Talk:Anti-Polish sentiment

This article has gone through VfD. Please see the first voting and the second voting.

Archived discussion

• 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 on the Germany section,

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 this 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

I try to separate the arguments about Harald Schmidt and Erika Steinbach. Please keep them separate. All the small print from this section is reproduced in the next section. Austrian 21:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

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.

Erika Steinbach

I changed some comments about Steinbach to small print in the "Schmidt" section above, and reproduce them here. I hope I did not make a mistake with the attributions.-- Austrian 21:03, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Like the topic Erika Steinbach, nobody knows her in Germany. But every Polish does!? --Jonny84 11.55, 3rd September 2005 (UTC)

You are wrong on all points- Erica Stainbach is a member of a very large organisation visitied by top German politicians, [...] -- 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. [...] -- 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)

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. ___________________________________________________________________________________________

AGREED! I tried to bring some sense into this discussion, but ther are so many paranoid Pepole here, that I had to realize that this is impossible. The best thing is to bash this bullshit. Micha.

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)

So, just show it to them! Maybe they'll be able to show everybody, that this Molobo-Witkacy-Bullshit is not true. Micha.

---

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)

However Alx a simple search of internet reveals that the word is used in dictionary of subjects in Polish National Library.I am sure it is pure coincidence you missed it.Hope it helps you. Słownik Języka Haseł Przedmiotowych Biblioteki Narodowej www.bn.org.pl/doc/jhp/nh/01_04.doc

--Molobo 10:06, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The phrase concerning the dictionaries states to be precise that its Polish counterpart antypolonizm does not appear in Polish major dictionaries and encyclopedias either. The dictionary you found is a really minor dictionary the intended audience of which are librarians so inclusion of the information does not falsify the statement. Moreover, if the editors decided to add information about the dictionary status of the word in English and the dictionary status of the word in Polish is so peculiar, the information must be included to the article. Alx-pl D 14:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

I do not understand on which basis the information about Polish major dictionaries has been removed. The dictionary Molobo mentions - "Słownik Języka Haseł Przedmiotowych Biblioteki Narodowej" - is not a major Polish dictionary. It is not a major Polish encyclopedia either. I don't deny that the library is a major institution, but this dictionary is simply directed for librarians and thus has no wider audience. Once more, the term does not occur in the dictionaries and encyclopedias I mentioned above. It also does not appear in paper sources like "Słownik Języka Polskiego" by PWN (I've checked the 1994 edition), "Słownik Wyrazów Obcych. Nowy" by PWN (I've checked the 1995 edition) and in the recently published (2005) "Encyklopedia Gazety Wyborczej" (the material in which is just a big encyclopedia corpus from PWN). As these are the dictionaries that really have wide audience and good respect, I don't see reason why this information should be removed from the article. Alx-pl D 19:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Changes

To go over it:

• I re-removed "Polish Black Legend." There is no source—there is nothing. Prove it or lose it.
• I re-inserted the fact that the word does not appear in Polish dictionaries. Alx-pl seems to have done the good faith homework and proved as such.
• I removed completely Anti-Polonism in France. It was POV top-to-bottom with no sources, no proof, no attributions. For instance: "despite the fact that it brought more jobs to French people." How do you know this? Honestly, it is unproveable. Marskell 22:39, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

"I re-removed "Polish Black Legend." There is no source—there is nothing. Prove it or lose it." Please read the article before tempering with it. Dr. Dariusz Łukasiewicz: Czarna legenda Polski: Obraz Polski i Polaków w Prusach 1772-1815 (The black legend of Poland: the image of Poland and Poles in Prussia between 1772-1815) Wydawnictwo Poznanskiego Towarzystwa Przyjaciól Nauk, 1995. Vol. 51 of history and social sciences series.ISBN 83-7063-148-7. Paper. In Polish with English and German summaries. "* I re-inserted the fact that the word does not appear in Polish dictionaries. Alx-pl seems to have done the good faith homework and proved as such." It appears in the subjects lists of Polish National Library. "* I removed completely Anti-Polonism in France. It was POV top-to-bottom with no sources, no proof, no attributions. For instance: "despite the fact that it brought more jobs to French people." How do you know this? Honestly, it is unproveable." http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1409539/posts "'Polish Plumber' at Center of French Vote AP via Yahoo!News ^ | Mon May 23, 2005 | LAURENCE FROST

