Pawelka that:

Rudi Pawelka, przewodniczacy zarzadu „Powiernictwa Pruskiego“, dopiero po oddzwieku w polskich mediach, stal sie w Niemczech znany w szerszych kregach.

which can be translated as:

Rudi Pawelka, the head of Preußische Treuhand, has become known to wider audience only after the response in Polish media.

Alx-pl D 20:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC) See Rzeczpospolita article showing wide acceptence of Pawelka in German politics. Molobo

See [9] if you think Pawelka would be widely accepted. Even the CDU disapproves of his actions.NightBeAsT 13:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

CDU/CSU

Which leading CDU and CSU members are meeting with who and when and why is it anti-polonese and what are you talking about? I do not speak polish - I cannot read this source nor does it sound credibly anti-polonistic.NightBeAsT Stroiber, Merkel are regular guests to meetings of such organisations.:A source was given.Molobo.

of which organizations? And what justifies the accusations that they are anti-polonistic?NightBeAsT 17:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Molobo means Federation of Expellees and de:Preußische Treuhand, I guess. Alx-pl 18:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

So the CDU/CSU statement can be deleted. The CDU/CSU (unless you could provide evidence) is not anti-polonistic and the claim that these organizations are anti-polonistic are just based on a prejudice.NightBeAsT 18:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

No it can't be deleted because Stroiber and Merkel DO visit and DO support organisations like Preußische Treuhand.Certainly any organisation that falsly accuses Poles of commiting injustice, aggresion that led to WW2, and claims that Poland isn't a state tof law isn't polish friendly...Molobo

Does it make Stoiber and Merkel anti-polonistic in your opinion or does it show an anti-polonistic attitude that already existed? Neither speculation must go into the article as "facts", not least because the anti-polonism of these organizations is your opinion anyway. And this opinion must be marked as opinion, not "fact". NightBeAsT 14:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Who says Stobier or Merkel are antipolonistic(I never looked in Stoiber though, for my own and his good ;P )in the article ? It only states that serious politicians aren't ashamed to support organisations claiming Polish responsibility for WW2 for example, and who insult Polish state--Molobo 22:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't say Stoiber (your hate of him must have taken control of your spelling of the name) and Merkel are anti-polonistic directly but it suggests so. Putting that "fact" about the visits (which I would also demand a source for if the statement, even if this was true, was not so utterly redundant) intentionally into the section of anti-polonism in Germany suggests that you suspect them of being anti-polonistic. And since these organizations are not necessarily anti-polonistic but only in your opinion, the sentence can be immediately deleted.NightBeAsT 23:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

No it only means that antipolish organisations are visited by leading politicians in Germany.Of course I am sorry for my nationalistic belief that accusing Poland of WW2 or making mass murder in any way is antipolish :)

--Molobo 20:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It's merely your illusion that the President of Preußische Treuhand has accused Poland of WW2, it merely your interpretation that this would be anti-polonistic and then it's close to being absolutely irrelevant whether or not Merkel or Stoiber were reported of having visited the organizations. Politically these two politicians belong to the current opposition. Schröder, the political leader of Germany, has expressed disapproval of the organization. Since the organizations are political and have caused much debate and are lead by a CDU politician, yes, why shouldn't the leaders of the CDU, Merkel and Stoiber, not have a look at them? They've surely visited dozends of other organizations even if they have agreed with them, and they've certainly done many things they would later regret, like Stoiber's recent embarrassing statement against East Germans. NightBeAsT

23:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC) No, it is simply the meaning of his words which are a repeat of Nazi propaganda.It's a shame german politicians accept people acting this way. --82.139.13.231 15:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Teaching of Polish

"German courts have not only forbidden divorced Polish-speaking parents to teach their children Polish" ... HUH?!? Are you really, really sure you are talking of Germany???NightBeAsT

Yes, quite certain.Molobo

Which German courts? Source?[10] states that according to a contract from 1991 also forces Germany to protect the linguistical identity of Poles in Germany.NightBeAsT 17:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The mentioned article is about a Pole with a German wife living in Germany. The man became violent against the family during the divorce, that’s why he is only aloud to see the children once in a month under the protection of an government institution in Hamburg. This institution says, that he has to talk to the children in German, otherwise they couldn’t understand what they are talking about. The Polish newspaper “Wrpost” brought that story on page one with the headline “Polnisch Verboten”. The story (as always in the newspaper “Wrpost”) was full of Anti- German stereotypes without any information about the background of the story. That’s reason why Poles don’t know about the violence of the Husband against his wife and his children. They even don’t know about the need of this treatment. You can see, that the source being used doesn’t show any evidence for Anti- Polonism. Its completely made up as the other sources. Volker

Wrong.The article is from Newsweek not from Wprost, and deals with several examples of such situation.Molobo

Sorry? Please explain.NightBeAsT 17:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

So molobo, bring me the Newsweek magazine article, and I stop disputing on that for ever, cause this isnt a Polish source! Where is the source??? Volker The article is already in the article.Molobo

Entering "Rudi Pawelka" newsweek in google shows another "newsweek" [11]... in another language ... "Newsweek Polska".NightBeAsT 01:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Try to read what you are responding to.The article is about German courts persecution of polish language and cultural identity.Not Rudi.

Molobo

Stop playing these games. Are you talking of this [12]?NightBeAsT 14:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

What games? Please read article before commenting.It will spare us time...--Molobo 22:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It will spare us time?? How hypocritical can you be? The source is written in polish and you know very well that not all (including me) can understand polish here. If you had wanted to save time, you would have posted the source and subsequently translated parts. This is the english wikipedia.NightBeAsT 23:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure we can translate examples of it in the article If that is your wish :)--Molobo 20:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

No, but you can translate examples here and then discuss what effect they should have on the article. NightBeAsT 01:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you give me an access to the Newsweek article? I can translate it for ourselves. Alx-pl 15:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

German courts and Polish culture

"but also voiced objections to raising them in Polish culture, claiming that to do so would be harmful to their development" sounds unrealistic. Source?NightBeAsT

German media's portrayal of Poland

"German media frequently portray Poland as an underdeveloped country where criminality is the principal occupation of the populace" how long did you take to make it up? It's slander.NightBeAsT

Origin of what is translated as "Today stolen, tomorrow in Poland"

The German press has coined a derogatory saying, "Heute gestohlen, morgen in Polen" ("Stolen today, tomorrow in Poland")" That doesn't sound journalistic at all. Source?NightBeAsT:Neverthless it was on a sticker given with a youth magizne in Germany.

So you just invented the "fact" that the German press has coined it?NightBeAsT 17:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Yawn.Yes I invented the term and made a couple of thousands of posts in internet with the term.Usind dfferent IP of course all the time.--Molobo 22:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Further hypocrisy or just pathetic irony based on misunderstanding? I was speaking of the "fact" that the German press has coined the saying. The existence of the term on the internet (1.250 hits for it using google by the way) does not mirror anything more than its existence on the internet, not its journalistic origin. So, yes, if you added that "fact", you invented it. NightBeAsT 23:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Not really, you will have to look for it but there was a scandal with the sticker in a youth magaisne with this saying.

Molobo

I will have to look for it? Am I to disprove you or are you to prove your claims. Do you have to disprove libel or is the other party to prove it? "Not guilty until proven guilty" How about we change the article on God to "God exists!" stating, "You will have to look for it but there was a scandal with a Jesus in a religious magazine with this saying".NightBeAsT 13:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

According to this website [13], Harald Schmidt, the same person mentioned in the next paragraph of the sentence in question, is the person who used it: As a joke. That's the only source I found so far, and I know it's not reallly a reliable source either. Bayerischermann 04:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Additional pages that mention it include [14] and [15]. The last one lists another degradatory joke: "Make your vacation in Poland, your car is already there!" Bottom line is that it appears that there are several degradatory jokes about Polish people in circulating around in Germany, but not really "coined terms". Bayerischermann 04:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Harald Schmidt

"The highlights of this extremely popular program are insulting "jokes" about Poles, Polish culture and Poland" Firstly his job is to make fun. Secondly, his jokes and sarcasm are about almost everything. How high is the percentage of them connected to Poland? Thirdly, why should jokes connected to Poland be the highlight of the show?NightBeAsT

Another website also mentioned that he jokes about Italians all being in the Mafia... It sounds like he's just trying to be funny. However, it's important to note here that the German police website even goes as far to warn that telling "xenophobic jokes" is a warning sign of "right-wing extremism" [16]. Bayerischermann 04:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Florian Illies

"also cashes in on a clear anti-Polish bias, with jokes on the Polish language and cleaners (see below)" where is this below, where is the source? Also, the conspiracy theory is ridiculous: not only does Prussia stand for so many other things but also the given source of Perlentaucher quoted him as only calling the idea a "courageous" one. I want the sentence "actively supported a motion to reanimate name the name of "Preußen" (Prussia) for a new German federal state" verified.NightBeAsT 18:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

German left-wing media "anti-Polish"?

"German left-wing media show an anti-Polish bias" source? Is that critical, not necessarily anti-polonistic remark, in taz supposed to justify that bias throughout the left-wing media?NightBeAsT

It seems to make sense to me that some of the anti-war crowd in Germany would perhaps hold a grude against Poland for joining the US in Iraq. Bayerischermann 04:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You don't get it. Anything that could remotely be construed as critical is considered to be said due to an anti-Polish bias. The normal rules of argument and reason don't apply here. --Moritz 14:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I do now. I agree with you. It's not really anti-Polish, it's anti-war, for the most part. 'However', that comment in taz is anti-Polish. That deserves to be mentioned, but not in the way it currently is (adjust it so that it doesn't say that all the left-wing media is anti-Polish). Bayerischermann 21:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

France increasingly "anti-Polish"?

"Antipolish sentiment has grown in that country" Sounds like it was based on a statistic ... but is unfortunately made up.. Source? NightBeAsT 16:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Martin Schulz's remark

"Another example of antipolonism sentiments are comments from Martin Schulz a member of European Parliament who demanded to silence polish representatives calling them "hooligans" (during the WWII the term "polnische Banditen" was commonly used by German propaganda) during European Parliament session on 27.10.2004." Isn't it more "anti-noise" than "anti-polonistic"? A hooligan is a rowdy not a "polish bandit". Being annoyed by a racket and silencing by insulting the loud persons as rowdies is not necessarily an "irrational or malicious hostility toward Poles". I also want a reliable source - for example this of the BBC, a source which states that "Socialist group leader Martin Schulz accused him (Robert Kilroy-Silk, a British politician) of being a hooligan and of "behaving like a spoilt child"." How anti-polonistic of him to insult a loud person born in Birmingham!NightBeAsT 20:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually I can confirm it, I saw it during live transmission of the debate.--Molobo 22:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Another invention of yours? I want a reliable source. No reliable source, no verification and ... no kidding ... no inclusion of this "fact". NightBeAsT 23:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

"Z tej okazji szef socjalistów, Niemiec Martin Schulz, uznal za stosowne okreslic nas (bardzo parlamentarnie) jako chuliganów." http://www.wszechpolacy.pl/t.php?id=729 --Molobo 21:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Please don't speak Polish here or translate what you have said. NightBeAsT 01:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

He was citing his source, a Polish news organization. It says something about the German Socialist member-of-parliament Martin Schulz who said "hooligan." (Interestingly, some youthful Polish soccer fans apparently wear the hooligan label proudly[17], a phenomenon not-unheard of in other European countries, I understand). Anyway, Molobo, there is nothing wrong with Polish sources - but please translate for us. And please keep context in mind. Translate more of his remarks, if you can. When he said that, what else was he saying? Where did he say it? Did he explain why he said it? Did Polish teenagers flip his car over at a soccer game, or was he upset about a trade pact or something? That can make a big difference.

