Talk:Anti-Polish sentiment

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

Archived portions of this talk page

• Talk:Anti-Polonism Archive of discussion in Polish

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

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

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

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

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

Reorganisation of the preamble

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

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

Protection

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Expansion of WWI part

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Neonazism,a fashion among German youth

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

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

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

Molobo.

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

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

Molobo.

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

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

Swap of version during the protection

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

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

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

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

Poland will crumble

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

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

Interesting quote by Flying Kvaker aka Zivinbudas: Very short and very clear: Slaves - to gas chambers. [1] --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”[2] So when killing 500.000 helpless civilians isn’t a crime what are we talking about here? Values? Or maybe Polish racist nationalism combined with a deep lack of honesty. And the best thing: he is studying journalism! That’s why he is so careful about the truth of his sources. So you are the best guaranty for the next generation of Poles to grow up miss educated by the medias and full of hate as you obviously are. This was not (only) to blame you but also for the others here, that they can know about you and your intentions. With deepest respect for your Christianity and your friendly soul, Volker

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We are straying off-topic

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

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

Polish murders

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

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

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

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

To Micha

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

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

Dear fellows!

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

Interesting source on traditional German antipolonism

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

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

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

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

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

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

Add another source on antipolonism in Germany

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1.

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

  2.

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

  3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rudi Pawelka - summary

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

Informations to be included

Reversal of war guilt

Summary

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

Analysis

• Problem 1 Should this be included?
  • For: It spreads black legend that Poland is guilty for WW2.
  • Against: Rudi Pawelka is popular in very narrow circles of the German society [3].
  • For: However, his meetings are visited by prominent CSU politicians [4]
  • Against: But all his demands are criticized by the major German politicians ([5] for Schröder, [6] for Merkel), even Erika Steinbach distances herself from him [7].
  • For: Still, his speeches are mentioned and commented in respectable Polish media, so it is not marginal [8] [9].
  • Against: ?
  • For: ?
• Problem 2 This may be a fact or an interpretation. Is it a fact?
  • For: It is mentioned in Gazeta Wyborcza [10] and in Wirtualna Polska [11] and in Polska Agencja Prasowa [12] notices.
  • Against: These sources are all Polish and the most that is stated is (in the Wirtualna Polska source) that he protested against pushing all the blame for WW2 on Third Reich.
  • For: The Polish sources are not worse than any others.
  • Against: They are not worse, but they can be suspected to provide Polish POV, so the statement should contain according to the Polish media. Besides, all these sources are media, not a scientific research.
  • For: ?
  • Against: ?

Discussion

Plaese, add here any comments you think are relevant

Comparison Pawelka-Hitler

Summary

The Nuremberg speech by Pawelka is very similar to some speeches by Adolf Hitler. Here are three comparisons [13] [14] [15].

Analysis

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

Discussion

Plaese, add here any comments you think are relevant

Hostility by eviction

Summary

The one-sided action of Preußische Treuhand to evict the property from before WW2 is considered hostile in Poland as it can result in expropriation of Poles who were forced to exile from what were eastern territories of Poland before WW2. [16]

Analysis

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

Discussion

Plaese, add here any comments you think are relevant

Other proposals

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

• ?

Proposed formulations

The original one

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

Discussion

Proposal by SylwiaS

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

Discussion

Proposal by Alx-pl

The Preußische Treuhand want to restitute whenever possible the property that was in German hands before the World War II. To this end, they want to use human rights in the European and Polish courts [17]. This together with allusions of Rudi Pawelka, the leader of the Preußische Treuhand, concerning the guilt for the start of the World War II [18] are recognised by major Polish newspapers as anti-Polish [19], [20], as such a solution would result in humiliation of many Polish citizens.

Discussion

Proposal by NightBeAsT

"Sometimes anti-polonistic sentiment is suspected of people who discriminate against Poles and express themselves very negatively and/or aggressively about the country — for example Rudi Pawelka, long term policeman, lower-tier CDU politician, President of the small organisation Preußische Treuhand and the Territorial Association of Silesia, caused a shock in Poland after he and the Preußische Treuhand tried to initiate legal proceedings against the expulsion of Germans after World War II from area that belonged to Germany even before World War II. After being disapproved by the Federation of Expellees, the Government of Germany and the CDU/CSU team of the German parliament that decides for the CDU/CSU on questions concerning "exiles and refugees"[21], and on being dismissed by the Polish government he said with that verdict Poland was not a state under the law [22] and that the dismissal was not based on European spirit but Polish nationalism[23]. By demanding that German exiles should get their property back or money of the same value and his negative rhetoric against Poland, he hurt Polish-German relations, opened up old sores caused by atrocities by the Third Reich against Poland, argued with indifference to Poles whose property he wants to be given to the exiles and insulted Poles."

Discussion

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

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

Furthermore the statement :

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

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

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

A detailed answer:

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

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

Sources

On Nurember speech

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

On Preußische Treuhand in general

• [30] WDR about Preußische Treuhand and their planned lawsuits to return property (in German).
• [31] - Rzeczpospolita about Preußische Treuhand and their planned lawsuits to return property (in Polish).
• [32] [33] - two text (in English) from de:Deutche Welle about the Polish-German relations after Preußische Treuhand revealed their court plans (in English).
• [34] an analysis from de:Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung (in German).
• [35] - on Pawelka from de:Welt am Sonntag (in German).
• [36] - on Pawelka and Erika Steinbach from Die Welt (in German).
• [37] - on one of Pawelka speeches in 2004 from inforiot

Other sources

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

Translations

Gazeta Wyborcza article on Nuremberg speech by Pawelka

The source is [40].

