Talk:Anti-Polish sentiment

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.

Say it ain't so...

I had always liked Frederick the Great's "l'audace, l'audace, tojours l'audace!" I'm shocked that this otherwise liberal and forward-thinking gentleman treated Poles that badly - and it sounds like it was some kind of personal vendetta, not just the business of acquiring the Silesian coal mines. I'll never say "l'audace etc." again -- and it was one of my favorite quotes! Apologies for posting it on Halibutt's userpage - I honestly didn't know at the time! --Jpbrenna 03:42, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

Anti- Polonism in Germany today

I don't know what's going on in your minds my beloved Poles! I read the article and I have to say that all of it is completely propaganda. You ever been in Germany? 2 million Poles are living here without any great trouble. They are integrated like no other national minority. When you talk about history you maybe right, but when you bring up all the old arguments you can't describe today’s Germany. EVERY single argument in your article was a lie. This is Anti- German and nothing else. You can do better, and you should, cause with things like that in mind good relationships cant be established. We are neighbours, if you like it or not, and we have to life together. The problem is, that you say what you heard, and you hear what you say – and all of this is from Polish sources and they are mainly full of nationalism. Yes you been victims in the past, but you did some wrong things too. Try to read neutral stuff from USA or England and redefine your standpoint. I tried to answer on that article, but than I decided to erase it, cause there is no diffrent way to handle this lies. Greetings from Germany, Volker

Volker, this has been addressed previously. The entire article is tripe, but until someone actually takes the time to go through the necessary channels to get rid of it (I tried once and am hated to this day by the defenders of this hogwash), or until Jimbo Wales gets sufficiently sick of WP being used as a propaganda vehicle for politicized POV-pushing, here it sits. I wish you the best of luck. Tomer ^TALK 15:28, August 9, 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with you, Volker. However, I would warn against identifying Molobo's and Witkacy's POV, for example, with the general public in Poland. True, stuff like that is cropping up time and again in the Polish media, hyped by folks who believe they can benefit from it, such as politicians or journalists. Fortunately, though, most Poles have more sense than that. To save the Polish image on Wikipedia, and Wikipedia's image as a whole, the Augean stable that is this article needs to be cleaned once and for all. However, the fanatical soapboxing of a certain breed of editors really calls for Herculean efforts. I do not feel Herculean enough today, so I will only remove some of the worst slander. --Thorsten1 18:14, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, anti-Polonism was an all-too-reall historical phenomenon. I am a little leery about modern nasty child custody disputes etc. being put on par with invasion, separate facilities for Poles, forced labor, and death camps, but the entire article is not "...tripe..." (Although tripe can be rather good, we don't have any here; there is however a Halibutt involved who might be very tasty pickled with a light cream sauce, though I prefer pickled herring). When you're feeling more Herculean, come back, and we can try to hammer out a better article. --Jpbrenna 19:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I highly recommend grilling halibut for about 20 minutes, and every 5 minutes, braising it with a mélange of butter, soy sauce and lemon juice and lightly seasoning the finished product with powdered garlic and parsley. Tomer ^TALK 02:02, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I tried that, but the little guy won't hold still that long. He's pretty slippery. --Jpbrenna 02:42, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"Poles are living here without any great trouble. They are integrated like no other national minority" Poles aren't reckognised in Germany as national minority, despite the fact that some lived there for generations.--Molobo 12:53, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"I would warn against identifying Molobo's and Witkacy's POV, for example, with the general public in Poland" Hmmm...so far I haven't expressed any POV, from where do you know my POV towards this matters ? Anyway parties expressing criticism of modern German attitude towards war (PO,PiS,LPR,Samoobrona,PSL) have together over circa 70 % of votes in public surveys.

"EVERY single argument in your article was a lie." Please point to arguments you consider lies.--Molobo 12:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"Yes you been victims in the past, but you did some wrong things too" What wrong things have Poles done to Nazi Germany, and Prussia to be treated like animals meant to be eradicated ?--Molobo 12:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Molobo: "so far I haven't expressed any POV, from where do you know my POV towards this matters" - No, of course you never expressed any POV. I have absolutely no way of knowing your POV about Germans, liberal Polish journalists of Jewish descent, homosexuals and other underlings... :^) "parties expressing criticism of modern German attitude towards war" - I can't help wondering what you mean by "modern German attitude towards war", and how you know about it when you do not even read German, apparently? I take it you are not referring to the German refusal to engage in the war against Iraq, but would you care to elaborate? (rhetorical question, no reply required). "What wrong things have Poles done to Nazi Germany, and Prussia [...]" - Quite obviously our guest Volker did not mean to imply that Poles did "wrong things [...] to Nazi Germany, and Prussia". Even you should be able to understand that. "Poles aren't reckognised in Germany as national minority, despite the fact that some lived there for generations" Not that it matters, but: those "Poles" that have lived in Germany for generations typically do not speak Polish, most of them can't even spell or pronounce their original own names properly. Of course, that is only due to the fact that they were brutally forced to speak German and intermarry with Germans... ;)--Thorsten1 21:02, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

"I have absolutely no way of knowing your POV about Germans, liberal Polish journalists of Jewish descent, homosexuals and other underlings... :^) " Exactly.I am glad you are coming to your senses Thorsten.Several later points of your post are wrong of course but this is not importante to the topic.--Molobo 12:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, I think its waste of time to educate fanatics, but I decided to answer the main lies of your article. Everybody who reads your stuff can see that this is caused by inferior complex, and you paint a picture about yourself with stuff like that, not about my country. And now to the facts:

1. Its not forbidden to teach, learn or use Polish language. 2. You can use any kind of language in Germany, cause this is a free country. 3. Harald Schmidt is a comedian, and he tells jokes for living. He makes jokes about everything. He didn't became awards for being anti- Polish, but for being funny. 4. There are jokes about Poland in German society, but there are much more jokes about Holland, and I never heard them cry like you do. By the way, I have friends from Poland and they told me some jokes used against Germans and they where rude too, but even funny - that’s the way humour works. Maybe the main problem is that you don’t have any sense of humour. 5. Go to wich war you like nobody cares. 6. Nobody in Germany says that Poland started the war, cause we know well about history - it's on you now to learn something about Germany today! 7. We know even about the 5 million Poles that lost their life’s during WWII, and we know that this was around 20 % of the population - this was terribly wrong, and we apologized for that with deep respect for the victims! 8. Erika Steinbach isn't a famous politician nor is she popular. In fact she isn't a politician at all. 9. You don't know anything about history, so don't try to teach it. 8. This article is anti- German and it doesn't help in establishing good relations between our nations. 10. Writing and reading of articles like that can cause some anti- Polonism

From now on I take your article as a evidence of bad taste and strange humour. In difference to you I don’t blame your nation for this stuff, cause sillyness doesn’t know borders or nationalities. Greetings from Germany to your private LaLaLand, Volker

This article does absolutely not describe the truth. My parents for example are polish, and they tought me the polish language without any problems. I myself am studying Polish at a german university. I also know a lot of people, who are of german origin and try to learn Polish. By the way, have you (the auhtor of this article) ever been to cities like Frankfurt, Berlin, Hamburg, and so on? If you have been there, you may have realized, that the most spoken foreign language besides Turkish and Russian is Polish. So speaking polish in the public is no problem here! I invite you to come to Germany and see with your own eyes, that the "facts" mentioned in this article are all lies.

By the way, Pope John Paul II., who was of polish Origin, did speak perfectly well german and very often came to our country as a guest. He always had a warm welcome here! Micha.