President Chirac's remark

Statements of Chirach and phenomen of "Polish plumber"

No personal speculations about the amount of anti-polonism (WP:NOR), especially not by those of you who are under the illusion that criticising Poland, like Jacques Chirac once did, is the same as being anti-polonism. NightBeAsT 17:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

There have been a lot of recent incidents for which Chirac has been criticized for insensitivity or worse, like the comments about British and Finish food, etc. He seems to have a very serious case of "foot-in-mouth diseas" not solely related to Polish issues. --Jpbrenna 21:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

However Chirac doesn't write in French newspapers about the "Polish plumber" stealing french jobs, nor about Poland being "Troyan Donkey".

If you have no credible source for example in the form of a survey, you have no right in Wikipedia to allege an increase of anti-polonism.NightBeAsT 15:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yawn again: http://fray.slate.msn.com/id/2121461/entry/2121463/ In France, the "Polish plumber" became a catchphrase for the fears behind the "no" vote. He and his Slavic brethren are expected to march west, working more for less and snatching French jobs. --Molobo 22:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Great, that justifies the existence of polish plumber in the article, which was never disputed or denied here. That's proof of neither a growing anti-polonism in France (but merely a speculation) nor makes Chirac an anti-pole. Like I said, no personal speculations about the amount of anti-polonism (WP:NOR), especially not by those of you who are under the illusion that criticising Poland, like Jacques Chirac once did, is the same as being anti-polonism.NightBeAsT 01:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds bizarre to me. The Polish are being characterized as dedicated hard workers, willing to do whatever it takes to support themselves and their families, and this is characterized as "anti-Polonist"? The only thing I take away from this "horrific accusation" is that the French are admitting that they're lazy whiners! Tomer ^TALK 03:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Poles are described as cheap loweducated people, who steal jobs and get money from France.Of course using your logic we must conclude that German Reich admired Jews for their hight intelligence since it was conviced they were capable of controling the world. --Molobo 20:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The fear of cheap labour from East Europe which comes to Western Europe is not completely without reasons. In East Europe people work for less money than in France for example people would do and so some Eastern Europeans come to France to earn more money for the same work, but still less than a Frenchman would demand. And if an employer sees an employee who wants less money than another, which employee do you think will get the job? The French? If you insist on defining Anti-Polonism as an irrational fear, it's opinionated to state the fear as example of Anti-Polonism because irrational says the fear is not based on reasons, which may be your POV.NightBeAsT 20:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The definition also mentions malicious. Alx-pl D 21:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

... which is probably the most opinionated word possible. This word has no objective meaning at all. Why don't you just write "diabolical"?NightBeAsT 11:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

German Polish Friendship

First of all remove the bombastic title "German Polish Friendship".A more fitting name should be "attempts to change traditional German antipolonism". Secondly no need to treat Pawelka's attacks on Poland and accusations that it was Polish aggression that led to WW2 lightly, the same propaganda was used by Nazis.Molobo

No, molobo, that title and interpretation is all the more biased. There's no need to treat it lightly, but there is a need to treat it in a neutral way.NightBeAsT 16:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The article is about antipolonism.If somebody wants to write an article about attempts to change German attituded towards Poles, be my guest.We can link it to the main article.I already have good deal of nice sources and facts about the process.

Molobo.

Molobo, that's a clear violation of the NPOV policy. Like a radical cleric you're trying to give the most dishonest negative impression of Germany picturing it as an overwhelmingly anti-polonistic country and when someone attempts at depicting the truth, you're crying about putting that more neutral point of view into another article. All you're doing here is undermining your credibility.NightBeAsT 13:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Germany and Poland are militarily and economically allied, so it wouldn't make much sense that Germany would be mostly anti-Polish, which is what the suggested change implies. Bayerischermann 04:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

German economy actually is often argued to be harmfull to overall economic policies of Poland.For example Germany wanted Poland to raise taxes to protect German economy.As to military allied, that means nothing, since Greece and Turkey were in NATO together as well.Like said if you want to write an article about eradicating traditional antipolish sentiment in Germany be my guest.--Molobo 16:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

anti-Polonism in Russia

Please provide sources for the content. Alx-pl D 21:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Often associated with the black legend (and sth like that)?

"It is often associated with a Polish "black legend" and a belief that almost any evil or folly may be laid at the doorstep of the Poles"

Sounds pretty much vague in my opinion. "Often"? Where does the statement come from?NightBeAsT 12:53, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Reorganisation of the preamble

I reorganised the preamble (sorry, I did not relise that I was logged off, when comitting). Please, discuss the reorganisation here. Alx-pl 19:24, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

As soon as the article is unprotected, I recommend reducing the number of "this article is probably all wrong!" tags by at least one. :-p Tomer ^TALK 01:56, August 15, 2005 (UTC)

Protection

I've asked for protection of this page because for the last few days it has been constantly vandalised and revert wars started. However, I am still for improvement of this page. I would only ask for discussing all the changes here before we decide to make them in the article. I think that we've seen already what happens if there is no previous agreement reached here. I truly appreciate your engagement in improving this article and I am sure that we can reach effects satisfactory for all sides if only we use our energy for looking for sources instead of watching this page for reverts. As Nightbeast was kind to point out disputed sentences in the article, I would like to ask everyone to address them first. I would also like to remind that there is no policy, which says that Polish sources are worse than any others or are unsufficient. Also, please, since there seem to be so many German editors here, bring your sources as well. NPOV is easiest to reach by providing various points of view. --SylwiaS 02:26, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey fellows! Are you sooooo afraid about those people who want to show the other readers that you are lying that you have to protect this from being corrected? You are so paranoid, you should visit a psychiologist! Micha.

Hello again everybody. I send this to Alx, cause this discribes my problem to deal with the whole page. The main problem for me to handle the mentioned "facts" is the following example: If I would say that it is forbidden in Poland to eat Chinese food caused by “Anti- Chinism”, and I would bring some "Anti- Polish" German sources, how would you answer with Polish “Anti- sources”? There isn’t an Anti- source, cause there is no rule that tells you not to eat Chinese food. Thats reason why you cant bring anything about that topic, cause this topic doesnt exist! You cant do anything against it, but this rumours will work, as they always do. You cant even read the German sources cause this is foreign for you. (In fact I know that most people here can read German, but they get everything wrong: thats what scares me most, to know the truth, but to tell the opposit! This is propaganda my friends!) Does that mean, you have to life with lies used against you and your people? I cant allow extremists to bring lies to Wiki, cause people from overseas could maybe believe in that and say: “This Germans WWI, WWII and now this thing with the Poles: does they ever learn?” I work together with a Polish friend on the Polish sources brought up in the article. When he has translated the stuff, I will check the arguments. By the way, why do you ask me for sources? The main accuses in the "Germany today" section havent sources (For instance: which company has Polish people forbidden to speak Polish at home: without a source it must be erased), so why should I defend myself from accusations brought up without facts? And: can I be sure, that a 100% lie will be erased here? Cause I found in the discussion section someones translation of the German (about "Polnisch Verboten") source with a mutch better argumentation than I did. This was 6 months ago, and the lie is still there: does anybody cares for truth here? Anyway, I'm glad that you have left the "disputed" tag about the "Germany" section, cause this is a beginning. What I want to point out is, that I dont see the need of psychiologists here, Micha takes the whole discussion more emotional as I do, cause he is a Pole in Germany and he is afraid about the reputation of Poles. And he knows more than me that all the stuff is made up, cause hes living here for 18 years and he read the Polish "sources". The other thing is, that the thing you call vandalism isnt made by Micha and myself only, cause we showed the page to many friends, and they started to reedit the stuff - what in the result looks like vandalism. We all share the same IP. I told them now to stop doing so without bringing up facts and arguments. I was thy Guy who brought back the "disputed" tag again and again, cause the defintion of disputed never fits more than on this page. Maybe its good to cool down a bit and keep the conversation going, but: I want to see results, when a lie is detected! Greetings, Volker

Yes I am sure you didn't vandalize the page... "For instance: which company has Polish people forbidden to speak Polish at home" Cinic in Schwedt, where doctor Piotr Borowiec worked has forbidden Poles to speak Polish in their private time. http://www.wprost.pl/ar/?O=64635 Molobo.

What is meant by private time? After and before work? Or just in the breaks during the work? Is only Polish forbidden, or can it also be every language that the employer cannot speak? If he doesn't allow any language that he cannot understand, why should it be anti-polonistic? Many people cannot stand it when others speak in their presence in a language they cannot understand. It excludes them. And anyway, what makes the employer anti-polonistic? He gave Poles a job in a time of great unemployment in Germany. Is that a sign of an "irrational or malicious hostility toward Poles"? Calling him anti-polonistic seems to me to be probably too far-fetched. How old is the story and has the clinic confirmed the accusations? NightBeAsT 01:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

"For instance" means: I want sources for the other accusations to. "Accusations of U.S. lackeyism": source! "Stereotypes in German media": source! Id would be nice from you to bring some non "Wprost" sources, cause I know about this magazine, and it isnt a true source; as the German "Bild" isnt a true one! Bring some reasonable sources, and I will do my work to have them translated, but again the nationalistic boulevard magazin "Wrpost" isnt a source at all! The link that you made to the German newspaper tells the story in a complete diffrent way, so why do you mention Newsweek (where is the link to that article?) and Wrost when the German source says exactly the opposite as Wrpost? Nobody knows what Newsweek printed, cause you dont let know us. Maybe you thougt that no one would check that? Mistake! Volker

Ah, Wprost is now nationalistic antigerman source :) Predictable reaction.Molobo

And the other sources I asked for? Begin with these even if they are from Wrpost, cause this could be a start. Or is there no source? Volker

Dear Molobo! First of all : the Wprost is also in Poland known as something we call Boulevard Press. 2. even in this article, which has an extremely high anti-German tendency, it is mentioned, that the Doctor you mentioned was told, that it is forbidden to speak polish during the time he is in the clinic! Since it is very important in a clinic, that in case of medical decicions, that very often have to be made to rescue someone's life, everybody has to understand what is said! 3. Couldn't it be, that the father, who is mentioned in this article, is allowed to see his child under the observation of the youth authorities? It would be forbidden for a father to talk to his child in german, if he only was allowed to visit his child under the observation of the polish youth authorities. 4. I as a polish German or german Pole am deeply ashamed, that this article has been published in the press of a country, in which education is at a high standart. 5. You blamed me for telling the readers of this page, that I mentioned my own personal experiences, but it's you who refers to an article, where only personal experiences are mentioned! If you don't want me to mention personal experiences, what gives you the right to do the same thing? 6. Believe me, my polish is good enough to understand this article, and if neccessary I will translate it for the other readers. Best Greetings, Micha.

P.s.:I am sorry for being such emotional before.

It seems you aren't able to read Polish very well, or simply try do disinform.First of all Wprost is one of the leading newspapers in Poland, respected and with rich history.Low end newspapers are Fakt and Super Express.

As to your claim: "Doctor you mentioned was told, that it is forbidden to speak polish during the time he is in the clinic! Since it is very important in a clinic, that in case of medical decicions, that very often have to be made to rescue someone's life, everybody has to understand what is said! Oh dear. Ever tried to read the article ? The duty to speak German included his free time after performing work. "Couldn't it be, that the father, who is mentioned in this article, is allowed to see his child under the observation of the youth authorities? It would be forbidden for a father to talk to his child in german, if he only was allowed to visit his child under the observation of the polish youth authorities." As has been pointed out earlier we were talking about other cases.Not the one you are.