Posted on 05/24/2005 9:45:01 AM PDT by lizol

'Polish Plumber' at Center of French Vote

By LAURENCE FROST, Associated Press Writer Mon May 23, 5:38 PM ET

PARIS - A faceless Slavic handyman has emerged as a symbol of the struggle to persuade a disgruntled French electorate to vote in favor of a European Union constitution in a critical weekend referendum.

For opponents, the "Polish Plumber" represents fears that under a tighter union, people from poorer European nations will take jobs away in France where one in 10 is already unemployed.

Supporters dismiss arguments that France will be flooded by foreign workers or that the treaty will trample on labor rights and leave the door open to unbridled American-style capitalism.

The debate over the treaty, the result of months of negotiation and painstaking compromise among the 25 EU members, also taps into what appears to be a growing malaise about the costs and complications of further integrating member nations.

It was against this background that former EU internal market commissioner Frits Bolkestein caused a controversy by telling reporters he would have appreciated a Polish plumber when his French countryside vacation home sprung a leak and he was unable to find one nearby. Left-wing commentators were scandalized, and the local mayor vowed publicly to send the former commissioner a list of unemployed French plumbers.

Mentioned in campaign pamphlets, Internet chat rooms, newspaper columns and by politicians on both sides, the plumber reference has become so omnipresent that Polish President Aleksander Kwasniewski acknowledged it during a visit to France last week.

"It's completely exaggerated," Kwasniewski said as he joined forces with French President Jacques Chirac and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder to campaign for a French "yes" vote in Sunday's crucial plebiscite.

The treaty, which is aimed at streamlining the decision-making process in an enlarged EU and providing for a president and foreign minister, needs approval from all 25 members to take effect in November 2006 — which means a "No" vote from the French on Sunday could bring Europe's hopes for closer integration to a halt. Opinion polls in the final week show the "No" camp holding a narrow lead.

Piotr the plumber, as some Internet chat rooms have dubbed him, has touched a nerve in France because of the high unemployment and mounting economic anxieties hanging over the vote.

"It's clear that if our current economic circumstances weren't so morose, we would be seeing a very different campaign," said Phillipe Moreau Defarges, a researcher at the French Institute for International Relations and author of a pro-constitution booklet.

Unemployment stands at 10.2 percent, and disappointing first-quarter data last week poured cold water on the government's forecast for growth of 2.0 percent to 2.5 percent for 2005 and its pledge to cut joblessness to 9 percent this year.

A series of high-profile moves by companies to outsource manufacturing or services to lower-wage economies, often in Eastern Europe, also has worried French workers and their unions.

"The French have had trouble accepting the enlargement of the EU," Moreau Defarges said. "Some people really believe that the best policy would be simply to close France off." Andrzej Kowalczyk, whose Polish-registered construction company has a subsidiary in Paris, says he's been feeling the heat from the campaign.

"At the moment there's a lot of customers who don't want to work with Poles because they're afraid, even when (the workers) have all the right papers," he said in an interview.

The EU constitution also comprises a bill of rights as well as a restatement of existing treaty obligations.

Exasperated supporters accuse the opposition of playing to nationalist sentiment by seizing on the Polish plumber.

"I don't think the French economy is at serious risk from an invasion of plumbers," said Pascal Lamy, a former EU trade commissioner who will next head the World Trade Organization. "Let's drop the bogeymen and the plumber-phobia which, in this Polish example, looks a little like xenophobia, pure and simple."

--Molobo 09:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Polish Black Legend. You're inclusion of this strikes me as OR which reading the summary seems to confirm. Find contemporary secondary or tertiary sources which use the term matter-of-factly and I'll buy it. Further, it reinforces what I've said a few times: this is primarily about historic German-Polish relations and the article title ought to reflect that.

Re-inserting dictionary point. I did not remove your point about the Polish National Library I only re-inserted the earlier point.