Ten Artykul absolutnie nie opisuje prawdy. Moje rodzice na przyklad pochodza z Polski. Uczylem sie od nich mowic po polsku i nigdy nie zauwazylem, ze moje rodzice cierpili pod jakichkolwiek represiach. Ja osobiscie studiuje jezyka Polskiego na niemieckim uniwersytecie i na zajeciach spotykam wiele niemcow, ktore z wlasnej woli ucza sie jezyka Polskiego. Czy ten autor tego artykulu kiedys byl w miastach jak n.p. Frankfurt, Hamburg albo Berlin? Gdyby on byl tam, to by zrealizowal, ze -oprocz jezyka Tureckiego i Ruskiego- jezyk Polski jest jeden z najczesciej slyszanych jezykow obcych w Niemczech. To znaczy, ze mozna uzywac jezyka polskiego bez problemu. Serdecznie zapraszam was wszystkich do Niemczech, zebyscie zobaczyli na wlasne oczy, ze te oznaczane "Fakty" nie opisuja warunki panujace w Niemczech! Pamientajcie, ze Jan Pawel II. nie tylko bezblednie mowil po niemiecku, ale zawze chetnie przyjechal do nas, do Niemczech! Micha.

A propo Papieza, pamietam jak go wygwizdali w Berlinie :) no ale teraz juz nie beda od kiedy [1] ;) poczytaj rowniez [2] i tak na marginesie, co mi spontanicznie wpadlo do glowy - moze wytlumaczysz dla niewtajemniczonych co oznacza "Polenstrich" [3] bo troche nie rozumiem dlaczego w tak przyjaznym dla Polakow kraju, Niemcy nazywaja polskich pracownikow kurwami? (za przeproszeniem) (dodam ze to okreslenie jest uzywane w mediach) --Witkacy 17:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Ale to napewno nie dla tego, ze on byl Polakiem, tylko ze jego opinia byla w pewnych politycznych kwesiach, n.p. kontrola urodzen,rola kobiet w Kosciele, Ekumeny (jak mozna odprawiac msze sw. z komunia RAZEM z ksiedzem Kosciola ewangelickiego?) itd. byla bardzo radykalna. Po za tym jestem o 100 % pewnym, ze w polskich gazetach lub na polskich stron internetowych tesz istnieja karykatury Papierza Benedikta XIV. alias Georg Kardinal Ratzinger! Micha.

A wiesz co to jest: Schwarzer Afghane? Moskau Inkasso? Russenschleuder? Coffee Shop? W tym artykule (http://www.n24.de/politik/inland/index.php/a2004090916552992331) to Slowo "Polenstrich" jest uzywane jako synonymus, ktore okresla miejsce, gdzie nielegalne pracownicy szukaja Pracy ("Schwarzarbeit"). Gdy uzywasz takie Przyklady, to prosze opisuj, w jakim kontekscie oni sa uzywane. "Strich" -wiadomo- czesto opisuje miejsca, gdzie profesionalne dziewczyny sprzedaja swoje cialo. ALE: To Slowo w tym kontekscie opisuje miejsca, na ktorym nielegalne pracownicy szukaja pracy (np. jako Mechanik). ""Polenstrich" heißt die Institution, aber schon lange versuchen hier auch Tagelöhner aus der Slowakei, aus Rumänien oder der Ukraine ihr Glück. Je weiter östlich das Heimatland, desto geringer der Stundenlohn. Weißrussen arbeiten ab 80 Cent.". W tym artykule tesz jest opisane, ze tam sa nie tylko Polacy, ale i Czesi, Rumunczycy, Ukrainczycy, idt. To Slowo "Polenstrich" istnieje, bo po 1989. Roku wiekszosc Pracownikow nielegalnych, ktore szukali pracy w takim miejscu, pochodzili z Polski.

Po pierwsze "strich" nie czesto, ale zawsze opisuje miejsce gdzie narkomani lub prostytutki sprzedaja sie za kase. (strich jest gorsze od burdelu i sam o tym wiesz). Ergo: Polak nie tylko robi za obraz wszystkich na czarno pracujacych, ale jest rowniez "kurwa". Mozesz krecic na wszystkie strony - Ty masz jakis kontakt z Polakami w Niemczech? Czy tylko z takimi jak Thorsten?--Witkacy 02:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks Micha, for adding some sense of reality to this discussion. Can I just remind everyone that the discussion on talk pages should be kept in English so that everyone can participate, (although Witkacy will probably see this as an anti-Polish remark [4]). However, I think you are wasting your time - as Witkacy and Molobo will simply declare you brainwashed and carry on with their regularly scheduled broadcast... --Thorsten1 19:04, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Even if some people in this forum do not like it, I have to tell you about another personal experience I made. On April this year I worked for a few days as a Volonteer at the Ravensbrück Concentration Camp. I had to take care of a Group (about 250 People) of polish victims of this camp, who came here for the celebrations of the 60th Anniversary of the freeing of this camp by the Red Army. I've talked to many of these people, and I asked them, if they still feel something like hate for the Germans. Over 80% of them answered with no! The Victims of these camps, and of course of the whole WW2 are the only ones, who are allowed to blame our grandfathers for what they did! They were the ones who really suffered! One of the Women (it was a women's camp) answered me: "Dlugo w tym miejscu cierpilam, dlugo musialam sie po tym leczycz, ale swoim dzieciom zal nie uczylam!" (I suffered for a long time in this place, I had to cure myself for a long time, but I did not teach my children to hate!). So, if these people can forgive, why can't you? Do you think it's funny to hate germans? If we talk about anti-polonism in Germany, we also have to talk about anti-russism or anti-ukrainism or antisemitism in Poland! By the way, many of these women, some of them came here for the first time after 60 years, told me, that they would have never expected such a warm welcome here in Germany. Micha.

Trzeba bylo zaprosic taka osobe ktora przezyla oboz, na popcorn i wieczorny program Haralda Schmidt'a - napewno by sie wpol zginala z kawalow o "polacken" --Witkacy 01:58, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Micha, just for clarification. This article is about certain attitudes, which impute negative attributes to Polish people only because of their nationality. This article isn't created to prove that all German people are bad or should be hold responsible for WWII. We all had grandparents, which survived WWII and they didn't teach us hatred to German people. It would be strange if they did, since they themselves suffered from the same prejudice. But while Germans see nothing evil in the word "Polenstrich" we learn to distinguish Nazis from Germans (e.g. Wermacht soldiers) to be politically correct. Also, would you like if we called all criminals in Poland "Niemiec" or would it create a bad stereotype? There is in Wikipedia an article about Anti-Semitism with parts about Poland. Polish Anti-Semitism is also covered in the article about History of the Jews in Poland. Polish editors contributed in editing the articles. I also started the article "Wisła" Action. However, I don't know about any incidents, where Russian civils would suffer because of Poles. Please, if you think this article doesn't cover facts, point them out, so we could discuss them and work on improving its content. --SylwiaS 03:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Witkacy! Did you ever see the Programs of Harald Schmidt? I have serious Doubts that you did! So, don't talk about things of which you have no idea!

- Agreed. What Harald Schmidt makes are JOKES based on hamrless and innocent stereotypes. Suggesting this is "racism" or "anti-polish" is simply stupid. If you think Schmidt's few and little jokes are racist, then what's Monty Phytons "Don't mention the War" for you? Balatant anti-German racism or just good humour (which it actually is). It's about the same niveau of US/ UK jokes about "The French". No offence intended.