5. You blamed me for telling the readers of this page, that I mentioned my own personal experiences, but it's you who refers to an article, where only personal experiences are mentioned! If you don't want me to mention personal experiences, what gives you the right to do the same thing? Journalists write about what they verified not about their personal experience.

Cheers and try to read something before attacking it ok ? --Molobo 01:20, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Expansion of WWI part

During WWI Germany intended to create a puppet Polish state called Kingdom of Poland.This howeve shouldn't be seen as break with German antipolonism.In fact if we look at behaviour of German officials and their ideology we shall see continuation of the same ideas expressed before and seen later during Nazi regime. Here a couple of interesting links which should be included with short lines describing the mentioned behaviour: http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/poland_walcott.htm "In the refugee camps, 300,000 survivors of the flight were gathered by the Germans, members of broken families. They were lodged in jerry-built barracks, scarcely waterproof, unlighted, unwarmed in the dead of winter.

Their clothes, where the buttons were lost, were sewed on. There were no conveniences, they had not even been able to wash for weeks. Filth and infection from vermin were spreading. They were famished, their daily ration a cup of soup and a piece of bread as big as my fist.

In Warsaw, which had not been destroyed, a city of one million inhabitants, one of the most prosperous cities of Europe before the war, the streets were lined with people in the pangs of starvation.

Famished and rain-soaked, they squatted there, with their elbows on their knees or leaning against the buildings, too feeble to lift a hand for a bit of money or a morsel of bread if one offered it, perishing of hunger and cold. Charity did what it could. The rich gave all that they had, the poor shared their last crust. Hundreds of thousands were perishing.

Day and night the picture is before my eyes - a people starving, a nation dying.

In that situation, the German commander issued a proclamation. Every able-bodied Pole was bidden to Germany to work. If any refused, let no other Pole give him to eat, not so much as a mouthful, under penalty of German military law.

This is the choice the German Government gives to the conquered Pole, to the husband and father of a starving family: Leave your family to die or survive as the case may be. Leave your country which is destroyed, to work in Germany for its further destruction. If you are obstinate, we shall see that you surely starve.

Staying with his folk, he is doomed and they are not saved; the father and husband can do nothing for them, he only adds to their risk and suffering. Leaving them, he will be cut off from his family, they may never hear from him again nor he from them.

Germany will set him to work that a German workman may be released to fight against his own land and people. He shall be lodged in barracks, behind barbed wire entanglements, under armed guard. He shall sleep on the bare ground with a single thin blanket. He shall be scantily fed and his earnings shall be taken from him to pay for his food.

That is the choice which the German Government offers to a proud, sensitive, high strung people. Death or slavery."

"Starvation is here," said General von Kries. "Candidly, we would like to see it relieved; we fear our soldiers may be unfavourably affected by the things that they see. But since it is here, starvation must serve our purpose. So we set it to work for Germany. By starvation we can accomplish in two or three years in East Poland more than we have in West Poland, which is East Prussia, in the last hundred years. With that in view, we propose to turn this force to our advantage."

"This country is meant for Germany," continued the keeper of starving Poland. "It is a rich alluvial country which Germany has needed for some generations. We propose to remove the able-bodied working Poles from this country. It leaves it open for the inflow of German working people as fast as we can spare them. They will occupy it and work it."

Then with a cunning smile, "Can't you see how it works out? By and by we shall give back freedom to Poland. When that happens Poland will appear automatically as a German province."

The quote in particular will be an interesting addition to collection of antipolish quotes demonstrating cultural tradions of antipolonism present in Prussia/Germany

The fragment below shows how similar methods used by German Empire were with methods used by German Reich towards Poles: http://www.firstworldwar.com/source/poland_prussianspeech.htm "Speech by a Polish Member of the Prussian Legislature, M. Trompczynski in 1917

In the first place, I wish to call attention to the sad fate of the Polish workmen from the Kingdom of Poland (Russian Poland).

I know very well that different abuses, of which these workmen are victims, are not the fault of the Minister, or of his Department, because he has to share his power with the military authorities. If, however, the Minister cannot help I appeal to public opinion to force a change in the conditions.

At the outbreak of the war, 250,000 Polish workmen happened to be in Germany. In accordance with military orders, they were forbidden to leave the territory of the German Empire. This order was completely illegal and contrary to the principles of international law, which admit only such aliens to be interned who might be summoned to the enemy army.

You can easily imagine the condition of these people who now for two and a half years have been separated from their families. They have simply become victims of exploitation on the part of their employers, who now that the workman cannot leave his place of employment pay only as much as they choose.

For instance, in a certain village of West Prussia a certain farmer pays the season-workman literally 30 pfennigs daily, and has kept him for the last two years!

As the need for workmen was greater than the number of those interned, attempts have been made to get a bigger number of workmen from the Kingdom of Poland. Gradually the number of workmen from the Kingdom has reached the figure of half a million.

The present Minister of the Interior has handed over the monopoly of finding new workmen to the Central German Labour Office. I am compelled to accuse that institution of choosing for its agents - and there are some 600 of them - people who grossly mislead the workmen concerning their future pay and mode of employment.

One of their special ways of attracting people is to promise in a written agreement very considerable supplies in kind, for instance, 30 pounds of potatoes a week, a litre of milk a day, etc., and they do not call attention to the postscriptum which states that instead of the supplies in kind, money will be given.

The German newspapers have raised an outcry that those workmen get so much food, whereas in reality they get very little food, and instead of a pound of potatoes they get three-and-a-half pfennigs, and for a litre of milk 4 or 5 pfennigs. It is clear that for that money they cannot buy even sufficient food.

The next way in which the workman is being exploited is the time of service to which he agrees. In the printed agreements it is usually stated that the agreement is for six months or the duration of the war.

The agents rely on it that no one reads the printed contract and persuade the workman that he is agreeing only to six months' work. I know it from hundreds of workmen that they have been cheated in that manner.

But the military authorities have twisted the matter still more to the detriment of the workmen by declaring that all workmen from the Kingdom of Poland without regard to the nature of their agreement are considered unfree, i.e., prisoners who are not allowed to go home.

I appeal to public opinion to consider in what an unworthy way these people have been attracted by lies to Germany. And thus there are many thousands of them who imagined that they agreed to a contract for six months and who have by now been kept here for more than a year and a half.

Also in this respect the employers obviously exploit the situation by dictating arbitrary conditions for the extension of the contract, because they know that the workman is unable to defend himself. It has, moreover, to be considered that even a contract extending the original conditions is now detrimental to the workmen, because it is impossible to live at the present day on the pay which was sufficient a year and a half ago.

I pillory before public opinion the orders of the Commanding General of Munster of October 16, 1915, and February 16, 1916, in which he recommends to the employers to compel unwilling workmen to accept an extension of the contract by depriving them of their bedding, of light and food.

I hope that the Minister will use his influence in order to prevent the new military authorities from continuing such a policy.

Nor can I remain silent on the point that recently the Central Labour Office has instituted with the help of the local authorities in the Kingdom of Poland a regular hunt for people.

Thus, for instance, towards the end of November, 1916, i.e., after the Manifesto of November 5th (the Proclamation of Polish "Independence"), a free entertainment was announced in the theatre. The lights were put up in the theatre, but when the public had assembled the theatre was surrounded by soldiers, men fit for work were caught and handed over to the Central Labour Office.

Further, the Minister of the Interior has issued an order that subjects of the Kingdom of Poland can be employed only in big or middling undertakings and not in small ones. The result of this order is that the police remove hairdressers, bakers, tailors, etc., from their workshops and send them to the farmers.

These orders are supposed to help the farmers who suffer from a lack of labour, whilst in reality they burden the farms with workmen, some of whom are weak and others incapable of doing the work, and who, anyhow, are unwilling to do it.

We have no objection to our countrymen from the Kingdom of Poland seeking work in this country, but we consider it a most scandalous injustice that an order has been issued which, without any reason or sensible purpose, has changed these workmen into slaves" As it can be seen slave labour of Poles, and forced catchings of Polish slaves(known in Poland as lapanki) to fuel German economy wasn't idea an original idea of Hitler. Molobo.

Neonazism,a fashion among German youth

Gazeta Wyborcza reports that Nazi ideology is seen as fashion statement among German youth.Beatings of Poles and defining Poles as hostile "them" is part of it. http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/metro/1,50145,2869510.html

"Wykorzystuje to NPD, organizujac spotkania, obozy i szkolenia samoobrony dla niemieckich nastolatków. Dzialacze partii wyrabiaja w mlodych nastawienie "my przeciwko nim". "Oni" to Turcy, Rosjanie, Polacy czy Albanczycy." "- Najpierw zaczal nosic bluzy firmy Lonsdale [popularne wsród neonazistów ze wzgledu na zawarte w nazwie litery "nsda" przypominajace NSDAP - red.] - wspomina matka. - Nastepnie zaczal sie ubierac w koszulke z nazwa zespolu Bierpatrioten spiewajacego np. utwór "Rewanz za Rudolfa Hessa". W koncu, gdy pobil Polaka, nie wytrzymalam i wyrzucilam go z domu."

We should add that in addition to organisations supported by CDU/CSU politicians, other more radical German political parties exist that posses even more hostile attiude towards Poles-NPD.

Molobo.

The de:NPD is an extremistical racist, nationalistic, xenophobic, anti-constitutional and rather unpopular party in Germany. They're not specifically anti-polonistic but against foreigners on principle.NightBeAsT 17:15, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Are they against foreigners from Norway or Austria ? I doubt it.The fact that they are expressing several phobias doesn't change the fact that they do express antipolonism.Just as the fact that German Reich was antipolish, doesn't change the fact that it was antisemitic as well.

Molobo.

From the German Wikipedia: "Ihr Ziel ist die Schaffung eines vom Ausland stark abgegrenzten Deutschlands. Alle Lebensbereiche, sei es in der Wirtschaft, der Politik oder in der Kultur sollen ausschließlich deutschnational sein. Dementsprechend will die NPD die Vertreibung der nichtdeutschen Wohnbevölkerung aus der Bundesrepublik, die Wiedereinführung einer nationalen Währung und den Austritt Deutschlands aus internationalen Bündnissen wie NATO und EU durchsetzen. Auch fordert sie die Abschaffung des Asylrechts". I don't know whether they're against Norway or Austria. Maybe some are not. Germany and Austria were both included in the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation so Austria, a German nation, may be seen as part of Germany thus not foreign. A small unpopular nationalistic, racist party that is against foreigners in general maybe except for those seen as German is not a strong argument for anti-polonism. I consider anti-polonism more specific, not a very small part included in xenophobia.NightBeAsT 19:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