Anti-polonism in France. I was not suggesting that it doesn't exist only that the addition as it stood was POV. It's a series of straw men (He said x—of course he's wrong). Marskell 10:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

" Find contemporary secondary or tertiary sources which use the term matter-of-factly and I'll buy it"The book was written recently.As to blaming Poland see Pawelka speech. "I only re-inserted the earlier point." Which isn't true as the dictionary of Polish National Library has it. " was not suggesting that it doesn't exist only that the addition as it stood was POV" In which way.--Molobo 10:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The use Black Legend in the intro takes a time-bound and context-specific idea and presents it as a matter-of-fact, taken for granted point. This is not appropriate to a lead a paragraph and the description of the book I found notes it as documentation much more than interpretation, i.e. essentially primary not secondary. [47] Thus asserting a general Polish Black Legend in the lead qualifies as an inappropriate "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, or evaluative claim" (WP:NOR). Other sources on the book (surprise, surprise) were Wikipedia itself or mirrors. Searching "Polish Black Legend" (in quotes) gives a 110 results and you get one guess where most of them come from.

I will edit the para to the effect that it does not generally appear in dictionaries but the National Library is an exception.

France:

• "Despite the fact that it brought more jobs to French people" is absolutely POV and beyond proof. "I don't think the French economy is at risk..." is not proof, but a rather tepid opinion.
• "...a deeply religious nation..." Who in France is criticizing Poland's religious character (and plz don't do what's been done for Germany by pulling out an extreme commentator and presenting it as a nationwide opinion)?
• Presenting points only to undercut them is the slipperiest kind of POV: "'...a good opportunity to remain silent,' ignoring the fact that Poland had traditionally been a loyal ally of France." Marskell 11:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The deletion for POV of the paragraph denouncing France is in harmony with Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive_4#Martin_Schulz.27s_remark and Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive_4#President_Chirac.27s_remark.

• "Poles are also blamed for unemployment in France after EU expansion" this is imprecise and is anti-polonistic only in your opinion
• "despite the fact that it brought more jobs to French people" is a clear point of view that not everybody in France seems to have and which serves as propaganda
• "Antipolish sentiment has grown in that country" this is only your point of view and sounds dishonest or arrogant (because you should know that you have no idea about anti-Polonism in France)
• "due to Poland's close relationship with United States". Sounds extremely conceited and made up. Source?
• "The fact that Poland remains both an US ally as well as a deeply religious nation, has led to enforcing of negative and antipolish views in several layers of European politics." Source?
• "Josep Borrell the President of European Parliament has been reported to express antipolish remarks several times, accusing Poland of "taking orders from USA"." Oh no! He seemed to criticise Poland's participation in the Iraq war! How anti-Polonistic to criticise a government!! Where are these reports saying it were anti-polish remarks by the way?
• "Another example of antipolonism sentiments are comments from Martin Schulz a member of European Parliament who demanded to silence polish representatives calling them "hooligans" (during the WWII the term "polnische Banditen" was commonly used by German propaganda) during European Parliament session on 27.10.2004" *Cough-cough* Martin Schulz is German, not French, and he called a Britain, not a Pole, a hooligan. See Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive_4#Martin_Schulz.27s_remark
• "Shortly after the Polish EU accession, when the Polish government expressed its solidarity with the American war on terror, French president Jacques Chirac remarked they had missed "a good opportunity to remain silent" The "war on terror" or the Iraq war? Surely it's not a POV to mingle these events, is it? And calling Chirac's criticism as far as the Iraq war is concerned "anti-Polonistic" is not only completely biased; it is insane in my opinion.
• "ignoring the fact that Poland had traditionally been a loyal ally to France", stated ignoring the fact that Wikipedia relies heavily on an NPOV.