- I also strongly resent labeling ""Heute gestohlen, morgen in Polen" ("Stolen today, tommorow in Poland") — modern German saying" as a "modern German saying". BTW, it's actually "Kaum gesetohlen schon in Polen." which refers to the fact or car-jackers from Poland who used and still use Germany, Austria and the low countries as hunting ground. Mind you, that's a well established fact. See the according crime statistics for details. --Dwightman 16:16, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

That's exactly the problem. Everyone in Germany knows that Poles steal cars (or that the car thieves are Polish) eventhough there's no proof of that. Feel free to correct me, but I doubt there are any statistics to prove that there are more Polish car thiefs in Germany than those of German nationality (or any other, for that matter). Similarily, in Poland many people believe that the majority of prostitutes working in Poland are in fact Bulgarians, which is equally disturbing and has absolutely no support in police stats. Halibutt 17:46, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Halibutt 17:46, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

Actually there IS proof. The phenomenon of car-jacking conducted by eastern-European, mostly Polish crime syndicates - the so called "Autoschlepperbanden" - is a well established fact, backed up by crime statistics. Most of those events occured during the mid and late 1990ties. --Dwightman 18:14, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I'd might also add that the general anti-German tendencies in this article are quite disturbing. There is a strong focus on "Anti-Polonism" by Germans in this article, but it generously ignores common Polish stereotypes in other nations and cultures, e.b. in the United States, the low countries or the UK. I'd go as far to dispute the neutrality of this article in general. --Dwightman 18:18, August 12, 2005 (UTC)

I tried to make the section less offensive for Germans. Can you give some more examples of positive attitude of Germans to Polishmen? I still don't feel very comfortable with the balance in the section. I somehow would like to mention the case of letter of Polish bishops with "we forgive and ask for forgiveness", but I have some problems with proper phrases about the event. Maybe, you could give me more background on this with regard to the German reaction on the letter? Alx-pl 22:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey Halibut. Look at this link: http://www.bka.de/pks/pks2004/index2.html, open the pdf-file, then scroll down to page 116, and you'll see that polish citicens are mentioned on place 3 in the ranking of criminal suspects here in Germany. Just to make it clear, I do not say, that every Pole is a criminal. And this statistic material, which is collected by the federal police, shows, that the number of crimes committed by polish Citicents sank from 8,4 % in the year 1998 to 6,7 % in 2004. So, the number of crimes committed by polish suspects may have been higher than 8,4 %. In Germany we have a spelling: Ist der Ruf erst ruiniert, lebt sich's völlig ungeniert (when the reputation is ruined, you can live without inhibition). So, if the number of crimes committed by Poles was high (sorry, I don't have the exact number) in the 1990's you don't have to wonder about the fact that " everybody knows that polish people steal cars". But -as I said- everybody knows that the truth is that not every Pole steals. If it was the other way round, nobody would ask polish guest workers to help them for example cleaning the house, taking care about old people or working in the field. Micha.

I'm sorry, I don't speak German well enough to check what these stats are actually showing, but it seems that it's actually some 3% of Poles versus some 60% of Germans to commit crimes in Germany. Yet, it doesn't influence the reputation of Germans, does it. Halibutt 16:31, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Micha, please, stop vandalising this article. --SylwiaS 17:01, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear SylwiaS! I do not have to vandalize this article, because it is Vandalizm in its pure form. There is so much in it, written by people who do not know what they talk about, that it's hard to believe, that these people mean it seriously. Volker and I tried to prove this with facts (like the statistics of the Police). Dear Witkacy stop telling german native speakers about meanings of german words! Strich, for example has different meanings, and not -as you said- the only one! What do you think is the translation for "male mir bitte einen Strich auf das Blatt"? Draw me a street filled with Kurwas / Bitches on the sheet? No! It's draw me a line on the sheet. And, yes I do have contact with other polish people. And we are very good friends.

Harmless stereotypes ? I wouldn't call them harmless due to fact that they led to persecution of Poles in Prussia, and mass murder of Poles by German state in WW2. Molobo.

What about the mass murder of Germans by polish people after WW2? Is that harmless to you, Molobo?

There was no mass murder of Germans after WW2--Molobo 18:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I think he is talking about the Expulsion of Germans after World War II. NightBeAsT 18:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Context

Could we have some context for some of the modern German quotes? Supposedly one author wants to return to the days of the Prussian Empire, but the other author seems to be writing a humorous travelogue where she jokes about how cheap her Polish cleaning lady is and hinting at a threesome with the handsome Polish studs who refinished her kitchen. The gravity of the one is not equal to the other, and the article should have some text dealing with that and not just serve as a copy/paste dump. Actually, the whole bit about the Polish carpenters might be taken as a compliment to Polish manhood, depending on how religious they are and whether or not they want to be some German lady's sex object. --Jpbrenna 00:06, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I fully agree. It's not a place for common jokes and I really don't think that putting all the rubbish here only because it refers to Poles does any good to the article. We don't want to prove that Poles are lacking sense of humour, do we? --SylwiaS 01:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Context is what this article has been sorely lacking from day one. Thorsten1's keep vote on the VfD, in fact, pointed out this very issue. What I at the time hastily mis-identified as caricatures inculcated in the Polish mind by Soviet-run schools, it turns out, is actually populist and vainglorious political and journalistic rhetoric. No one, not even HKT or IZAK, is denying that the Poles suffered under the rule of various conquerors from the time of the first partition until the victory of Solidarność. The problem is, however, that every offense against Poles since time immemorial is held up as this new concept of "Anti-Polonism", which is, frankly, a sham, and an egregious attempt to rewrite history for political gain. What's worse, its proponents use the exact same tactics the Soviet propagandists used to quell dissent: ad hominem attacks, characterization of questioning the legitimacy of the topic as evidence of its legitimacy, black lists, etc. The truth of the matter is that the Hakata was the Prussian equivalent of France' "frankification" of its imperial colonies: the conqueror regarding the conquered as primitive. It was the same as the Hellenization of Alexander's Greek Empire, and the Romanization of the Roman Empire. It is also, as it happens, the same as the suppression of kaszëbsczi jãzëk within Poland. Lumping that together with "Polish jokes", Nazi plans to eradicate the Polish population of Śląsk and Prusai for "lebensraum", and "You forgot Poland" (which is such a stretch to include in "anti-Polonism" that it shows the whole thing for the utter sham it is), and say that they're all part of some overriding "anti-Polonism" is to create a problem, not only in the minds of those who believe such tripe, but creates a poisoned atmosphere in which the likely response to the accusation of "anti-Polonism" is the actual creation of anti-Polonism. If the likes of some of the worst POV-pushers here (and in other Poland-related articles) are successful, someday soon, people really will hate Poles. Incidentally, my use of the word "tripe" refers not to attrocities committed against Poles during WWII, but to the concept of an overriding "Anti-Polonism", including "You forgot Poland" that fed it. As Thorsten recommended, this article should concentrate on the term antypolonyzm, who uses it, what they claim it to be, why, and to what effect. The stuff in here about WWII attrocities belongs in Nazi attrocities against Poles or somewhere else, perhaps with prominent mention in that article that those attrocities are often cited as "proof of anti-Polonism" by the antypolonyzm-is-a-real-concept crowd. Tomer ^TALK 01:56, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I disagree that the entire concept of anti-Polonism is a sham. That being said, it would be a very good idea to have separate articles on Nazi atrocities against Poles, Bolshevik atrocities against Poles, Tsarist atrocities against Poles etc. And to move the "Dumb Polak" jokes somewhere else, or at least contextualize them: "Dumb Polak" jokes are spread by third-graders on playgrounds and immature adults in factories and offices who should spend more time working and less time standing around the water cooler or coffee pot telling jokes. Most of them are more reflective of the ignorance of the teller than the supposed ignorance of Poles. I wish some of them could at least be more grammatical in English. Anyway, the SS and NKVD men weren't saying "Hey, why did they take 911 off the police cars..."; they had far nastier taunts for their victims, I'm sure.--Jpbrenna 03:29, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