In general Molobo, What you need for any “Antiism” is a organisation, a law, an ideology, books and medias made by that ideologists, an action or oppression from the government or a massive movement against people made systematically caused by deep hate against the people and their culture. That some individuals said silly stuff doesn’t fit the definition. Even the sayings of the mentioned individuals presented here aren’t based on sources, facts or anything reasonable. And so the whole idea of Anti- Polonism in todays Germany is Bull.... at all; do history writing as you want, nobody cares, cause it looks like German bashing is part of your personal culture. But when you blame “Germany today” being in any kind of tradition with the Third Reich (in my opinion thats the picture you try to paint) its disgusting and a shame for you. Dumbness doesn’t know borders, and of course we have some nationalists and idiots. But the thinking of these guys isn’t common sense in Germany at all, and you have the nerve to tell the people on Wiki that it is. You are in a good tradition of ideologists. For me you have a very strong "Anti- Germanism", but that doesn’t mean that I start to blame Poland for being "Anti- German" on Wiki with your sayings as a source. And again: Wiki is based on facts not on hallucinations or propaganda: you have a deep lack of facts in what you call a "argumentation". A major problem is that you read what you wrote, and you write what you read: what about international sources, or a translation of your Polish sources, cause this isnt Wiki Poland, and I cant defend myself from your silly argumentation caused by your sources are mainly in Polish. Every German source you brought up here was detected as a lie or as a strong missinterpretion, maybe thats reason why you dont translate. Bring sources! Volker "What you need for any “Antiism” is a organisation, a law, an ideology, books and medias made by that ideologists, an action or oppression from the government or a massive movement against people made systematically caused by deep hate against the people and their culture. That some individuals said silly stuff doesn’t fit the definition." All you desire is in the article.Laws made against Poles,books dedicated to attacking Poles, organisations fighting Poles etc.Including scientific work on antipolonism. "the whole idea of Anti- Polonism in todays Germany is Bull.... at all" I'm afraid its the German mother who complains in article by Gazeta Wyborcza that her son is fascinated by fashion with Nazism, and Poles are one of his enemies. "very German source you brought up here was detected as a lie or as a strong missinterpretion" Really ? Which was lie and which missinterpatation ? So far I have seen none.--Molobo 01:31, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Swap of version during the protection

This is a very good solution, indeed. I would like to kindly ask all the people here to consider and discuss my proposition here to reorganise the beginning of the article. Alx-pl 06:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't think there's much to object to it except for the tag, which should be {{disputed}} instead of {{totallydisputed}} as the neutrality is currently not disputed, only more than four "facts". Concealing those "facts" are disputed is avoidance vandalism. Anyone who disagrees for constructive reasons that Alx-pl's version with a changed tag should not be swapped with the current one?NightBeAsT 16:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

In which way are the facts disputed.They took place.Molobo.

True, not all are disputed: the remaining "facts" put under the headline 'Disputed' are so false that no-one could ever make an attempt at verifying any. So you could be happy that they're just *disputed* because they will be deleted once the article's protection expires and they're still not verified.NightBeAsT 21:57, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Poland will crumble

(This section is not connected to the article. NightBeAsT)

Lithuania destroyed USSR, will destroy and Russia and Poland. Both Russia and Poland are Slaves' countries parasiting in 100% at the lands of other nations. Both Poland and Russia will crumble. Pomerania and Silesia will go to Germany, all Baltic Prussia untill Vistula river - to Lithuania. All Slaves will be out. Flying Kvaker 16:31, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Interesting quote by Flying Kvaker aka Zivinbudas: Very short and very clear: Slaves - to gas chambers. [18] --Witkacy 21:41, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, I do not support the POV of Flying Kvaker! I'm pretty sure nobody who has the ability to think does! I'm sorry for being emotional again, but I cannot tolerate Racism.

Zebysmy sie dobrze zrozumieli, ja nie jestem tym samym zdaniem jak Flying Kvaker! Jestem pewien, ze kazdy rozsadnie myslacy czlowiek nie moze byc tym zdaniem! Przepraszam za emocjonalna reakcje, ale ja nie toleruje Rasismu.

Ich distanciere mich in aller Form von dem rassistischen Standpunkt von Flying Kvaker. Rassismus in dieser Form kann und wird nicht toleriert werden.

Best greetings, Micha.

This guy comes from Lithuania, and not from Germany.

No need to react, Micha. This person was already reported as a possible sockpuppet of Zivinbudas to the admins (after all Zivinbudas was the only person I know to believe Lithuania stretches from Vistula to Saint Petersburg and that Slavs are slaves... If it was the first time such remarks are repeated out of the blue, I would probably be upset somehow. However, with time you get used to Zivinbudas. Humans can get used to almost anything... Halibutt 17:50, August 16, 2005 (UTC)

I’m a little bit scared now, but if its true: I hope we will life in peace and good friendship with our new neighbour Lithuania! But please don’t expand your superb empire to the river Rhein, cause I can tell you: the French are bad neighbours, the worst we have, and I’m really scared by the tremendous power of your large Lithuanian army. If you decide different: Hail to the new Lithuanian empire, and greetings from your colony Germania inferior! If they dont want, we will serve you as slaves! In fact: I cant wait to begin my work for you Flying Toaster!

The Lithuanians have a Toaster that can fly? Whow! Now we all are really scared of! :-) At this point I agree with Halibutt! We have to take this guy with humor. Micha.

" If you are looking for Anti-Polish racists - check this talk page" lets wait for the next one :)--Witkacy 21:38, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry Molobo!

(This section is not connected to the article. NightBeAsT)

Dear Molobo, I have to apologize to you at all! I’ve got you wrong, cause now it turns out that you are a humanist and a fair men in any case and under any circumstances. I was just at your private side where you showed your neutral point of view and your warm heart. Nothing shows id better then this sentence from you: “Neither Dresden nor Hiroshima and Nagasaki were crimes”[19] So when killing 500.000 helpless civilians isn’t a crime what are we talking about here? Values? Or maybe Polish racist nationalism combined with a deep lack of honesty. And the best thing: he is studying journalism! That’s why he is so careful about the truth of his sources. So you are the best guaranty for the next generation of Poles to grow up miss educated by the medias and full of hate as you obviously are. This was not (only) to blame you but also for the others here, that they can know about you and your intentions. With deepest respect for your Christianity and your friendly soul, Volker

Oh getting out of arguments and trying to use personal attacks.Whatever.Let's look at what actuall was written :"

It's not at all relevant to Rommel (like most of this discussion page), but I'd dispute your assertation that the bombing of Dresden or Hiroshima and Nagasaki were war-crimes. Leithp 15:57, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

+ + Neither Dresden nor Hiroshima and Nagasaki were crimes.Katyn was genocide but not comparable to Nazi war crimes" Which is true, since according to rules of war those cities were legitmate military targets(military presence, role, industry)--Molobo 22:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

(off-topic remark: No, a crime is also an act that you personally consider to be immoral even if it may conform to the rules. And you know, some consider it immoral to almost exclusively go for the civilian population in a war, as they did in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki.)

"and full of hate as you obviously are." Another attempt of personal attack.Common actually, in attempts to claim that people documenting Nazi war crimes or persecution made by German state are filled with "hate".However this is rather biased, I don't hate nobody, nor do I hate Germany or German people(for example the current Pope, or Germans spying for Allies during the war are admirable people). "With deepest respect for your Christianity and your friendly soul" Oh, I'm an atheist. Don't believe in soul.--Molobo 22:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Molobo! Tell me. what exactly has been produced for military purpose in Dresden? Nothing! Dresden never was an industrial City! Military Presence? None! Dresden had no special meaning for the military. A lot of displaced persons? YES! Dresden was full of refugees, and the English and Americans knew that! The only thing why this attac happened wasto terrorize the civilians- and that -according to the Geneve Rules of War- exactly is a war crime. Let's talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Did the Americans spare these cities from bombing them with conventional bombs because they wanted to check if the atomic bomb worked? Yes! Did the Americans know what would happen to the people living there? Yes! They tested the Effects in the desert of Nevada nad other places. Is it a crime of war to test the effects on innocent people (Women, Children)? According to the Geneve Rules of War, Yes! So, why do we not call these happenings crimes of war? Simply because the Britons, Americans and Russians won the war! Just to make it clear: I do respect the victims caused by war crimes commited by Germans, there is no excuse for what happened in the concentration camps! But the Germans where not the only ones, who committed war crimes! How many german people have been killed, when the Alliied bombed the residential districts (the areas where the people lived)? Hundreds of thousands! How many women have been raped by russian soliders? Thousands! How many people died o hunger while they had to work in Sibiria? Hundreds of thousands! Were these things war crimes? Yes! How many Germans have been killed or displaced from Pomerania, Silesia (Schlesien), Böhmen by Poles and Chechish People? Hundreds of thousands! Are these war crimes? Yes! Do the germans want their lost territory back? No! We know that we had to pay for what we did. And we paid. The Oder-Neisse-Line is accepted as the legal border of Poland, the german chancelors and presidents asked for forgiveness on more than one occasion (just remember Willy Brandt kneeing in Warsaw in front of the memorial for the unknown solider). What we ask for is a sign of apology from you, the Alliied, Poles, Chechs, Russians... The polish bishops did the first step. "We forgive and we ask for forgiveness". I think that is a good base on which we can continue talking. Best greetings, Micha.

Hej Micha, can you bring some source on the reaction of German bishops on the Polish we forgive and ask...? As I mentioned before, it could improve the Polish-German friendship section. Alx-pl 23:13, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

It would be also nice to have something on the impact of what the cancelor Brandt did. This, as the forgivness case, may enrich the friendship section. I did not mention these facts in the section although they were present in my source (see the history description) only because it is impossible to make them to be to the point without a point of view from the German side. And my German is too weak to effectively search the German Internet for such complicated issues. Alx-pl 23:25, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

As to Dresden: "what exactly has been produced for military purpose in Dresden? Nothing! Dresden never was an industrial City! Military Presence? None! Dresden had no special meaning for the military." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Dresden_in_World_War_II#Was_the_bombing_a_war_crime.3F "The case against the bombing being a war crime

For details on the treaty obligations of the Allies see aerial area bombardment and international law in 1945

"In examining these events in the light of international humanitarian law, it should be borne in mind that during the Second World War there was no agreement, treaty, convention or any other instrument governing the protection of the civilian population or civilian property, as the Conventions then in force dealt only with the protection of the wounded and the sick on the battlefield and in naval warfare, hospital ships, the laws and customs of war and the protection of prisoners of war"[54].

The United States military lays out the following historically based case that bombing of Dresden did not constitute a war crime[55]

• 1. The raid had a legitimate military end, brought about by exigent military circumstances.
• 2. That there were military units, and anti-aircraft defense within a sufficiently close perimeter to disqualify the town as "undefended".
• 3. The raid did not use extraordinary means to achieve this end, but was comparable to other raids used against comparable targets.
• 4. The raid was carried out through the normal chain of command, pursuant to directives and agreements then in force.
• 5. The raid achieved the military objective established without "excessive" loss of civilian life.

The first point has two parts, the first in reference to the American precision bombing of the railyards, which rests on the assertion that there was an exigent military circumstance that made the railyard an important military target, beyond its usual value as a communication centre, and the second that Dresden was an industrial and military target, which would make the attack on the city centre an object of legal military action.

In reference to the first an inquiry conducted on the direction the American Secretary of War, General George C. Marshall affirmed that the military necessity of the raid was established by the available facts. The inquiry would establish that, in the view of American military planners, that cutting the ability of the German ability to either reinforce a counter attack against Marshall Konev's extended line, or to retreat and regroup using Dresden as a base of operations. That Dresden had been largely untouched during the war left it as one of the few remaining working rail and communications centres. A secondary objective was to disrupt the industrial use of Dresden for munitions manufacture, which American intelligence believed to be the case. The fear of a Nazi break out, as had so nearly happened during the Battle of the Bulge, which ran from December 16, 1944 to January 25, 1945, less than three weeks before the bombing of Dresden, was present on the minds of Allied planners.

The second part is in reference to whether Dresden was an militarily significant industrial centre. An official 1942 guide described the German city as "one of the foremost industrial locations of the Reich" and in 1944, the German Army High Command's Weapons Office listed 127 medium-to-large factories and workshops which supplied the army with materiel[56].