So ... this was the entire French anti-Polonism paragraph. Now, your "Polish Black legend" and the doorstep-belief: first of all it may be from a book. Honestly, you cannot ask us to believe you blindly there or buy a book. 'God exists! You don't believe me? Buy my book!' Anyway, to say that Anti-Polonistic is often associated with it is at best your opinion. I associate it with "Anti-Monopoly", an attempt to equate Anti-Polonism to Anti-Semitism and cheap copycatting of the (existing) word "Anti-Americanism". Who can be able to state how something is associated by people except for God? Has someone looked into everybody's minds again? This is just biased nonsense in the lead paragraph.NightBeAsT 12:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Please direct your complaints to various authors using the term antipolonism.As to the book if you are interested in changing the article you should read it, before making judgments about it. --Molobo 13:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

"Please direct your complaints to various authors using the term antipolonism?" What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with whether your addition about France was POV. Again, a single work (dealing, apparently, with Prussia 1772 - 1815, which is what I meant by "time-bound and "context specific") does not allow us to assert a "Polish Black Legend" that has no obvious basis. Marskell 14:39, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Since the term is used in scholary work I see no reason to deny its existance. --Molobo 18:21, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

nominated for deletion again!

Hope for the support of everybody, who is deeply ashamed about this Bullshit! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Anti-Polonism Best greetings, Michal.

I know there is precedents for stopping short VfD that have already occurred recently, but you should ask a disinterested admin to do so. No one involved should take it upon themselves to cut short a VfD. Marskell 15:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

This one was not "recently". The issue is not precedents, but policy. Please read it carefully. On the other hand, groundless renominations may be treated as disruption and shut down. I suggest to let this one be, to reaffirm the position, but the third one will not go. mikka (t) 18:18, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Molobo is sooo afraid...

...that he has to remove the Vote-for-deletion-tag! Are you ashamed of your lies or what all the intelligent people might think of you? Or did you forget to steal a brain?

Please no personal attacks. Your opinions on the page are clear. Marskell 17:46, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Just because you had to steal a brain, doesn't mean anybody else had to! Voting for deletion already happened and there is no need for another one. We're not going to repeat the voting until the polonophobes strike it lucky! Space Cadet 17:57, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia specifically allows for re-noms. Check "closure" here: Wikipedia:Guide to deletion. A two month old keep vote is not a blanket excuse to stop criticisms of the page. "...Polonophobes strike it lucky!" is senseless and bad faith. I consider removing the tag vandalism and will revert accordingly. Marskell 18:14, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Serious reasons for the vote must be given.Using argument "this is bullshit" isn't an argument.Neither is complaining that history of the region isn't nice.Are we to delete every article that deals in persecution of one group of another ?--Molobo 18:20, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The nom is cursory but does state "this is POV." This is fair criticism and a fair reason to nominate. It won't be deleted anyhow—inconclusive at most—and generating needed talk is not a bad thing. Marskell 18:32, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Needed talk ? You mean "steal a brain", "this is bullshit" or your complaints that it might hurt German feelings  ? I think the article could avoid this juvenile silliness you consider "needed talk" And the nom says clearly "This is bullshit".My what a grand reason. --Molobo 18:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The nom states this: "STRONG DELETE! This article contains only POV's. It is absolutely wrong. No need to keep it in an encyclopedia." Again, cursory but acceptable. By needed talk I obviously meant uninvolved editors joining discussion about a page that has had complaints regularly registered against it for months (do you deny that?).

As for "hurting German feelings:" Pic 1: "Germans execute...", Pic 2: "...slave labour in Germany", Pic 3: "German soldiers executing..." Why not start with a pic of Hitler and add: "notorious German Anti-Polonialist"? Marskell 18:54, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

This people weren't Germans ? --Molobo 19:11, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Marskell! First of all it was Molobo who started the personal attacs. Secondly this article IS bullshit. I am a Pole living in Germany, whose parents were not forbidden to teach me polish, which brings me to the third reason, why these Lies shall be removed. The Article is full of POV's. Fourth of all: When you look at the editing history, you'll realize that brainsick-Molobo deleted the vote-for-deletion mark. To me this means that HE's afraid about that everybody may notice that HE is the one who's lying all the time on purpose. Micha.

To be clear, I don't feel the VfD is necessary but I absolutely object to an involved editor removing the tag. I never suspected it would last longer than a day—I'm saying you shouldn't take it upon yourself to over-turn procedure. Of course it will be kept—I can't imagine an uninformed editor not voting keep. I'll keep it myself if you like and it won't be bad faith because I'll be opposing my own vote. But of course it needs massive re-vamping, which 9 out of 10 people voting keep will not be aware of. "Needing talk" is, as I said, a hope for even one or two editors to become dis-interestedly involved.