""Dumb Polak" jokes are spread by third-graders on playgrounds and immature adults in factories and offices who should spend more time working and less time standing around the water cooler or coffee pot telling jokes." I don't think Ted Turned the founder of CNN is one of this people.--Molobo 12:49, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, there is something I hadn't heard about. That is different (although they say Ted has bipolar disorder, so it's not surprising that he did something completely crazy when he was in one of his moods). Put it in the article, but give us some context - where did he say it, to whom. Is there a pattern of anti-Polish statements (like it seems to be with this Florian Ilies) or was it a one-time thing?--Jpbrenna 16:48, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Somehow I completely missed this when it happened. Must have had my nose too far into a Latin book at the time to notice the news. This definitely should go into the Ted Turner article, and it should be noted here.[5] I added the quote about mine-detectors to the Ted Turner Wikiquote, but I'm having trouble finding a verbatim quote about the Ten Commandments and the Pope "getting with it." All I can find are paraphrases. --Jpbrenna 17:14, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Molobo: You'll find that despite your opinion of Ted Turner, a great many people do think he fits that description. :-) Tomer ^TALK 20:55, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

He does work pretty hard when he's not in a depressive state. Or when he's not manically calling Jane begging her to get back together. --Jpbrenna 22:20, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

To answer some suggestions here. There were propositions before, how to develop this article and create new ones in this category. I'll paste here one of suggestions, which met with support of others:

I believe that this should be splitted to separate articles: Prejudices about Poles (i.e. Polish jokes and the like); Myths about Poles and Poland; Organised persecution of Poles (Nazi atrocities, Germanizations, school strikes); and even article about Oversensitivness of Poles (As some believe that Poles are oversensitive about their country). Anti-polonism article should mention the word, and list of topics as described above Przepla 6 July 2005 11:02 (UTC)

Prejudices about Poles should also include things like bad stereotype of Poles in American films. There was also a proposition to create an article about History of Anti-Polish attitude and I think that to make some editors happy, we can also create an article about Misusage of the term Anti-Polonism, where we could describe the usage of the term by some nationalists as Tomer strongly insists on. --SylwiaS 02:09, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Hey. I didn't say anything about nationalists. I have no problem with nationalism. I have a problem with people inventing a word and retroactively ascribing intent, misrepresenting and dishonestly rewriting history, etc. in this case, demonstrated by the politicized use of the term "antypolonyzm". I would be a fool to imagine that "Polish nationalists" had invented this concept. People would be fools to imagine that the Bolsheviks invented it. In fact, the very name "Bolshevik" is equally dishonest as the word "antypolonyzm"! This crap has been going on for at least as long as history has been being recorded. Sometimes, I have little doubt, the rewriters have won out over those opposing them, and so we have written history that's actually rewritten history. We can't do much about that, but we can stop it dead in its tracks when we see it today. I don't know that "Misuse of the term Anti-Polonism" really requires its own article, in fact, I think quite probably, it's one of the few things that actually belongs in the article on "Anti-Polonism". Oversensitivity of Poles seems to me a POV title, which is even worse than a POV article. Polish nationalism, an article that could develop a lot of the material in Polish history, could probably cover that subject (i.e., allegations of oversensitivity) in about 3-5 sentences. Tomer ^TALK 03:20, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Tomer, those people, who misuse the term are called nationalists. Not by you but in general, that's why I used the word. We can also call them far-right nationalistic parties if you prefer. They didn't invent the concept, but they are those people who misuse it. There are also other people, who use the word and describe anti-Polonism but without misusing it, so I guess you didn't mean them. I don't say that this proposition of titles is final, but it focuses on problems not on countries, so I think it's best to start from this point if we don't want to put jokes and atrocities in the same articles.

Also, You forgot Poland is only in links, so I don't understand what more should be done with it. As to the other POVs you see in the article, please, bring them here and give your conrarguments so they might be discussed. --SylwiaS 05:35, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll try to respond in more depth tomorrow (it's 4:38 presently, and I need sleep), but for your consideration, not only is You forgot Poland mentioned in a link from this article, the first article in the non-alphabetical "See also" section of You forgot Poland is to Anti-Polonism. While I consider you (Sylwia) as one of the more reasonable frequent contributors to Poland- and Polish-related articles (although I vehemently disagree with your defense of Witkacy's characterization of my remark as "anti-Polonist"), I can pretty much guarantee you that if I were to go to You forgot Poland and remove the utterly irrelevant link there to Anti-Polonism, Witkacy, Molobo, possibly Halibutt and Wojsyl and others, would immediately revert. You may not consider it "Anti-Polonist", and I obviously do not. The point is, this article and anything remotely related, even by flight of unspeakably illogical fancy, to it is vociferously guarded as the 5th gospel. A great tragedy wrt the legitimacy of practically every Polish article, has been wrought by the defense of POV-pushing editors, including by you, and in the process, the entire section is seriously flawed. I'm not going to convince Witkacy to stop harassing people or to stop destroying Poland-related articles in order to push his POV, simply because my ancestors left Poland in 1898. I'm now "the enemy", all the more so because I think his agenda is ultimately destructive. You forgot Poland is not the problem, it's simply a symptom. As I have already said, lumping together every offense, or even perceived slight, against Poland, Poles, or the Polish language, over the course of the past millennium, under the banner of "Anti-Polonism" is ludicrous, and everyone outside Poland knows that. Describing the use of the term within Poland, who's using it, why they're using, how they're using it, and such, even to the extent of listing what they consider "evidence" is one thing. This article, however, proceeds from the perspective that the assertions of those who hold by the veracity of "Anti-Polonism", and trots out "the evidence"...never even bothering to mention the origin of the term, or the scope of its use. In fact, all it says is that "Anti-Polonism" is likely to grow! Well, as I've said earlier, if the likes of the POV-pushers have their way, I can guarantee, that will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Wish for something hard enough, and it'll happen. Kind of a perverse implementation of "What the mind of man can conceive and believe, he can achieve." Right now, people who believe this crap are victims of their own imaginations. Eventually, they'll become victims of their accusations. Split this up into historically defensible articles, and use this article to discuss political claims of "Anti-Polonism", and abuse of the term, and even link to the historically defensible articles, clarifying that the concepts covered in those articles are used by the antypolonyzm camp as "proof" of antypolonyzm. Anything else is an endorsement of the POV that they are all part of a larger phenomenon of polish-hatred, along with such stupid crap as Polack jokes and You forgot Poland. Tomer ^TALK 09:59, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

Ten Artykul absolutnie nie opisuje prawdy. Moje rodzice na przyklad pochodza z Polski. Uczylem sie od nich mowic po polsku i nigdy nie zauwazylem, ze moje rodzice cierpili pod jakichkolwiek represiach. Ja osobiscie studiuje jezyka Polskiego na niemieckim uniwersytecie i na zajeciach spotykam wiele niemcow, ktore z wlasnej woli ucza sie jezyka Polskiego. Czy ten autor tego artykulu kiedys byl w miastach jak n.p. Frankfurt, Hamburg albo Berlin? Gdyby on byl tam, to by zrealizowal, ze -oprocz jezyka Tureckiego i Ruskiego- jezyk Polski jest jeden z najczesciej slyszanych jezykow obcych w Niemczech. To znaczy, ze mozna uzywac jezyka polskiego bez problemu. Serdecznie zapraszam was wszystkich do Niemczech, zebyscie zobaczyli na wlasne oczy, ze te oznaczane "Fakty" nie opisuja warunki panujace w Niemczech! Pamientajcie, ze Jan Pawel II. nie tylko bezblednie mowil po niemiecku, ale zawze chetnie przyjechal do nas, do Niemczech! Micha.

This article does absolutely not describe the truth. My parents for example are polish, and they tought me the polish language without any problems. I myself am studying Polish at a german university. I also know a lot of people, who are of german origin and try to learn Polish. By the way, have you (the auhtor of this article) ever been to cities like Frankfurt, Berlin, Hamburg, and so on? If you have been there, you may have realized, that the most spoken foreign language besides Turkish and Russian is Polish. So speaking polish in the public is no problem here! I invite you to come to Germany and see with your own eyes, that the "facts" mentioned in this article are all lies.

By the way, Pope John Paul II., who was of polish Origin, did speak perfectly well german and very often came to our country as a guest. He always had a warm welcome here! Micha.