The United States Strategic Bombing Survey listed at least 110 factories and industries in Dresden[57], albeit mainly in the outskirts, which were far less affected by the February 1945 raid. The city contained the Zeiss-Ikon optical factory and the Siemens glass factory, both of which, according to the Allies, were entirely devoted to manufacturing military gunsights. The immediate suburbs contained factories building radar and electronics components, and fuses for anti-aircraft shells. Other factories produced gas masks, engines for Junkers aircraft and cockpit parts for Messerschmitt fighters[58]. Because of this concentration of industry, made even more important by the relatively undamaged nature of Dresden at the time of the raids, the allied planners had reason to believe that Dresden was a crucial prop in the German effort to maintain supply for the defense of Germany itself.

The second point is crucial for meeting the standards of prohibitions, in place since 1899, and reaffirmed in 1907 and 1938, against use of bombardment against "undefended" towns. Since no specific convention was in place at the time of Dresden, in part because of German opposition to the 1938 draft convention, the defense against charges of war crimes for Dresden asserts that the presence of active Germany military units in the area, and the presence of both fighters and anti-aircraft near Dresden are sufficient to qualify Dresden as "defended" under the Hague II.

The third point is that the size of the Dresden raid, in terms of numbers of bombs, their type, and the means of delivery were commensurate with the military objective. On February 3rd, 1945, the Allies bombed Berlin, and caused an estimated 25,000 civil fatalities, other raids in Japan caused civilian casualties over 100,000. The tonnage and types of bombs listed in the service records show that the raid was of comparable throw weight to other raids carried out in early 1945.

The fourth point is that no extraordinary decision was made to single out Dresden, or to take advantage of the large number of refugees for the purpose of "terrorizing" the German populace. The intent of area bombing was to destroy the morale of workers in industrial production, not to kill dislocated, and therefore not involved in the war effort, civilians. The American inquiry established that the Soviets, pursuant to allied agreements for the United States and the United Kingdom to provide air support for the Soviet offensive into Germany to Berlin, had requested area bombing of Dresden in order to end the threat of either a counter attack through Dresden, or a German retreat and regroup using Dresden as a regrouping point.

The fifth point is that the firebombing achieved the intended effect of destroying, crippling, or disabling, a substantial fraction of industry in what was one of Germany's last centres of industrial production. American estimates had over 25% of industrial capacity disabled or destroyed, and it prevented the use of Dresden by the Germany military to launch any counterstrikes to check the Soviet advance.

A sixth point is that, insofar as Europe has been at comparative peace for sixty years, and Germany has actively played a part in fostering that peace, it may be that the underlying policy of carrying the war into Germany in 1945 has worked. It is notable that Dresden, the cultural city, has more obviously kept this subject alive than has Dortmund for example. Some may argue that this policy has saved many more lives than the number lost in the Dresden raid, but there are serious difficulties with this line of reasoning. There is no question that Nazi Germany would have been defeated without the aerial bombardment of historic inner cities. The memory of Dresden does ensure that the horrors of war are not forgotten, but the fact that these horrors were visited on German civilians by Allied bomber squads could have bred a desire for revenge as easily as pacifism. The pacifism and repentance that define the postwar (or at least post-1968) German discourse about World War II do not derive from the destruction of Dresden, but from a popular acknowledgement of the monumental atrocities committed in Germany's name." Please read about the topics you wish to comment.As to other mistakes it is neither the place and neither have the time to correct you.--Molobo 01:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC) As a bonus : http://www.airforcehistory.hq.af.mil/PopTopics/dresden.htm " I. ANALYSIS: Dresden as a Military Target

5. At the outbreak of World War II, Dresden was the seventh largest city in Germany proper.2 With a population of 642,143 in 1939, Dresden was exceeded in size only by Berlin, Hamburg, Munich, Cologne, Leipzig, and Essen, in that order.3 The serial bombardments sustained during World War II by the seven largest cities of Germany are shown in Chart A.

6. Situated 71 miles E.S.E. from Leipzig and 111 miles S. of Berlin, by rail, Dresden was one of the greatest commercial and transportation centers of Germany and the historic capital of the important and populous state of Saxony.4 It was, however, because of its geographical location and topography and as a primary communications center that Dresden assumed major significance as a military target in February 1945, as the Allied ground forces moved eastward and the Russian armies moved westward in the great combined operations designed to entrap and crush the Germans into final defeat.

7. Geographically and topographically, Dresden commanded two great and historic traffic routes of primary military significance: north-south between Germany and Czechoslovakia through the valley and gorge of the Elbe river, and east-west along the foot of the central European uplands.5 The geographical and topographical importance of Dresden as the lower bastion in the vast Allied-Russian war of movement against the Germans in the closing months of the war in Europe.

8. As a primary communications center, Dresden was the junction of three great trunk routes in the German railway system: (1) Berlin-Prague-Vienna, (2) Munich-Breslau, and (3) Hamburg-Leipzig. As a key center in the dense Berlin-Leipzig railway complex, Dresden was connected to both cities by two main lines.6 The density, volume, and importance of the Dresden-Saxony railway system within the German geography and e economy is seen in the facts that in 1939 Saxony was seventh in area among the major German states, ranked seventh in its railway mileage, but ranked third in the total tonnage carried by rail.7

9. In addition to its geographical position and topography and its primary importance as a communications center, Dresden was, in February 1945, known to contain at least 110 factories and industrial enterprises that were legitimate military targets, and were reported to have employed 50,000 workers in arms plants alone.8 Among these were dispersed aircraft components factories; a poison gas factory (Chemische Fabric Goye and Company); an anti-aircraft and field gun factory (Lehman); the great Zeiss Ikon A.G., Germany’s most important optical goods manufactory; and, among others, factories engaged in the production of electrical and X-ray apparatus (Koch and Sterzel A.G.), gears and differentials (Saxoniswerke), and electric gauges (Gebruder Bassler).9 "--Molobo 01:47, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

So it was OK to bomb Warsawa to the ground, cause it was a military target in WWII. No act of Anti- anything, just war. Could you agree on that Molobo? Maybe you must when you take your arguments sirious, but I cant, cause for me civilians arent a target for atacks, cause this was even in WWII against the international law. But as I always did: I dont talk about history, I want to talk about today, and your concept of Antiism is Bull.... for the today- situation. Volker

Warsaw (or Warszawa) was not a military target, unlike Dresden, toopit! Space Cadet 15:37, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

OF COURSE THERE WAS NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MILITARY IN WARSAW, AND BECAUSE THERE WAS NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO MILITARY, IT WAS NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR A LEGITIME TARGET! BESIDES; WARSAW WAS NEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEVVVVVVVVVVVVEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEER THE COMMAND CENTER OF THE POLISH ARMY! NEXT TIME THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE WRITING! Micha.

http://www.elknet.pl/acestory/pol39/pol39.htm 13 September 1939, the town of Frampol , with a population of 3000, and without military or industrial targets, nor any Polish Army defenders, was practically annihiliated by Luftwaffe bombing practice. In the opinion of Luftwaffe analyst Harry Hohnewald: "Frampol was chosen as an experimental object, because test bombers, flying at low speed, weren't endangered by AA fire. Also, the centrally placed town hall was an ideal orientation point for the crews. We watched possibility of orientation after visible signs, and also the size of village, what guranteed that bombs neverthless fall down on Frampol. From one side it should make easier the note of probe, from second side it should confirm the efficiency of used bombs." (after Wolfgang Schreyer's book "Eyes on the sky.") --Molobo 00:35, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

So. Molobo. then tell me, why has Rathenow been destroyed? Rathenow has been a small german town with no Industry and no Military Protection. MOLOBO! ALTHOUHG I KNOW THAT YOU ARE A F... FUNDAMENTALISTIC POLISH SEMI PATRIOT; REFER TO FACTS! And stop referring to pages that show nothing but Bullshit! Show us some real and neutral proofs! Podaj prawdziwe i neutralne zrodla!

We are straying off-topic

Molobo, I agree with you (my grandfather had already fought on New Guinea - where he almost died - and Luzon. He would have been involved in an amphibious assault on the home islands of Japan, and I probably wouldn't be here. But these discussions belong on the Dresden and Hiroshima talk pages, not here. --Jpbrenna 04:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

So true. I am going to delete the entire section in a few hours anyway. But, of course, if you like you can continue to bombard each other on your talk pages. Instead, I would rather you made an attempt to verify your claims, molobo. That would be on-topic. NightBeAsT 05:09, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Polish murders

Polish very loudly cry about Katyn. But why don't they cry about 60,000 bestialy martyred (by starvation and unbearable conditions) in Polish camps Bolshevik war prisoners in 1919 - 1922? Were these Russian peasants taken forced to the army by Bolsheviks somehow worse than the officials of Polish occupational administration of Western Ukraina, Western Bielorus and Eastern Lithuania? Icik Alpehovic 05:58, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, you should not expect apologies for what not happened. The topos of Russian war prisoners killed en masse in Poland in 1920 is popular in Russian press, but it is hardly supported by any sources or fact. I've read all three books on the topic (that's right, three only: two monographies by Zbigniew Karpus and one by a Russian historian, I forgot her name) and the number of casualties quoted by Russian journalist (which you seem to repeat) seems too high several times. All in all, to make long thing short: if there were 60 thousand killed in the Polish camps (that is approximately half of all the POWs taken in that war), then:

1. Why there is no trace of that in any archives?
2. Why the USSR did not cry out loud about it, especially during the 50 years of occupation of Poland?
3. Why is there no official Russian claim for such apologies?
4. Why the cemeteries near the POW camps contain only roughly 8000 of dead?
5. Why the only document to support brutal treatment of prisoners mention that "the prisoners were massacred by the guards and in the result two of the POWs were wounded"?

And so on. Also, the And You Are Lynching Negroes tactics is not really constructive, is it. Halibutt 06:35, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

To Micha

When will Poles officially apologize Lithuania for Eastern Lithuania and capital occupation in 1920 and full economic destruction of this territory in time of occupation (1920 - 1939)? Icik Alpehovic 06:23, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

No sooner than Lithuania will apologize for the current occupation of Polish Wilno ;) Also, Poland will surely apologize for the economic destruction of that area. Surely. You'll only have to prove that the area was indeed devastated economically... But seriously now, what is your agenda here? Halibutt 06:37, August 17, 2005 (UTC)

Dear fellows!

I was talking about the relationship between Poles and Germans (not Lithuanians!) So this comment is completely out of topic. I don't know that much about the Polish-Lithuanian war... Micha.

Interesting source on traditional German antipolonism

Koch, Angela, Ph.D. Student Institut für Kunst- und Kulturwissenschaften, Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, Germany

   * The Relationship of Antipolonism and Sexism in German History (1870-1933/45)

Should be added to article --Molobo 01:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

How about you post a link here?NightBeAsT 11:57, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Giving the title and author along with the name of publisher is usually enough in Wiki. Molobo

A title says nothing. When Michael Moore published a book reading "Dude, where's my country?" does it mean the US has gone missing?NightBeAsT 13:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Add another source on antipolonism in Germany

http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/401/212schlott.html Fragments : In contrast to the groups discussed above, the Polish group in Germany does not have a legal minority status, nor does is possess the right of citizenship. The estimates of the Polish community's size depend on several presuppositions that are not universally shared. According to the German authorities, there are 260,000-300,000 Poles in Germany, whereas some Polish sources speak of 2 million people of Polish background. The German authorities count only those Poles who are legal residents and possess a Polish passport. Polish sources include in the count the Aussiedler, or immigrants allegedly of German background; legal residents; and illegal residents. The Ruhr region has an estimated 70,000-200,000 persons of Polish background in such cities as Bottrop, Essen, Bochum, Recklingshausen, Gelsenkirchen, Düsseldorf, Duisburg, and Dortmund. By that count, about 150,000 Poles live in Berlin, 100,000 in Hamburg, and 15,000 in München.