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

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

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

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

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

New proposal by Molobo

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

Harald Schmidt Show

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

Yesterday I saw a Comedy-Show on polish Polsat. And they make fun of/in german (Also they said "Deutschland, Deutschland, über alles". Yes, this is the kind of polish humor.). Does German speak then of Anti-Germanism? Your guys are very funny when you are using a comedy as an example for "german media". Should I must remember some polish guys of this picture: [[41]] (And this is not a Comedy-magazine!). Polish Media make too much panic and trouble, and some Polish make also too much panic. Like the topic Erika Steinbach, nobody knows her in Germany. But every Polish does!?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

She is so unimportant that Merkel had given her support in her speeches.--Molobo 10:13, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Molobo! If you are referring to Angela Merkel's speeches, show us which speech you mean. She publishes every speech on the internet. I'm pretty sure you can't find any! Micha.

Suggested addition

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

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

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

Just to clear up the codeshare agreement thing:

"In April, LOT and Lufthansa signed a preliminary strategic partnership agreement and a code-share agreement on joint operation of air services between Poland and Germany. Both agreements opened for the Polish carrier a way to the membership in the Star Alliance." [42]. (There's both Polish and English versions of that page on LOT Polish's website.)"

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rename(s)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Poll

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

---

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

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

---

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

---

• Option 3:
  • The status quo.

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

---

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

---

• Option 5
  • Move to another article (for instance Contemporary anti-Polonism) the content after 1945

---

• Option 6
  • Remove the content after 1945 as it is difficult to find reliable sources which present the subject

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unprotected

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

nominated for deletion

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

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

How to end a fight against all the laws of reason

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

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

Anti-Polonism in Russia

The claims:

• Soviet propaganda that showed Polish Home Army accused of collaboration with Nazi Germany is present in Russian media.
• Polish contribution towards Allied effort in WW2 is disputed.

aren't still appropriately supported by sources while they should as these are accusations. The source that supports the claim:

• Russian policy makers have justified Molotov-Ribbentrop pact

contains no evidence that Putin said this in the context of hatered towards Polish nation.

The final source from Gazeta Wyborcza is an interesting evidence, but the content is slightly different. The main anti-Polish content is:

• the repetition of the lie about Polish concentration camps organised during the 1920 campaign
• insignificance of the Polish resistance movement during WW2

It is also worth mentioning that the site on which the information was presented is not representative for Russian media. On the other hand it is commonly regarded in Russia as the place where the official explanation of Putin's politics is presented. Alx-pl D 19:09, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Beyond Belief

This page, and the attendant 'Article' and quite beyond belief for a encyclopaedia. If Poland's neighbours are in any way anti-Polish it is surely because for 1000 years the Poles have invaded each and every one of them at some point, and continued to antagonise them all well into the 20th century. Frankly these pages are a disgrace and just pander to Polish paranoia and propaganda. They should be taken down and barred if Wikipedia is to retain any credibility whatever.

Thank you. ___________________________________________________________________________________________

Disputed

This discussion Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive_4 is still active. Alx-pl D 19:55, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

rubish

Stupid made up stuff by Poles, whining about how the world hates them. Go and kill someone in Iraq when you are frustated. -83.129.19.18

Agreed! But not every Pole does support this bullshit. I as a Pole living in Germany am deeply ashamed about the fact, that this article draws a picture of hate and paranoia in the name of Poland and Polish people. But as long as such crazy people like Molobo, Witkacy & co exist there is nothing we can do against it. Believe me, I tried it... Best greetings, Micha.

I know, as a german living in the Ruhr Area I have plenty polish friends. They would be disgusted about what its written in their name. -83.129.10.164 00:35, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

---

I presume these three edits were a single user trying to create consensus for himself. Now, this is a no-go but the more I look at this page the more I sympathize with the general idea (however crudely pushed forward). I just removed Polish Black Legend from the lead. There is no Polish Black Legend. It wasn't properly cited internally or externally. And if, as the most recent edit after mine is true, Anti-Polonism does not appear in Polish dictionaries (anti-Canadianism does not appear in the dictionary of Canadian English as a point of comparison) then I do have to wonder about the validity of this page. Assuming the info on this page does deserve mention somewhere does the article title make sense? It would be nice if RfC generated an abundance of comment (it never does) so this question is directed to anyone still watching otherwise: take a step back and ask yourself "would this make sense under a different descriptor?" Marskell 23:13, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

I took seriously the suggestion from the anonymous edit and I found out that the main dictionary of Polish published by PWN ("Słownik języka polskiego"), at least in its on-line version, does not contain antypolonizm [43], similarly the encyclopedia of the publisher [44], and the dictionary of the words with foreign origin [45]. The same holds for an on-line encyclopedia Wiem [46]. Alx-pl D 18:30, 19 September 2005 (UTC)