Were they not Germans? OF COURSE they were Germans. And Genghis Khan was a Central Asian like Lee Harvey Oswald was a white man. If we had "a white man shoots a white man" on Lee Harvey Oswald, it would of course be perfectly true and utterly stupid as a description. Similarly, if you want a collage of Germans shooting Poles make a user page for it (or at least a main page: Germans shooting Poles) and on this page attempt to prove what remains unproven: that this is nothing more than a regional, bi-lateral issue. Let's rephrase: Is this a WW II page? It looks like one. Why don't you have pics proving a contemporary fact rather than a historical phenomenon? Because you can't find them? Because this page, at the very least, should be re-named? Hmm. Marskell 23:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Contemporary facts like accusing Poles of being thieves ? Denying the right to speak in Polish, xenophobic attacks against Poles in France that led to discrimination of Polish firms ? Blaming Poland for WW2 ? Claiming Poles worked with German Reich ? Publishing books in Russia with lines like "everybody who reads this would shoot Poles out of contempt" ? As to :"Were they not Germans? OF COURSE they were Germans. And Genghis Khan was a Central Asian like Lee Harvey Oswald was a white man. If we had "a white man shoots a white man" on Lee Harvey Oswald, it would of course be perfectly true and utterly stupid as a description." This silly politicall correctness.What I should call then German soldies murdering Poles in executions "A group of people murdering a group of another people" Instead of "German invasion of Poland" I should name it "one state invades another state" ?.This would be absurd.As to your claim about Genghis Khan they are many articles that speak abour mass murder made by Mongol armies so I see no problem In saying the same about German armies if such things happened. --Molobo 10:04, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Four pics are redundant and yes it looks like a WW II scrapbook. Also you're inverting my point in your reply: I'm not advocating less specific descriptions but more specific descriptions. "Nazi soldiers" creates better specificity than "Germans" presented generically and really do we need two barely legible pics off the top showing exactly the same thing? How do I know they were members of NSDAP ? IIRC officers were forbidden from NSDAP membership. --Molobo 20:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

The Germany section in general is a laundry list of dubious points and editorial asides without a single English source to allow the majority of the readers on this page to verify the info.

"In addition they [SIC] have been cases were Polish workers have been ordered by their employers to talk in German during their private time outside of work." No source, and I don't see how it can be proven anyhow.

"German constitution grants German citizenship to Polish-born persons if their ancestors were Germans citizens living on German territory as of 1937." Anyone desiring German citizenship faces ancestry requirements. I can't become a German.

"In addition radical German organisations expressing anti-Polish views(blaming Poles for WWII), are visited on regular basis by leading CDU and CSU politicians." Which organizations? Which politicians?

Further, it is never asserted that such policies (if in fact they are policies) differ substantially from the treatment given Turks, Arabs etc. Are the Poles singled out or this a general tendency toward homogenization (which, ultimately, the larger German society is free to pursue)? Marskell 11:23, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Marskell! I tried several times to tell Molobo, that e.g. Angela Merkel visited Erika Steinbach, the leader of the minority organization "Preußische Treuhand" (the organization of the people, who came from east Prussia or Silesia) just because she is a leader of a minority organization. Merkel ALSO visits the leaders of the turkisk, danish, sinthi- and roma or jewish minority, but that does not mean, that these minorities including the Preußische Treuhand play an importand role in Germany. Unfortunately I was -like all the other guys who did the same- not very successful. Believe me, there is no chance to fill fundamentalists like Molobo with intelligence. Micha.

removed parts

The following quotes removed as irrelevant.