Well don't measure reality solely by your own personal experience.You didn't have problems but they are Poles both parents and workers which are persecuted by German officials or employers based on their nationality.--Molobo 17:45, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, it is ridiculous that you are accusing others of relying on their personal experience, when you are obviously relying on the stories of journalists who know that stories on the evilness of Germans always sell like hot cakes in Poland. --Thorsten1 19:33, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

What I would like to see happen with this article

As I've stated previously, this article is an intractable mess of POV, and remains so because all attempts at removing the POV are reverted by the most vociferous POV-pushers. So rather than try to remove the POV outright, I'll just outline my proposal. First, this article should discuss the Polish political term antypolonyzm, as I said above in the #Context section. Then, almost everything in this article should be removed and put into the following articles:

• Polish oppression under Prussian occupation
• Polish oppression under Austro-Hungarian occupation
• Polish oppression under Russian occupation
• Polish oppression under Nazi occupation with possibly a spin-off article eventually concentrating specifically on the genocide aspect thereof...
• Polish September Campaign
• Ethnic conflict in the European Union perhaps an article will someday be possible called Polish oppression in the European Union, but not today...
• Polack jokes
• Polish oppression under Soviet domination
• Polish oppression in Belarussia
• Polish oppression of Kashubians
• Polish oppression of ethnic Germans (just thought I'd throw those last two in for good measure)

The rest of the stuff can remain, but the context should be crystal clear: these are predominantly old quotes, or political gaffes (just as "antypolonyzm" should be regarded, but that's my POV) which are held up by proponents of this theory. Links can remain to all the articles that discuss such ludicrous things regarded as "Anti-Polonist" as You forgot Poland, but to characterize You forgot Poland as "Anti-Polonist" here is not only ridiculous, but a blatant violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. Comments? Tomer ^TALK 21:09, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't have explained my view it any better than you did, Tomer. I just wanted to comment that we have an article called World War II atrocities in Poland, which already covers quite a few of the article topics you proposed above. I'm not sure about Ethnic conflict in the European Union, as goal conflicts between EU member states are thankfully not really seen in "ethnic" terms. And Polish oppression in the European Union - that's really way over the top. There is really nothing that would warrant such a name (although Molobo will not agree with this). --Thorsten1 20:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I am a Pole, but I can agree with your opinion that this article has strong POV. I think this article (under this or any other title) is worth making as NPOV as possible, as this will gain more respect for Poles. The article is very long and complicated though. This means that it is very difficult to put straight all the issues. Let me point out two of them from which we should start:

1. Does the term anti-polonism exist?
   • Yes, it does
     • It is mentioned in many Polish texts (antypolonizm). English is an international language so it makes sense to have this word in English as it is the natural translation of the Polish term.
     • It is mentioned in German texts (Antipolonismus): Die Zeit, Die Zeit, [6], [7]
     • It is mentioned in English texts: [8], [9] (The Relationship of Antipolonism and Sexism in German History (1870-1933/45)), [10].
   • No, it doesn't
     • None of major dictionaries cites the term.
     • Google gives very few results for it: antipolonism (Results 1 - 10 of about 63 for antipolonism), anti-polonism (Results 1 - 10 of about 749 for anti-polonism)
2. Should the article be so long?
   • There are long articles of this kind: anti-Semitism, anti-Americanism, anti-Arabism, anti-Hellenism, Anti-Australianism, Anti-French, Anti-Japanism.
     • If anti-Semitism is covered in such a detail why shouldn't anti-Polonism be?
   • There are short articles of this kind: Anglophobia, Russophobia, Anti-German, Anti-Italianism
     • If Anglophobia and Russophobia are covered in a modest way, why shouldn't anit-Polonism be? Long description of the anti-Polonism triggers nationalistic attitudes.

I think these issues should be weighed in the first place as it seems that all the arguments of Tomer are around these points. Can you (all) contribute more points in favour of any of these entries? Alx-pl 09:53, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Alx-pl, please take the time to also review the comments in the previous section of this talk page. I realize they're long, but I think they'll cast my arguments (ok, disgust) with respect to this article in a clearer light. Tomer ^TALK 10:02, August 11, 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll read it once more and incorporate more of your points concerning the issues above. (I understand that there are plenty of other issues too, but I don't want to dig into them for the time being.) Alx-pl 10:24, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

That is absurd.Should antisemitsm be divided into World War 2, occupation of Poland, occupation of France, History of Russia etc ?--Molobo 12:20, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Alx-pl-in reality Tomer wants the article to disapear, since previous attempts to delete it have failed.--Molobo 12:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"Long description of the anti-Polonism triggers nationalistic attitudes." Well, we should attempt simply to present facts, with neutral aproach.I don't think hiding them is good, after all we don't serve to create or shape people's attitudes towards events, just present them.It is their own choice what they will think of presented reality.We are not engineers of the soul("inżynierami dusz") after all "inżynierami dusz" ;)

I try to refactor a bit the discussion. I particular, I'd like to have evident that the existence of the article is well justified. Similarly, for the current form of the article. In particular, don't you think that it is better to have a stronger justification than just we, Poles, think this should look like this?

Note, that a form of a description conveys some meaning. In particular, the current form of the article casts a shadow on some friends of mine who are German, French etc. who are not anti-Polish at all. Maybe Tomer can help us, Polishmen, to put the facts in a fashion more acceptable for other nations? Alx-pl 13:28, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I doubt Tomer can help anybody but those wishing to attack Poland.--Molobo 17:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

"it is better to have a stronger justification than just we, Poles, think this should look like this? "

This is already dealt witht in the article.They are links to works of non-polish authors that show antipolish feelings being used in Russia to incite riots against Polish minority etc. We intend to expand the article to include many more examples. Here is one : http://www.mediactivist.ru/action/27 A translation from babel fish of the introduction: "We propose for the propagation the fragments from the remarkable book Of yu. mukhin "anti-Russian meanness", the book, after reading of which, any Pole immediately would be shot down from the loathing and the disgrace"--Molobo 17:42, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Does this excerpt mean that there are Russians who endorse the current shape of the article? Does this mean they support it because it is NPOV?

Note that, a part of the topic anti-Polonism is also how the non-civilised implications of the attitude are dealt with in the societies in which it occurs - see the remark about endavours of Polish authorities in anti-Semitism. I think more stuff of this kind could move the article anti-Polonism more to NPOV. Alx-pl 21:12, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

What I would like to see happening with this article: DELETE IT!

I agree with Tomer's assessment of this article. Seperate the various persecutions of poles, historically and in modern times, into their own articles, possibly with an overview article, maybe even a series structure, if the individual articles are sufficiently good. I will contribute to this.

As for the term "Anti-polonism," especially in Western Europe and North America, its origin seems directly tied to the aftermath and analysis of western reactions and backlash - often biased and bigoted - to the Communist purge and expulsion of jews from Poland in the 1960's. I don't think it is appropriate to basically co-opt the term as a blanket statement for any sentiment against Poles, modern or historical, real or imagined; doing so would be a form of original research, I believe... leave it to the social scientists, journalists, and other researchers to recognize and label trends in hatred and bias.