Historically, there have been three major 'colonization' waves from Poland to Germany. The first wave went mainly to the Ruhr area in the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The second consisted of World War II prisoners and forced laborers who stayed in Germany after the takeover of Poland by the Soviet Union. The third wave consists mostly of the 1980s-1990s immigrants.

The German minority has several guaranteed seats in the Sejm, whereas Poles are not represented either in the Bundestag or in the Landtags (the regional parliaments).

Accordingly, Polonia in Germany is divided into the 'old' immigration (descendants of the Ruhr immigrants and World War II prisoners), and the 'young 'immigration (those who requested asylum during the communist period; those who left Poland during the communist clampdown on the Solidarity movement; the unabashedly economic immigrants; and Poles with presumed German origin, the largest of these subgroups).

The Aussiedler, or Spätaussiedler, began to move to Germany in the 1970s. These were mainly young and well educated persons whose motivation was at least partly economic. In the years 1980-1990, 1,300,000 Poles emigrated to Germany; of these, 800,000 were classified as Aussiedler. Between 1988-1999, 530,000 Aussiedler left Poland. In Polish statistics, they were counted as Poles who left the country; but in German statistics, they were Germans from Poland coming back to the country of origin. Descendants of the Ruhr immigration have German citizenship rights but they are not recognized as a Polish minority.

Add to article that despite over a century of living in Germany, the German government doesn't reckognise Ruhr Poles as Polish minority.

Polonia in Germany after the signing of the Treaty of Friendship and Good Neighborliness (1991)

The end of communism in Poland and East Germany followed by the reunification of Germany created an opportunity for a new kind of relationship. The so-called "small Treaty" concerning the acknowledgment of the Polish- German border was signed on 14 November 1990, and it was followed by the Treaty of Friendship and Good Neighborliness (Vertrag zwischender Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Republik Polen über gute Nachbarschaft und freundschaftliche Zusammenarbeit) signed on 17 June 1991.(3) Articles 20-22 of the Treaty acknowledge Polish Germans as an ethnic minority in Poland with all rights pertaining to that status. Unfortunately, a reciprocal recognition of German Poles has not occurred. While such publications as the CIA World Factbooks have acknowledged since 1993 that ethnic Poles constitute a substantial fraction of the German population, the German authorities continue to refuse to grant Poles minority status.

This lack of official recognition does not mean that persons of Polish origin have no right to cultivate the Polish language, culture or traditions; to establish and maintain Polish cultural institutions; or to solicit financial contributions for their causes. But it does provide opportunities for overt and covert discrimination, as any Pole living in Germany will tell you. Without a minority status some of the provisions of the Treaty remain valid only on paper. Germany is a federation of 16 states and it possesses 16 regional governments. Poles in Germany have to negotiate provisions of the treaty with each of these 16 governments whose officials are sometimes malicious or ignorant of these provisions or of the Treaty itself. Polish attempts to access the mass media have been uniformly turned down. When Polish groups in Cologne and Bonn asked their state governments for financial help in organizing Polish courses, they were turned down in Bonn and given vague promises in Cologne. It should be noted that German groups in Poland (a much poorer state, and one which suffered 60 years of foreign occupation owing to Germany's decision to launch World War II) receive financial help from the Polish government to maintain German schools and other institutions supporting German ethnicity. In 1992, the German minority in Poland received a 272,000DM subvention from the Polish government; in 1993, this grant was increased to 700,000 DM plus two buildings and 18 offices.(4) The German minority is present in the mass media of Katowice and Opole. In the Opole voivodship, over 100 parishes offer Masses in German. In 1992/93 in the voivodship of Katowice, there opened 20 elementary schools with German as the language of instruction. 120 instructors from Germany help in these schools; their salary is paid jointly by the Polish and German governments. Add info about the differences in treating minorites by Polish government and German one.

It should be noted that some of the leaders of the Polish minority in Germany were the first prisoners in the concentration camp of Buchenwald in 1939-40. Thus it was implicitly acknowledged at that time that there were in fact persons of Polish ethnicity in Germany. The descendants of the Ruhr Poles in particular meet all international requirements for being considered an ethnic minority in Germany. Yet such recognition has not been forthcoming.

That does not prevent the occasional Germans revisionist claims. Among those was a recent attempt by the extreme right wing German party, "Nationale Offensive," to establish itself in the Opole region of Poland, in the village of Dziewkowice. The Bund der Vertriebenen, an organization representing those expelled from east of the Oder-Neisse line, occasionally expresses revisionist goal and demands that Germans from Germany be allowed to join the German minority organizations in Poland. "Helmut, you are our chancellor too:" such posters (in Polish) occasionally appeared in Silesia under the auspices of such German organizations. My research into these issues indicates that the present German laws cause great harm to Polish immigrants. (8) I concentrated on the 1980s immigration, and followed closely a group of 40 people, all of whom obtained university degrees in Poland, had no German language skills, had lived in Germany for at least 8 years, and were of similar age.

My first criterion of the degree of assimilation and professional success was language acquisition. I subdivided my group into three subgroups: those who acquired near-native or native fluency in German (16 persons), those of intermediate language competence (9) and those with very poor language skills (15). Here is what I found:

  1.

     all members of subgroup I were the Aussiedler; all members of subgroup III were immigrants without the right of citizenship

  2.

     all members of subgroup I were working in their professions as physicians, engineers, lawyers, or computer scientists; in striking contrast, all members of subgroup III were employed as relatively unskilled laborers, e.g., an engineer and a university professor worked as janitors, a lawyer worked as a physician's assistant, a computer scientist was a waitress, another engineer was a truck driver, and a physician worked as a shop assistant

  3.

     the average income of subgroup I was two and a half times higher than that of subgroup III

This discrepancy suggests the existence of what in American terms would be called ethnic discrimination. While it is to Germany's credit that it received immigrants and continues to help displaced persons in many localities, the institutional pattern of 'closed doors to citizenship' with regard to those of presumed non-German origin can hardly be doubted. In particular, the treatment accorded to Poles has obviously been not on the agenda of the German civil rights organizations or of those German scholars and thinkers who spend time agonizing over Germany's actions in the twentieth century.

Alas, the legal conditions afforded by the German political system act against such harmonious integration. As a result, both the Aussiedler and other Polish immigrants usually believe that it is better not to reveal Polish identity in Germany. Countless examples of hostility (extending even to tourists) and discrimination support these conclusions. (16)

The Germans speak arrogantly of Polnische Wirtschaft, thus confirming the economic differences between the two countries but conveniently forgetting the German (and Prussian) contribution to the destruction of that Wirtschaft. In the opinion polls about various nationalities, Poles rank lower than Turks or Russians, and 87 percent of young Germans regard them as "worse than themselves."(17) In popular TV programs, Poles are presented the way blacks were presented in the American press half a century ago. On the other hand, during the time of communism in central and eastern Europe, it was difficult for Polish and other immigrants from communism to develop pride concerning their country of origin. The poverty of eastern and central European countries, their lack of democracy and constant economic crises evoked the feeling shame and jealousy as contrasted with West German prosperity. The discrimination of Poles (and of other ethnic minorities) in Germany has been exacerbated by the extremist right and its slogans of Deutschland für Deutsche and Ausländer raus!

Still another problem is the culture shock stemming from two different perceptions of what Europe really means. To Poles, it seems natural that they, together with the Germans, belong to a common European culture and share a common religion. This feeling of belonging together is not shared by the Germans. While the Poles accept German culture as part of European culture, the Germans do not see Polish culture as sharing the same cultural roots. While an educated Pole knows at least some German writers, the opposite is not true of an educated German. The growing realization of this situation, the feeling of frustration, anger and resentment not only against the Germans but also against Polish culture is a natural result, and some immigrants begin to share the prejudices of the dominant group. While the emigration of the last 20 years has somewhat softened these problems, they still do exist.

Add all of these lies on German-Polish relations. Molobo

Rudi Pawelka - summary

I refactored the discussion to help in understanding the problem. If you think I omitted any serious proposal or argument, please add it to the section #Other proposals. New arguments are welcome. I will try to incorporate to the Analysis sections all the arguments from the Discussion sections below. You can do it yourself, but please write arguments as short, one sentence assertions; longer explanations may be referred to by links to edits. Alx-pl D 23:43, 31 August 2005 (UTC)

Informations to be included

Reversal of war guilt

Summary

Rudi Pawelka in his speech on June, 3rd 2005 in Nuremberg blamed the outburst of WW2 on the acts of aggression Poland commited in years 1918-1938.

Analysis

• Problem 1 Should this be included?
  • For: It spreads black legend that Poland is guilty for WW2.
  • Against: Rudi Pawelka is popular in very narrow circles of the German society [20].
  • For: However, his meetings are visited by prominent CSU politicians [21]
  • Against: But all his demands are criticized by the major German politicians ([22] for Schröder, [23] for Merkel), even Erika Steinbach distances herself from him [24].
  • For: Still, his speeches are mentioned and commented in respectable Polish media, so it is not marginal [25] [26].
  • Against: ?
  • For: ?
• Problem 2 This may be a fact or an interpretation. Is it a fact?
  • For: It is mentioned in Gazeta Wyborcza [27] and in Wirtualna Polska [28] and in Polska Agencja Prasowa [29] notices.
  • Against: These sources are all Polish and the most that is stated is (in the Wirtualna Polska source) that he protested against pushing all the blame for WW2 on Third Reich.
  • For: The Polish sources are not worse than any others.
  • Against: They are not worse, but they can be suspected to provide Polish POV, so the statement should contain according to the Polish media. Besides, all these sources are media, not a scientific research.
  • For: ?
  • Against: ?

Discussion

Plaese, add here any comments you think are relevant

Comparison Pawelka-Hitler

Summary

The Nuremberg speech by Pawelka is very similar to some speeches by Adolf Hitler. Here are three comparisons [30] [31] [32].

Analysis

• Problem 1 Is this comparison to the point?
  • For: It gives a certain evidence that Pawelka spreads Polish black legend.
  • Against: ?
  • For: ?
• Problem 2 Is it an original research?
  • For: This comparison is just an analysis of Pawelka's speech and there is no similar comparison in the known sources.
  • Against: ?
  • For: ?

Discussion

Plaese, add here any comments you think are relevant

Hostility by eviction

Summary

The one-sided action of Preußische Treuhand to evict the property from before WW2 is considered hostile in Poland as it can result in expropriation of Poles who were forced to exile from what were eastern territories of Poland before WW2. [33]

Analysis

• Problem 1 Is it not to the point?
  • For: It is more about a revisionist organisation.
  • Against: The definition of anti-Polonism says that it is hostility and this is an example of a hostile movement.
  • For: ?
  • Against: ?

Discussion

Plaese, add here any comments you think are relevant

Other proposals

Please, add here a new proposals for content to be included

• ?

Proposed formulations

The original one

Poland is accused by some groups of having caused World War II. Rudi Pawelka the president of the Preußische Treuhand and the Territorial Association of Silesia in his speech made in Nuremberg blamed the outburst of the war on, in his opinion, acts of aggression committed by Poles during the period 1918-1938.

Discussion

Proposal by SylwiaS

Polish Press Agency reported that Rudi Pawelka the president of the Preußische Treuhand and the Territorial Association of Silesia in his speech made during the society's congress in Nuremberg blamed the outburst of the World War II on, in his opinion, acts of aggression committed by Poles during the period 1918-1938.