• "Heute gestohlen, morgen in Polen" ("Stolen today, tommorow in Poland") — modern German saying"
  • The say describes a real experience of voluminous car theft, a sad fact, but have nothing to do with polonophobia. It is unlucky that Poland lay on the route of stolen cars from Deutschland to Soviet Union. mikka (t) 18:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• A hen is not a bird, Poland is not abroad." — 18th-century Russian saying, justifying the Partitions of Poland.
  • The saying has no "hidden agenda" against Poland, just as it does not have a hidden agenda against chicken.

mikka (t) 18:29, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

The first one is a stereotype of Poles being thieves (I am sorry to hear you are under the influence of the stereotype) The second denies Poland sovereignty, and tries to portay it as part of Russia.--Molobo 18:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• The stereotype has its grounds. And I am not under influence. I was robbed by Poles eight (!) times during one year when I was a lecturer in Politechnika Bialostocka. The reason is simple: it is on the bus route from railway/bus station to the huge flea market frequented by Belarussian peddlers, so naturally this bus line was frequented by thieves an thugs. The same with car theft. Poland was on a convenient car smuggler route, and the say does not portray all Poles as thieves. It reflects statistics. Or you are going to claim that equal number of stolen cars landed in France? 19:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
• Sovereighty: So what? It (i.e., absence of sov..ty) was a historical fact. Nations conquered each other all the time. Russia conquered Komi, Mordvins, Tuva, etc. We don't look for anti-Mordvinism in this fact. mikka (t) 19:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

"The stereotype has its grounds. " I am sure Germans and Russians don't rob people or commit crimes like those Poles...

• I am sure that Germans don't steal cars in Poland. I am sure that Russian mafia operates in Poland.mikka (t) 00:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"Or you are going to claim that equal number of stolen cars landed in France? " Actually they were stolen by Russian gangs and landed in Russia from what I know. Yet there is no German saying that "Your car is in Russia." --Molobo 19:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• You are mistaken here. (1) Russian gangs have perfect logistics support from Polish. (2) The destination was only well known in Germany. Have you ever been at a used car market in Szczecin? In my times 90% of sellers were Deutsch, 80% of buyers were Russki. There was an interesting small business of fake Polish license plates flourishing because 99% of all cars with German transit license plates were mugged on Polish highways between on their way from Germany to Belarus->Russia. mikka (t) 00:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"Sovereighty: So what? It (i.e., absence of sov..ty) was a historical fact." Claiming Poland doesn't have right to being independent and isn't foreign is antipolish sentiment.

• The say says nothing about the "right". You are reading between lines. mikka (t) 00:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

For Russification and persecution of Poles in Russian occupied Poland as well as negative views of Poles in Russian society(including Pogroms of Poles) and ideology see relevant links and sources in the article.--Molobo 19:41, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• • This has nothing to do with the quoted say. Russian peasants (a source of all Russian folklore) did not persecute Poles in Poland. Please give an example of the usage of the say that is anti-Polish. mikka (t) 00:48, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