With the way this article is, the only thing that can result is a bunch of opurtinistic, whiney, unencyclopaedic soapboxing - prone to failure regardless of what people think, say, or do. --Clapaucius|^Talk 03:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

I've already read much about anti-Polonism and I can agree with your statement that this article is really on the verge of being an original research. In fact, I would be glad to have a modest article on anti-Polonism like Anglophobia, Russophobia, Anti-German, because such short articles mean that these nations simply don't care about hostility of other nations, but I think people like User:Witkacy or User:Molobo prefer to be more specific about anti-Polonism. How can you convince them to give up? How would you take into account articles like anti-Australianism or anti-Hellenism? Alx-pl 10:01, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

The anti-Australianism article makes it clear that it is a disfavor based in (1) ethnic differences [Australia is a Western country essentially in the Far East ] and (2) various of Australia's government's historical actions. Short and sweet analysis. No making up crap. The anti-Hellenism article says what the claim is, and even has a section "The "true" antihellenists". In fact, I would say that, in that regard especially, this article could stand well to emulate it. Then break the rest of the content, or proposed content, as the case may be, out into articles where its coverage is more appropriate. Tomer ^TALK 00:51, August 22, 2005 (UTC)

To everyone

Please, look through latest discussions and try to separate facts from your own opinions and emotions. Then come again, bring the sentences from the article you object to and source your arguments. This article isn’t about all people of certain nationalities but about particular problems. If you say the problems don’t exist then give us sources. I respect your private opinions and experiences but it’s too little to change the article. Also please, it’s really not a place to discuss private opinions of one editors about other editors. If you are interested in improving the article stay here, if you want to drag your private quarrels then go to user pages.

To address some arguments which were mentioned above:

1. There were cases in Germany, where courts forbade Polish-speaking parents speak Polish to their children. However, it refers only to situation of divorced parents, where one parent is German and the other is Polish. I added the word “divorced” to the article. If you want to additionally edit it to make the case clearer, please, do so.
2. You forgot Poland, if we create the article Prejudices about Poles we can link it there instead of here, I hope it dissolves the problem.
3. Pope Benedict XVI (not XIV) has been actually very well received in Poland, (much better than in Germany) and had been also well known as Cardinal Ratzinger. Since his various books were long time ago translated into Polish and popular among students of Theology he was cheered by many Poles before the election. I haven’t seen even one unfavourable article in Polish media about him. Now many Poles await his pilgrim to Poland, so I don’t think we can compare attitudes to the two popes in our countries. Of course Poland is a Catholic country and it may be the main reason, but no one questioned the choice because of his being German or a German army soldier during WWII.
4. I removed the sentence “Poland is accused of having caused World War II”. It was written by an anon, not sourced and biased.
5. I too have German friends and I don’t think they are anti-Polinists, but I also don’t remember any anti-Semitic incidents in Poland in 1980s and yet the article about Anti-Semitism says otherwise, so I guess our personal experience is not enough.
6. To deal with growing anti-Polish attitude in Germany our governments organized Polish-German year in both countries. Maybe we should mention it here to make the article more balanced? --SylwiaS 21:25, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

1-Sylwia there were also cases where workers were ordered to speak German in their own private time.It's in the article in Wprost.Not some mentions but direct quote by the person involved. 2-as to "Poland is accused of having caused World War II".Besides countless German forums where I could find such accusations, Rudi Pawelka of Prussian Trust said that in his speach : http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/kat,29398,wid,7558339,wiadomosc.html?ticaid=1&_ticrsn=5 --Molobo 23:54, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

1 I know there were, I haven't removed it from the article. I referred here only to the situation parent-children, because many people above said they were speaking Polish at home. So it seems the text in the article wasn't sufficiently showing, to what cases it referred. 2 I have no problem with mentioning in the article how and who accuses Poland, but the sentence I removed was too general and suggested that e.g. German government made the accusations or students were taught at schools that it was so etc. --SylwiaS 00:48, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Ok, I put to the article the case you sourced. --SylwiaS 01:31, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

New subsections to Germany section

This whole article is rather disorganized, and I tried to introduce some order. I moved some things around so that they would be placed under the correct heading, but made no other changes except for the removal of this:

German constitution grants German citizenship to Polish-born persons if their ancestors were Germans citizens living on German territory as of 1937. Germany is far from the only European country to do something like this (although it may not be in their constitutions). Austria has done it in the past, Greece has done it for Smyrniote Greeks, the United Kingdom has taken in persons of English, Scottish etc. descent from its former colonies after independence - just about any country that has received expellees has done it. Since no one has explained how this is anti-Polish, I have removed it for now. --Jpbrenna 22:30, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

NPOV

This article is NPOV for several reasons:

• It does not present any information on current
  • Czech anti-Polonism
  • Ukrainian anti-Polonism
  • Lithuanian anti-Polonism
  • Russian anti-Polonism
  • Jewish anti-Polonism
  • Austrian anti-Polonism
  • other (?) anti-Polonisms
• It hardly presents what has been done and is done in order to prevent anti-Polonism and its bad implications both on Polish and other sides.
• Is Lukashenko really Belorussian? He speaks Russian and wants Belarussia be a part of Russia? He wants to get rid of Belarussian language and culture. Should his attitudes be labelled Belorussian?
• There is ongoing disussion above concerning several particular phrases and informations.

Alx-pl 22:56, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

The article is still a stub - feel free to add new sections of Anti-Polonism in other countries (nations).--Witkacy 23:06, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'll do if I find time, but before that (or before any one else will do this) the article is not NPOV. Alx-pl 23:11, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Missing informations about Anti-Polonism in other countries does not makes the article NPOV :)--Witkacy 23:13, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Now that the lacking nations are explicitely mentioned here, it makes it POV. We could pretend it was POV before explicit mention of them. Moreover, there are other problems with this article that make it really POVish. And it is really not the matter of 2 hours of editing to make the article acceptable for everyone. It is a hard work for many people for several wikiweeks. Alx-pl 23:52, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand the problem with Belarus. About 77% of Poles was against the war in Iraq, over 80% was against it soon before our government finally decided to take our troops back. But who is having the war - Poland or Kwaśniewski? It is already written in the article about the totalitarian regime of Lukashenko in Belarus. Even if he is not representative for all people in Belarus, he does represent them. --SylwiaS 03:32, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

It is a good point, but it does not address my concern. My concern is that Lukashenko is anti-Belarussian and quoting his attitudes and moves as Belarussian anti-Polonism is at least worth detailed consideration. Note that it is fair to phrase the first sentence of the section like this

'Polish-minority rights are increasingly being abused by the totalitarian regime of anti-Belarussian Alexander Lukashenko in Belarus,'

but it is obviously ridiculous.

In order to address your concern, Lukaszenko's current status as the head of Belarussia is doubtful. He was elected by a referendum which was organised against the rules of Belarussia constitution and with serious suspicions about falsification. You can find related materials here, and [11].

Summing up, the current shape of this section is disputable. I could edit it myself, but I didn't have a clear idea on how to phrase the description which is partly due to the fact that I do not know whether the existence of this section is really to the point. I kindly ask you and others to put more light on the issue. Alx-pl 06:39, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

The section is called anti-Polonism in Belarus, not Belarusian anti-Polonism. Inside the section there are held responsible for anit-Polonism: totalitarian regime of Alexander Lukashenko in Belarus, the Belarus authorities and the Belarus government. There is not even one word about the Belarusian people.

Lukashenko is anti-Belarusian. Of course he is. I don’t know about any country of totalitarian regime, which government wouldn’t be against its own people. But I’ve heard that Hitler was an Austrian, and yet we had the war with Germany. Polish communistic government organized pogroms of Jews, forced emigrations of various minorities and “Wisła” Action. I am very sorry that I was born in a communistic country and persecuted by my own government, but it doesn’t change the fact that all the incidents happened in Poland and this is how they are being described in Wikipedia. So there is nothing wrong with this section, unless we are going to change it in all the articles.

As to the NPOV tag. First of all it is important to understand that this article describes Anti-Polonism, not e.g. Polish-German relations, so it is rather obvious that it refers to unpleasant and bothering attitudes. We can make another article about it and present there the entire cooperation of the two countries and link the article to this one. However, all subjects in this article, no matter favorable or not, should refer only to Anti-Polonism.

NPOV tutorial ends with this: Some Wikipedians, in the name of NPOV, try to avoid making any statements that other people find offensive or objectionable, even if objectively true. This is not the intent of NPOV. Many groups would prefer that certain facts be stated euphemistically, or only in their own terminology, or suppressed outright; such desires need not be deferred to.