Discussion

Proposal by Alx-pl

The Preußische Treuhand want to restitute whenever possible the property that was in German hands before the World War II. To this end, they want to use human rights in the European and Polish courts [34]. This together with allusions of Rudi Pawelka, the leader of the Preußische Treuhand, concerning the guilt for the start of the World War II [35] are recognised by major Polish newspapers as anti-Polish [36], [37], as such a solution would result in humiliation of many Polish citizens.

Discussion

Proposal by NightBeAsT

"Sometimes anti-polonistic sentiment is suspected of people who discriminate against Poles and express themselves very negatively and/or aggressively about the country — for example Rudi Pawelka, long term policeman, lower-tier CDU politician, President of the small organisation Preußische Treuhand and the Territorial Association of Silesia, caused a shock in Poland after he and the Preußische Treuhand tried to initiate legal proceedings against the expulsion of Germans after World War II from area that belonged to Germany even before World War II. After being disapproved by the Federation of Expellees, the Government of Germany and the CDU/CSU team of the German parliament that decides for the CDU/CSU on questions concerning "exiles and refugees"[38], and on being dismissed by the Polish government he said with that verdict Poland was not a state under the law [39] and that the dismissal was not based on European spirit but Polish nationalism[40]. By demanding that German exiles should get their property back or money of the same value and his negative rhetoric against Poland, he hurt Polish-German relations, opened up old sores caused by atrocities by the Third Reich against Poland, argued with indifference to Poles whose property he wants to be given to the exiles and insulted Poles."

Discussion

Is anything wrong with this formulation? Alx-pl D 22:19, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The formulation and proposal are wrong.They don't include mention that Pawelka called Polish uprising against German persecution Polish aggression, blamed Poland for WW2, compered Poland to a thief and his speech is similar to Hitler's propaganda speech.

Furthermore the statement :

President of the small organisation Preußische Treuhand and the Territorial Association of Silesia, caused a shock in Poland after he and the Preußische Treuhand tried to initiate legal proceedings against the expulsion of Germans after World War II

Is wrong.No schock was happening in Poland at all, since German revisionists have been known in Poland since a long time (Hubka for example).The reasons for publication of Pawelka's antipolish presentation were his other claims.The "old sores" is inccorrect since such claims have been made since the end of war.So Pawelka's speech in this regard isn't anything new.What is new is the fact that German organisations are starting to repeat Nazi propaganda(Polish aggression)-and that is what was concentrated on by Polish media.

The territorial and material demands of German organisation aren't anything new, so it isn't neccessery to concentrate on them in regards to Pawelka's speech. Molobo

A detailed answer:

• called Polish uprising against German persecution Polish aggression - this can be included, please propose a formulation
• blamed Poland for WW2 - it is your interpretation which is not directly supported by any of the sources
• compered Poland to a thief - I did not catch the point in which he did it, can you provide a sentence(s) in which he did it?
• similar to Hitler's propaganda speech - this is discussed above, can you give a new arguments?
• No schock was happening in Poland at all - we can of course use a different wording, for instance hot reaction, significant reaction or anything similar.
• The "old sores" is inccorrect - since the Two Plus Four Treaty (1990) the problems concerning the Polish-German border were fixed, of course it is a matter of discussion of whether 15 years means old.
• are starting to repeat Nazi propaganda - this was not stated explicitely anywhere, so it can be regarded as original research, especially as this is a very delicate topic.
• The territorial and material demands of German organisation aren't anything new - yes, they aren't but this means they are well understood and documented, and it is easier to provide a many-sided description; moreover, this also has been discussed above.

I think the discussion brought many new threads and your answer above conveys more content that the original description in the article. I'd like to see your own version of the text to be put into the article now. Alx-pl D 19:13, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Sources

On Nurember speech

• [41] - a German text of the July, 3rd 2005 Nuremberg speech by Rudi Pawelka (in German).
• [42] - a Polska Agencja Prasowa notice on the July, 3rd 2005 Nuremberg speech by Rudi Pawelka (in Polish).
• [43] - news from pl:Wirtualna Polska about the July, 3rd 2005 Nuremberg speech by Pawelka (in Polish).
• [44] - news from Gazeta Wyborcza about the July, 3rd 2005 Nuremberg speech by Pawelka (in Polish).
• [45] - news from Die Welt about the July, 3rd 2005 Nuremberg speech by Pawelka (in German).
• [46] - an article from pl:Schlesisches Wochenblatt which admits that Pawelka's enterprise is considered hostile in Poland (in Polish).

On Preußische Treuhand in general

• [47] WDR about Preußische Treuhand and their planned lawsuits to return property (in German).
• [48] - Rzeczpospolita about Preußische Treuhand and their planned lawsuits to return property (in Polish).
• [49] [50] - two text (in English) from de:Deutche Welle about the Polish-German relations after Preußische Treuhand revealed their court plans (in English).
• [51] an analysis from de:Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (in German).
• [52] - on Pawelka from de:Welt am Sonntag (in German).
• [53] - on Pawelka and Erika Steinbach from Die Welt (in German).
• [54] - on one of Pawelka speeches in 2004 from inforiot

Other sources

• [55] - a news from TVP on a report from Grupa Kopernika concerning the impact of Pawelka (in Polish).
• [56] - Gazeta Wyborcza on a visit of Angela Merkel in Poland (in Polish).

Translations

Gazeta Wyborcza article on Nuremberg speech by Pawelka

The source is [57].

The head of the Territorial Association of Silesia blames Poland for discrimination of Germans

Poland is not a law abiding state according to Territorial Association of Silesia since Poland discriminate against German minority and German emigrants. Poland refuse also square up the responsibility for the expulsions after World War II - the head of the assotiation, Rudi Pawelka, contends.

"It is not allowable that people in Poland are discriminated against their origin under the roof of European values system," Pawelka said in his speech on a congress of his association on Sunday in Nuremberg. According to him, anti-German post-war decrees together with "the worst national minority act in EU" are still applied to the German minority and courts deny people who leaved to Germany in the seventies the return of their real estates even if their names are still in land registers. "This kind of judicature does not comply with the European law," Pawelka said. "Poland is not a law abiding country if it still applies the old comunist lawlessness!"

Pawelka is a co-founder and the head of the board of the trustees in Preußische Treuhand the goal of which is to reclaim the real estate of Germans who were expelled from Poland after 1945. The canvasser charged Poles with nationalism and the failure in settling of the felonies commited in connection with the expulsions. "The evasion of confrontation with the commited lawlessness, which Poland presents, is not the proper way to good future. When we ask about something we always encounter not the european spirit but the nationalism," pronounced Pawelka. According to him, Poles do not admit the plunder after the war, and the sufferings of 2,4 mln Germans in Poland before 1939 together with Polish agressions after the World War I (the war with Russia, the march in Upper Silesia and the annexation of Zaolsie in 1938) are commonly passed over. Yet all these events together with the "Versaille dictat" in 1919 belong, according to Pawelka, to the history of WW2 which did not begin in 1939 or 1933, but earlier. Pawelka stressed that "he was deeply ashamed with what the Nazi state did", but he wants others not to hide their crimes behind the criems of Germans.

The head of bawarian Ministry of Internal Affairs Günter Beckstein (CSU), who was a guest of Silesians' congress, said that the consciousness of German sufferings does not mean the relativisation of the German guilt. "That is why expulsion of Silesians from their historical homeland is a crime against humanity and a serious lawlessness," he said. He also supported a quick erection of the Center against Expulsions in Berlin.

New proposal by Molobo

I can only state that the way the proposal is proposed and structured ruins all the efforts to achieve consensus. Alx-pl D 08:56, 14 September 2005 (UTC) Alx so far I haven't seen any attempts to reach any consensus, we had certain posters that tried to erase the article and blame Polish people for prejudices against Germans, and were discovered to be German nationalists. --Molobo 10:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Harald Schmidt Show

Sorry, but a "Comedy-Show" shouldn´t be a basis for a topic in a Encyclopedia. Or I am not right?

Yesterday I saw a Comedy-Show on polish Polsat. And they make fun of/in german (Also they said "Deutschland, Deutschland, über alles". Yes, this is the kind of polish humor.). Does German speak then of Anti-Germanism? Your guys are very funny when you are using a comedy as an example for "german media". Should I must remember some polish guys of this picture: [[58]] (And this is not a Comedy-magazine!). Polish Media make too much panic and trouble, and some Polish make also too much panic. Like the topic Erika Steinbach, nobody knows her in Germany. But every Polish does!?

Please remove this parts or change them. First of all it have nothing in common with the topic "Anti-polonism", or I'am wrong?. --Jonny84 11.55, 3rd September 2005 (UTC)

You're right there. But the Harald Schmidt claim is already sufficiently exposed as nonsense (see some topics above). This page needs a lot of help so if you would like to stay and help with the mediation, I'd really appreciate it. Reasonable contributors are especially needed on this page so you're welcome, Jonny.NightBeAsT 13:02, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong on all points-Erica Stainbach is a member of a very large organisation visitied by top German politicians, secondy the jokes Harald Schimdt reflect stereotypes persistant in German society that led to mass murder and persecution of Poles. User:Molobo 16:38, 6 September 2005

You cherrypicked and challenged two of Jonny's points jumping to another conclusion that he was wrong on all points. Who is Erica Stainbach? Let's check the German wikipedia. According to the German wikipedia, Nach anhaltender, äußerst kritischer Berichterstattung ist sie heute in Polen weit bekannter als in Deutschland. Eine Fotomontage des polnischen Nachrichtenmagazins Wprost präsentierte sie in SS-Uniform auf Kanzler Schröder reitend. (= After continuous, exceedingly critical reporting she is today more well-known in Poland than in Germany. A photomontage of the Polish news magazine Wprost presented her in SS-uniform riding on Chacellor Schröder.) Of course she has meet with top German politicians as one of almost 600 members of the German parliament. And as for your Harald Schmidt exaggeration: aren't there comedians in Poland who also sometimes make fun of other nations? Was Jonny wrong there? OMG the Guardian Unlimited has published an article against football fans, even headlined "Football fans are idiots", oh no, there'll be mass murders and persecution of hooligans... (btw also another example of how headlines should not be mistaken for facts). There's no harm in jokes. Laughing is healthy, so don't be in a huff when also Poland is sometimes joked about or do you feel that your honour is insulted then? Don't take it personally.NightBeAsT 20:51, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Steinbach didn't meet with Stroiber or Schroeder or Merkel in Parliament.All of those people come regularly to meetings of her organisations and make speeches to them.As to your "there is no harm in jokes" there is if it reinforces negative stereotypes that led to mass murder and genocide of Polish people by Germans.--Molobo 02:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Do you know that the Harald Schmidt Show is defunct since 2 years? Do you know? And what is the common of an entertainer and the World War 2? You´re absurd. And you can be sure that this show is not representing and demonstrating "Anti-polonism". You´re making panic. Do you ever been in Germany? Who gave polish media the right to defame other countries, should they maybe forgot their own history? And if you like it or not, to say something (bad) about poland or criticising Poland or making jokes about Poland isn´t alike/even anti-polonism. And come on, the WW2 end 60 years ago, Todays-Germany isn´t Nazi-Germany. Jonny84 22:54, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

And I feel very ashamed, when I read opinions like yours. Poland and Poles are known in Germany as very friendly and hospitably. Many young people are very interested in Poland. And I´m very glad that the people don´t know the way polish media is mauling Germany. Jonny84 23:07, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