"Russian peasants (a source of all Russian folklore) did not persecute Poles in Poland" That would be very difficult because they were scarcely any Russian peasents on the territory of Poland, the main Russian population were soldiers and tsars administration. However in Russia persecution of Poles and negative stereotypes of them existed contrary to your belief, from link in the main article(I urge you to read it and links before commenting): http://www.acls.org/crn/network/ebook_gatagova_paper2.doc "In Russian national consciousness, the image of the Pole as one from a foreign religion was formed long ago. The Pole's everyday behavior and his clothes were perceived as signs of his Catholic affiliation. Moreover, the Catholic was associated with dark powers. Because in the folk sphere the reflection of historical reality is very often transferred into the unconscious level, the complex, centuries-long history of Russian –Polish coexistence have "accumulated" a great mass of myths and legends. These unceasingly feed the dangerously antagonistic relations between the two peoples. Here are some small examples of folk creativity expressing negative stereotypes from one side: "The Polock is a cursed soul" "cursed unbelievers" "dishonest Polocks."" " Anti-polish sentiment gripped the peasant masses to a lesser extent, than it did the educated classes. However, in the common people also, Polonophobia was very noticeable. In any case, when a wave of fires swept over the western provinces of the empire in 1865 (soon after the rebellion), many anonymous letters and various kinds of rumors arose about the crafty schemes of the Poles. From all areas, mass accusations of arson poured out against the Poles. Their motivations seemed unconvincing. Nevertheless. all the "accusers" agreed that it was essential to severely/cruelly cut off the "criminal intentions" of yesterday's insurgent rebels. Here is one of many examples: in 1865, in Novoarkhangelsk settlement in Kherson province, a few insignificant fires too place. Local authorities with the total support of the population placed the blame for what had happened on two Poles: the officer Leshchinsky (who was on indefinite leave) and his fifteen-year-old son. In September of 1866 a major fire burned about 600 houses in the city of Serdobsk in Saratov province; there also, exiled Poles were found to be "guilty." They were saved from violent reprisals only by speedy transit by urgent convoy to another place. A later inquiry revealed the Poles had absolutely no involvement in the setting of the fires. In Saratov itself, something resembling the "Doctor's Plot" was initiated. The following very serious accusation was directed at three doctors of Polish decent who had worked in the Alexander Hospital: "The treatment of lower ranking officials has turned out to be completely careless and even intentionally incorrect, following the dangerous way of thinking of the Polish doctors Krasovsky, Rudkovsky, and Malakhovsky, the antagonistic feelings of whom towards the Russians have aroused the censure of military authorities and local society." The fears of Polish spies, arsonists and poisoners that was being whipped up by rumor aroused the residents of Moscow to form a home [national] guard (!). Multiple manifestations of Polonophobia were noted even in private life. For example, in Petersburg, the wife of the collegiate assessor Iurevich demanded that her husband be separated from her four minor children, asserting that her spouse "as a Pole tries to develop in them enemy feelings towards Russians."

The say that Poland isn't foreign is justification of Russia's conquest of Poland, Russification and denial of existance of Polish nationality and culture. --Molobo 10:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

• Russian policy makers have justified Molotov-Ribbentrop pact[48] as well as claimed that Partitions of Poland were just and restored Russian territory[49]
  • Either by mistake or deliberate misinformation, the quoted links say nothing about things stated. mikka (t) 18:52, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

http://www.kremlin.ru/eng/text/speeches/2005/02/22/2038_type82916_84445.shtml This article does not contain words "Poland" or "polish", hence irrelevant to anti-polonism. It does say about Molotv-ribbentrop Pact, so what? mikka (t) - As for the people who want to or attempt to rewrite history, to disparage the importance of this event and the important of the Soviet Union and the Red Army, the Soviet Army, in the victory over Nazism, we understand the events that this is connected with. For example, the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact is often mentioned, which resulted in a pact between Soviet Russia, the Soviet Union and Hitler’s Germany, and the subsequent annexation of the Baltic States.

What can one say about this? Everything needs to be seen in the context of historic events. And I would ask you to return to the events of September 1938, when agreements were made between Nazi Germany and western European countries, which later went down in history as the “Munich pact”.

I would also remind you that these agreements were signed by the western allies: Daladier, I believe, from France and the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and on the other side by Mussolini and Hitler himself.

The Soviet-German document was signed on a much lower level – on the level of foreign ministers – one year later, in response to the treaty signed by the western countries, which is now called the “Munich pact”. I would also remind you – and for you as Slovaks, this is probably especially important: as a result of the Munich pact, Czechoslovakia was handed over to Nazi Germany, and the western partners, as it were, showed Hitler where he should go to fulfil his growing ambitions – to the East. To protect its interests and security on its western borders, the Soviet Union signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with Germany.

If we look at the problem in this context, it looks quite different. And I would recommend new historians, or rather those who want to rewrite history, to learn to read books before they rewrite or write them. Please stick to the topic of the article: existing or alleged anti-Polonism. Some people are kind of busy here to read long easays. mikka (t) 19:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC) If one justifies a pact of aggression against Poland and Polish people(that led to murder of 6milion Polish citizens) as selfdefence its certainly antipolish-and was reported as such by Polish media. --Molobo 10:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Second link:

http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/metroon/1,0,2762689.html " Argunowa wyjaśnia, że Rosja podczas rozbiorów nie zajęła żadnych etnicznie polskich terytoriów, lecz przywróciła w swe władanie ruskie ziemie wchodzące w skład wczesnośredniowiecznej Rusi" Argunowa explains that Russia during the Partitions Russia didn't take ethnic polish territories but reclaimed into its rule Russian territories that were part of early medieval Rus.--Molobo 19:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Where is anti-Polonism here? I don't see any hatred expressed. mikka (t) 19:26, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