As I understand that what is really criticized here is the Germany related section, I’ll move the NPOV tag there. There is nor reason to question Volhynia or harassment of Polish civils during WWII etc. However, in spite of many voices here that the section is POV, I still wasn’t offered any evidence. So I propose to put the tag for a week time. If during that time no one points out anything what should be changed and doesn't provide any sources, I will remove the tag. Let’s assume it will be now put in advance.

What could be possibly wrong in the article and if so, should be changed:

1. the facts presented there aren’t facts, if so, bring sources, which prove otherwise,
2. bad wording is used in the article what results in giving rather personal opinions instead of facts, if so, point it out or simply edit the sentence,
3. the article doesn’t include another point of view, if so, bring sources and we will add the opinions,
4. this article includes subjects, which shouldn’t be regarded as Anti-Polonism, again, point it out and give sources (for example see the information about German citizenship for Poles, which was removed by Jpbrenna),

There may be of course other cases, which I didn’t list above, if so, get some sources and bring them to discussion.

BTW Wikipedia is work in progress. There is no article, which is complete. --SylwiaS 13:08, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Sylwia, I don't say that any of the facts in the article is false. Many of the history facts are obvious for me as a Pole and I am not going to delete them. I find it simply disturbing that the balance in the article is strongly towards presentation of Polish martyrdom now and in the past. This is the real reason for NPOV here and it is a legitimate reason as it is stated in WP:NPOV#Fairness and sympathetic tone. We can make the article more balanced by introduction of new facts, not by deleting the ones that are already there. Maybe some reorganisation of the material can also help. As you can see, I added NPOV after putting new text to German section so it is not a destructive action. I also actively work on the topic which you can spot reading my Talk edits in the last days.

I do not criticise solely the Germany section. I find the whole section Persistent prejudice against Poles (1945 to present) POV and this is stated in my message above so I'll change the place of the template. I put the label at the beginning initially, because I find the preamble POVish, but I do not have any specific objection by now there as the topic is very difficult and complicated - so I agree with your shift. Note also, that one week for NPOV label is too short as for the time being I am alone with my proposal and the current shape of the article is a result of work of many Wikipedians in a longer period of time. Of course, I would like to encourage you to help in adding the lacking informations. I put the NPOV label because

• the topic is very controversial and everything should be discussed here, and

  (Note, that if I had put plenty of material instead of starting the discussion, my work would have been still more questionable.)

• I know little about anti-Polonism and have limited time to reach proper information

  (while the current one-sided shape of the article is disturbing for others)

But, as I said, I am willing to reach the informations. Within this little amount of time I had I could state my objections, clarify them and find some additional info. If you and others can help in clarifying it further, please do not hesitate to write.

Your remarks about Lukaszenko are very interesting and to the point. I have to reconsider them and I'll be back with something more constructive later. Alx-pl 14:12, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I think it's a very good idea to show how our countries are dealing with this problem. I thought that you might find these links helpful. Polish-German Year and Polish-German cooperation --SylwiaS 06:40, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The current NPOV tag makes the article unreadable.You should either put the tag at the top of the article or top of the whole section.Molobo.

The current version is a vandalism and someone should revert it. I already used my 3rr limit. --SylwiaS 19:16, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Falsificator falsificatorium

The verb in Latin is fallo-fallere-fefelli-falsus; there is no falsificare, nor did the Roman Senate contain any falsifactores. So stop with the "falsification" already! Yes, somehow English has created falsify, but why make matters worse by coining new words according to the pattern? If someone jumped off a bridge would you do it too? Someone has even called poor Halibutt a "falsificator". It sounds like some kind of new and improved refrigerator. Mendax, however; or "mendacious inhabitant of the Lower Dneiper" would be just fine in terms of Latinity or good English usage, although if you are Halibutt you might not appreciate it.

The next malefactor to use a falsific-based word instead of "forgery", "fabrication" or "lie" in English Wikipedia will be sent over to the Latin Wikipedia as a galley slave. If you want to falsificate, take your act to the Romanian Wikipedia; their language at least has the term falsificator, unless Google has falsificated the results. --Jpbrenna 08:14, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

Good Lord, I spent zillions of dollars for psychologists, trying to forget the guy who called m a falsificator. Anyway, everybody knows that Halibutts and refrigerators are not the same entities, so I guess all will agree with what prof. Jpbrenna says. :) Halibutt 16:15, August 13, 2005 (UTC)

Just to note, English does have falsification; it is not nearly as common as the alternatives, but it is acceptable. Falsificate and falsificator are not in common usage, and I'll bet not even the OED has them (feel free to get out a magnifiying glass, look them up, and prove me wrong). Anyway, I would like to make a public apology to Alx-pl: I was not trying to single him out. Stylistically, I thought something else would sound better, but there was nothing wrong with his English and I regard him as a very valuable contributor. --Jpbrenna 19:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

I will second Jpbrenna's observation. Falsification is a common "nicespeak" word for "a lie". While they are not in common usage, English speakers will readily recognize "falsificate" as a pretentious way of saying "to lie" and a "falsificator" as "a goddamn liar".  :-p One of the nice things about English, however, that Jpbrenna apparently fails to grasp, is its capacity to coin and accept new words. OED is categorically not the arbiter of what is/n't an English word. That said, "falsificator" sounds kinda mealymouthy. Tomer ^TALK 06:39, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

OED is categorically not the arbiter of what is/n't an English word. <begin delusion of grandeur> That's right, OED is not the arbiter, *I* am! </end delusion>--Jpbrenna 16:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

We get it - lots of things are disputed

Some people dispute about 90% of this page. That's fine, but you don't need to add a tag to every single section. One of the reason I created all those subsections to the Germany section, for instance, was to make it easier to edit each sub-topic and make the edit history more specific so people know where to look for changes. Hopefully that will lesson the chance of all-out nuclear option revert war and keep it contained (sorry to have to borrow Cold War terminology). Don't think the Brandenburg-Berlin section is right, for example? Work on it and leave a message here explaining why. When it's done, move on to something else. No need to tag it; the reader will already have seen the tag at the top. Those section tags are for when most of the article is undisputed and only a tiny part is under dispute. I think we have the opposite situation here. I'm leaving a general NPOV and Attention tag at the top of the article. Please don't remove them, and please don't add any more. As Alx-pl said, this is probably going to take weeks, so be patient. --Jpbrenna 20:43, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

So, you recognize 90% of the page may be disputed, yet you regard Witkacy's persistent (and undiscussed) removal of the NPOV tag as legitimate? Just how POV does the page have to be before you regard the NPOV tag as justified? 103%? Tomer ^TALK 06:41, August 14, 2005 (UTC)

No, I don't. I support leaving the NPOV tag up until we get some of this resolved, at which time we can start using section tags for the parts that are still disputed. --Jpbrenna 09:11, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

The best sollution for this problem is to remove the whole article. It is not 90%, but 100%  !