My dear Molobo! It isn't Jonny who is wrong, it is YOU! You have showed us on more than one occasion that you do absolutely not know what you are talking about. First of all, Erika Steinbach is NOT a very importand person leading a huge political organization she is just the chairman of a organization of a minority in Germany. And That's why she's visited by politicians. Our political leaders do also visit the chairmen of e.g. the organization of the slavian minority, the danish minority (which -by the way- is a member of the Parliament in Schleswig-Holstein) or the muslim minority. Does that have to mean that these Minorities ant their Chairmen play an importand political role in Germany? Well, except of the danish minority, NO! You should better think about what you say! Micha. She is so unimportant that Merkel had given her support in her speeches.--Molobo 10:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Suggested addition

Since the article is protected, I can't add this myself. What I want to do is have a mention of Lufthansa's signing of a codeshare agreement with LOT Polish, which led the way to LOT being accepted into Star Alliance. This shows German support of Poland economicly, something that isn't mentioned in the "in Germany" section. Bayerischermann 00:41, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Do not get me wrong but was it Lufthansa that accepted codeshare with LOT or LOT that accepted codeshare with Lufthansa ? According to IATA, Poland had the second most dynamic airline market worldwide in 2004 (with 40% growth rate if I remember correctly). A new promising market is not something to be neglected these days. I'm not suggesting that it's not nice to be in the same alliance, but the facts need to be interpreted carefully. Anyway, I appreciate the motion towards showing signs of friendship instead of hatred or dislike. --Wojsyl ^(talk) 19:09, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Sure, but before that is possible, the article needs to change hands. Molobo's aim is not to give a fair picture of Germany... there ought to be a resolving of the dispute because once Molobo can edit the article again, there's just gonna be a new flood of slander, overstatements, misinterpretations, speculations etc. It just cannot go on like this, so we may well need your help too, Bayerischermann.NightBeAsT 12:12, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to clear up the codeshare agreement thing:

"In April, LOT and Lufthansa signed a preliminary strategic partnership agreement and a code-share agreement on joint operation of air services between Poland and Germany. Both agreements opened for the Polish carrier a way to the membership in the Star Alliance." [59]. (There's both Polish and English versions of that page on LOT Polish's website.)"

As for the editing problems, I'll try to help out then. I'm both Polish and German, so you don't have to worry about me "choosing a side". Bayerischermann 04:02, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

The economical relation between LOT and german firms is irrelevant to the article.If you want to create an seperate article about efforts to eradicate German antipolonism be my guest.We can certainly link it here. --Molobo 16:38, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

It could easily be implemented into the "Germans Polish Friendship" by saying:

"Germany also frequently conduct business in Poland and with Polish companies. One example is the strategic partnership agreement and code-share agreement between LOT Polish and Lufthansa, which led the way to LOT Polish to join Star Alliance." Bayerischermann 18:52, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

I fail to see how normal relations on economic plateau have to do with alledged German-Polish friendship.Furthermore I question if such thing exists at all.Public opinion surveys would be welcomed here as to perception of both nations towards each other, as well as public surveys of German knowledge about Poland.This however is beyond the scope of the article here.German-Polish relations or perhaps Attempts at eradicating traditional German antipolonism is a good title in my view for a seperate article which could be linked here. --Molobo 20:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You don't see how economic relations have to do with Polish-German friendship? While I would agree that perhaps German-Polish relations deserve a seperate article, I still fail to see why you don't believe economic relations have to do with general relations... Bayerischermann 03:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

Rename(s)

I know this has been gone over on VfD and not to doubt the good faith and hard work of people editing this page but this is so absolutely and utterly a neologism something should be done. Add an L and you could interpret Anti-Pollonism as the anger of allergy sufferers toward ragweed. I'd suggest splitting into smaller country specific articles with appropriate descriptors. All google gives is wiki-mirrors. Marskell 14:55, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

A similar idea was proposed above under #What I would like to see happen with this article. Note that google gives these entries for Anti-polonism:

• http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=7&url=http%3A//www.forum-znak.org.pl/index-en.php%3Ft%3Dprzeglad%26id%3D967&ei=4IggQ9nbB76iiAKC7Jy4CA
• http://www.codoh.com/zionweb/zisocultpol/zionp6.html
• http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&ct=res&cd=15&url=http%3A//www.piasa.org/62annualmeeting.pdf&ei=QYkgQ_3UH7eYiAKJtJy4CA
• and many more

(Surprisingly, none of these is about German anti-Polonism). As for the splitting, were other anti-Xism articles (e.g. mentioned in the section I pointed to) split in the similar way? Maybe there are other arguments to back this idea? Alx-pl D 19:02, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

!! Polish-German relations doesn't exist. That would be an obvious place to move much of this stuff. There are already five history of Poland articles from the 10th century to 1939. Surely much of this could be placed under headers there. I can understand a desire to highlight it with "Oppression of..." but I think relative scope needs to be borne in mind. If an existing article logically covers things, utilize it first.

As far as the Google test I don't think "many more" is quite accurate. There are less than 800 hits for the term. In Google terms that's nothing, and while Poles who speak English or academics may occasionally use the term it really isn't in currency. I think we're being overly prescriptive in placing it here; As the VfD noted, it admits it's a neologism in the second paragraph.

As for other precedents, there is an Anti-French sentiment in the United States article, (Anti-Polish sentiment in Germany?) which actually existed long before the main Francophobia article which was just added yesterday. Brief articles for Anglophobia and Russophobia exist (50 000 and 25 000 hits respectively) as of course does Anti-Americanism (1.5 million hits). Anti-Australian sentiment exists as well but I question its inclusion here in the same way I question this article.

My opinion is leave anti-X or -phobia articles for current or former hegemons: U.K., France, Germany, Russia, U.S., China and Japan. These countries have excited negative feelings across the globe and across time. Smaller countries with "negative opinions of" that are essentially regional shouldn't be included in the same way; it really does open the door for soapboxes and dubious neologisms. Marskell 09:51, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

EDIT: Statement retracted. ;) Bayerischermann 04:16, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

But of course the edit history is still there. Anti-Polish sentiment exists in Poland's immediate neighbours. It's not a global phenomenon and no its not equivalent to Anti-Semitisim. If the problem is effectively bi-lateral a relations article is better. Marskell 08:43, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

Grrrh! You shouldn't be looking at the edit history if I retract my statement! Bayerischermann 04:23, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Hey sorry. Your retraction initially stated that it was "due to (your) being scared of a hostile reply" which seemed an obvious attempt to fish for responses. Marskell 10:44, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Poll

An [RfC] has been created for this page. I decided to do a poll informally as I think people will show up here rather than Wikipedia:Polls. Note, no survey is binding on Polls or an a particular Talk. Please note support.

---

• Option 1:
  • Start German-Polish relations (which would include Prussia) and Russo-Polish relations. About half the article can be moved to the former and the latter may absorb some as well.
  • Place remainder of content in the already quite comprehensive Polish history pages.
  • When done delete the page or leave as a stub ("Academic word etc...see A, B, C...")

• Support. Marskell 09:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
• Strongly Oppose. (Anti-Polonism is current and in more countries than Germany and Russia) Bayerischermann 04:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

---

• Option 2:
  • Simply rename the page to a comprehensible descriptor such as Historical persecution of Poles and leave as is.

---

• Option 3:
  • The status quo.

• Strongly Support. Bayerischermann 04:22, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

---

• Option 4
  • Rename the article to Anti-Polish sentiment (which will leave a redirect from Anti-Polonism).
  • Change the preamble accordingly with explicit statement that the article covers also Anti-Polonism.
  • Extend the content.
  • Mention in each section title whether it is about anti-Polonism or about anti-Polish sentiment.

---

If consensus emerges I or some other "disinterested party" can request an unblock and immediately make the changes. Marskell 09:23, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

"Mention in each section title whether it is about anti-Polonism or about anti-Polish sentiment." In what meaningful way will the two terms differ? I'd broadly support a move to this title incidentally though I still think German-Polish relations could more or less absorb this. Marskell 13:05, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

There is still Jewish anti-Polonism, and in fact there are more documentation on the contemporary anti-Polonism among Jews than on German anti-Polonism. This is not included in the article though, since the editors are biased and I had very little chances to introduce suitable material to the article. Similarly, latest political events gave rise to occasional questions about Russian anti-Polonism. This is not included in the article. Alx-pl D 13:24, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, Anti-Polish sentiment is definitely more comprehensible to an English language user. Unfortunately it gets even fewer google hits than Anti-Polonism (less than 400). Anyone else got a comment? Marskell 17:50, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

This argument has already been exercised. Anti-polonism is not a neologism. Take a look at the page Wikipedia:Google test#Google bias. It states that a few hundreds of google occurrences should be enough. This search gives 785 hits (we should substract ca 100 for Wikipedia mirrors) and this for alternative spelling antipolish gives 277 hits. The section Wikipedia:Google test#Foreign languages and non-Latin scripts suggests that we can also take into account searches in other languages, so this search for the Polish equivalent gives 20,100 hits, this search for the German equivalent gives 158 hits. You can also find a quite respectful sources which use the term, e.g.: Cooperative, Journal of Historical Review.

I agree that the term Anti-Polish sentiment is even less represented, but this can partly be attributed to the fact that wikipedia mirrors boost the term Anti-Polonism in Google now. The aim of my proposal is to give a better justifiaction for the current wide scope of the article. Alx-pl D 19:37, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, after initially agreeing with suggestions for changes you seem to be backing away, so I don't know. Technicality not a neologism perhaps, but at least hard to comprehend. I stand by the fact that this article asserts a regional (and largely time-bound) phenomenon and that A-B relations articles and the already comprehensive Polish history pages can cover it. The suggestion of Anti-German bias has some merit. How many WWII pics you need? Doesn't this unintentionally verify the fact that this is parochial? I found nothing on Google images that would indicate a broader, modern range for the topic—no book covers, no signs, no editorial cartoons. Anti-French produces 265 images and some relevant ones off the top; Anti-Polish produces 8 none of which could be used here. Perhaps you'd find more searching in Polish or German but that would only confirm to me the regional character of the topic. Marskell 13:43, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify. I agree that the phenomenon is regional and it concerns to much descent Polish neighbouring countries. It also concerns USA and Israel though, as many Jews emigrated to the countries from Poland. However, I think that you mentioned somewhere that anti-Polonism is a neologism, so I wanted to clarify it. I support the idea of the poll, but I think the current form is premature. Although, I think the questions you proposed should be included in the final poll. Moreover, I think the idea of the poll should be supported by all the editors around. If it isn't then ist results will be either meaningless or boycotted by some of the editors here and this will give rise to just another edit war. Alx-pl D 19:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Unprotected

This article has been protected for ages. I've unprotected and suggest that you all just try editing and see what happens. Works nine times out of ten. --Tony Sidaway^Talk 10:54, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

nominated for deletion

Hey Guys! Even thougt Tony Sidaway does not want me to do that I nominated this Bullshit for deletion. I hope for your support! Best Greetings, Micha.

And here is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Polonism

How to end a fight against all the laws of reason

Molobo has just reverted all the disputed claims concerning German and French "Anti-Polonism" despite an enormous amount of discussion and complete lack of support for his proposals. If anyone disagrees with Molobo's unannouncend but certainly not surprising move which cannot achieve anything other than plunging the article into another edit and revert wars, tell me so on this page. I'd like some feedback on (and possibly help with) more serious and defining steps in dispute resolution. Thank you.NightBeAsT 19:34, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, the page is on Wikipedia:Requests for comment/History and geography for 3 days. Let's hope more people will join and react. I suggest also to concentrate on a single issue. Alx-pl D 19:56, 13 September 2005 (UTC)