The main problem begins with the name of this article: Anti- polonism. If you read about Anti-Semitism you will find this definition: “Anti-Semitism is hostility towards or prejudice against Jews, which can range from individual hatred to institutionalized violent persecution“ You cant say that there is institutionalized violent persecution against Poles today in any country! It was different in history, but you have hundreds of articles on Wiki where you describe these sufferings. Some Poles try to establish a point of view that defines the suffering of the Poles where equal to the suffering of the Jews – which is unhistorical and simply a lie. Someone from overseas, who doesn’t know about the background might think, that there is some truth in this article – which is not. You established a fine list of stereotypes and personal opinions by some unfriendly people, but this isn’t Anti- Polonism, cause that means from the definition of Anti- Semitism that you need an ideology behind that. What you even need is some kind of “mass movement” against Poles, which even not existed nor exists. When someone say “Poles are stealing cars” it’s a POV of this person, but not common sense. We are not Anti- Polish, but in some way arrogant about Eastern Europeans in general, which I’m not proud of at all. Its not nice, but as a Pole you know what you say in your country about the “drunken barbarian Russians” at your right, and the “all time Crusaders” on the left side of your geographical map. But when you think my beloved Poles that you are the only ones who had to deal with that kind of stereotypes try to walk in German shoes, and you will find out soon, that you aren’t. In fact some of your “facts” are Anti- German, or stereotypes about Germans. What is brought up here are: lies; stereotypes, some truth mixed with propaganda and the whole style remembers me of soviet times. The only way that I see to deal with lies is not to answer – cause to defend means to take it serious – but to erase. It is obvious that most of the Polish authors here know well about German language, and maybe they have their personal reasons to be so offensive. (Maybe a German girl broke someone’s heart, or a Polish guy had a butthead of Chef in Germany?) You use the knowledge of the German language only for propaganda. But when Wiki is some kind of dictionary you have to base your argument on facts – there isn’t a single fact mentioned, but a lot of propaganda and misinterpretation. You said deleting is not the proper way to handle it, but when you don’t accept to marc this article as disputed it’s the only way. There is a lot of history- writing by Eastern Europeans here on Wiki, which I had learned to life with, but I will not respect anything like this about my country today. Stop lying, and I stop erasing, or mark that article for everyone as disputed. Cause the biggest lie about this article is to say, that it is not disputed; we have to keep the NPOV tag! An idea is to bring all that crap under the article “German stereotypes about Poles” cause its easier to life with this under that headline. I feel deeply sorry about the whole discussion here, cause I have Polish friends, and we have to close the “hating- case” between our nations as we did with the French, cause we are one by culture and we share the same history. But I see that many authors here are feeding hate and nationalism: try to make your peace with reality! Greetings from Germany, Volker PS: What I forgot to mention was, that all Poles I have showed this article where deeply ashamed of it and apologized for this: Does that mean anything to you, that your People are very unhappy with your POV?

“ You cant say that there is institutionalized violent persecution against Poles today in any country! " Except Belarus, and to some extent Russia.Leftover traces of it are seen in Germany. "Some Poles try to establish a point of view that defines the suffering of the Poles where equal to the suffering of the Jews – which is unhistorical and simply a lie" The article isn't about Jews.However both Poles and Jews were classified as subhumans by German Reich. "What you even need is some kind of “mass movement” against Poles, which even not existed nor exists." Wrong.Campaigns against Poles existed in Russia, Prussia, and Germany. "In fact some of your “facts” are Anti- German, or stereotypes about Germans" Please show examples of "AntiGerman" propaganda. "Maybe a German girl broke someone’s heart, or a Polish guy had a butthead of Chef in Germany?) " Or maybe his country was target of extermination campaign. Molobo.

What of your "Anti- Polonism" has left in Germany today? Wasn’t it Anti German to make a Ethnic Cleansing of 14 million Germans that caused 2 million dead? Isn’t it about creating a good tomorrow by tackling the problems from the past what we should do? I know that you are in love with the idea of the chosen country which had to suffer like Jesus did, but that’s only one side of the coin. And I’m not talking about yesterday, cause I’m to young to do so, and I’m sure that you are nearly the same age as I, cause we both know that only Students have the time to fight some meaningless fights as we do here. Look above, and you will see, that I’m not ignoring history, but what I even cant ignore are lies. And everything in the “Germany today”- section is a lie. I read the articles which are linked, and believe me my German is good enough to see the lack of credibility of this sources. Bring fresh stuff and evidences (I’m sure you cant, that’s why you bring all your arguments from history) and than we can talk. This country changed: realise that and stop boring me with your creepy ideas about “what’s going on in bloody Germany”. Volker

Please point to any lie in the article.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.

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)

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)

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:

Złoszczę się jednak także wtedy, gdy mówi się stale o przestępstwach Niemców, podczas gdy agresja i wina innych krajów przestaje odgrywać rolę i jest zamazywana ze względu na lata 1933 lub 1939. Historia drugiej wojny światowej nie zaczęła się w 1933 r.; nierozwiązane problemy i napięcia istniały w Europie już wcześniej. (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 jedną z przyczyn wybuchu wojny uznał Traktat Wersalski z 1919 r., który, jak powiedział, był niesprawiedliwy i ignorował prawo narodów do samostanowienia. W tym kontekście wspomniał o cierpieniach 2,4 mln Niemców, którzy wbrew swej woli zostali "wtłoczeni" w granice nowego państwa polskiego.

Kto zaczyna rokiem 1933, ten pomija polskie agresje przeciwko sąsiadom - w 1918/19 wkroczenie do Rosji i aneksję dużych obszarów, w maju 1921 r. napad na Górny Śląsk i popełnienie niewypowiedzianych okrucieństw na ludności niemieckiej, zaś w październiku 1938 r. wkroczenie na czeskie Zaolzie i aneksję 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)

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)

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):::::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)

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)

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 [12]. This together with allusions of Rudi Pawelka, the leader of the Preußische Treuhand, concerning the guilt for the start of the World War II [13] are recognised by major Polish newspapers as anti-Polish [14], [15], 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)

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 ([16]). 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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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?[17] 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" [18]... 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 [19]?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)

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

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

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, uznał za stosowne określić 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[20], 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)

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.

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, organizując spotkania, obozy i szkolenia samoobrony dla niemieckich nastolatków. Działacze partii wyrabiają w młodych nastawienie "my przeciwko nim". "Oni" to Turcy, Rosjanie, Polacy czy Albańczycy." "- Najpierw zaczął nosić bluzy firmy Lonsdale [popularne wśród neonazistów ze względu na zawarte w nazwie litery "nsda" przypominające NSDAP - red.] - wspomina matka. - Następnie zaczął się ubierać w koszulkę z nazwą zespołu Bierpatrioten śpiewającego np. utwór "Rewanż za Rudolfa Hessa". W końcu, gdy pobił Polaka, nie wytrzymałam i wyrzuciłam 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

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. [21] --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”[22] 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.

to our german readers

Liebe Leser, ich bitte darum sich nicht über Witkacy, Molobo & Co aufzuregen. Unintelligenz und Unwissenheit kennen nun einmal keine Grenzen, nicht einmal die Polnische! Ich als deutscher Pole oder polnischer Deutscher distanciere mich in aller Form von dem Unsinn, den diese Leute hier verzapfen. Ich denke, daß ich mit dieser Haltung nicht der Einzige bin.Ich habe versucht Euch zu zeigen, daß es auch Polen mit einem anderen Geschichtsbild gibt. Viele Grüße, Micha.

Poles were described as unintelligent both by Prussian and German Reich authorities.As we can see the stereotypes are present to these day.The fact that they are expressed strongly by Germanised Poles (who amusingly describe themselfs as polnischer Deutscher) isn't surprising.Fantatism and radicalism is known to be expressed strongly among converts or accepted members of persecuted minorities.See for example Bronislaw Kaminski --Molobo 13:47, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Although this "stereotype" by Micha was not applied to Poles in general but only to you, this matters little to excuse the personal attack (or personal defence given that he obviously perceives you as embarrassing examples of Poles and wants us not to generalise from you). Being (indirectly) described as an unintelligent, ignorant nonsense-talking person can be very offending when you take it personally. But does injustice by a person justify injustice against that person? Equally, Molobo, you mustn't (indirectly) call Micha a fanatic or radical who is not also a German for living in Germany but only a Germanized Pole (like neonazis might describe foreigners in their country because they do not want to see them as countryman), either. Let's all just stop these attacks and focus on the article, shall we? Molobo, you still haven't verified the claims, or do you agree with me on their unverifiability? In this case there's a simple treatment for them: deletion. NightBeAsT 16:09, 19 August 2005 (UTC)