As you know Molotov Ribbentrop Pact was aimed against Poland, and led to massacres of Polish population. Furthermore it was series of treaties also directed against Poles : "http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/nazsov/sesupp1.htm

The undersigned plenipotentiaries, on concluding the German Russian Boundary and Friendship Treaty, have declared their agreement upon the following:

Both parties will tolerate in their territories no Polish agitation which affects the territories of the other party. They will suppress in their territories all beginnings of such agitation and inform each other concerning suitable measures for this purpose.

Moscow, September 28,1939.

For the Government of the German Retch:

J. RIBBENTROP

By authority of the Government of the U.S.S.R.:

W. MOLOTOV "

The claim that Poland was just part of Russia is obvious antipolish statement and I don't think there is anything confusing about it. --Molobo 10:09, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Anti-Polonism in Germany (Present)

Temporary I excluded this parts into this talk-page, because:

1. This is an encyclopedia. And not a listing of individuals and every irrelevant individual cases happened in Germany against Polish. Primarily an encyclopedia should only describe a subject.

Please don't play word games. Only highly visible cases are listed here, rather than "every irrelevant individual". No one is going to list here every brawl with Poles in every Beerstube. mikka (t) 00:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

But for me it´s still look like a view directly from a "Beer"stube. Jonny84 12:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

2. There do not exit any official reprisals by the German State against Polish or polish citizen in (todays) Germany.

The topic is not limited to official issues. Also, your statement is false, unless you prove that the section about german courts is false. mikka (t) 00:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Funny that were is a link in this segment (which maybe should be a source): [50]. And this link tells me a total different story. Funny, or? And if it would be true however, it would not change the fact that it´s only a individual case. Jonny84 12:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

---

==== Anti-Polonism in Germany ====

Antipolish sentiments persist in Germany.

===== Rudi Pawelka =====

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.

===== German courts and Polish language and culture =====

German courts have not only forbidden divorced Polish-speaking parents to teach their children Polish, but also voiced objections to raising them in Polish culture, claiming that to do so would be harmful to their development.[51], [52]. In addition they have been cases were Polish workers have been ordered by their employers to talk in German during their private time outside of work.

===== German media's portrayal of Poland =====

Another example of anti-Polish bias in the German media is the "Harald Schmidt Show." The highlights of this extremely popular program are insulting "jokes" about Poles, Polish culture and Poland. Harald Schmidt, who exploits antipolish views and stereotypes that a few decades earlier accompanied German crimes of genocide against the Polish people, such as supposed inferior intellect or natural criminality of Poles, has received the Bambi viewers' choice award, the Grimme Award, the Golden Camera, and the Golden Lion as best show host.

===== Florian Illies =====

Florian Illies, a former journalist with the conservative Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung and best-selling author, also cashes in on a clear anti-Polish bias, with jokes on the Polish language and cleaners. Incidentally, Illies actively supported a motion to reanimate name the name of "Preußen" (Prussia) for a new German federal state to be formed by a merger of the capital Berlin with Brandenburg; hostility towards Poland had been one of the political cornerstones of historical Prussia [53].

===== German constitution and politics =====

German constitution grants German citizenship to Polish-born persons if their ancestors were Germans citizens living on German territory as of 1937. In addition radical German organisations expressing anti-Polish views(blaming Poles for WWII), are visited on regular basis by leading CDU and CSU politicians [54]

---

I think we should discuss about the relevance of this segment and if we should put it in a changed up form back to the article. It make a view and image about Germany that still isn´t true. Jonny84 23:25, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

You are right we should discuss it. But we should discuss them one by one. And you cannot delete them without reaching an agreement. mikka (t) 00:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Mikka, I didn´t delete it. It´s still there, here in this talk-page. I only excluded it temporary. I want see here some examples for a changed form of this segment. And then we could put it (changed) back. Jonny84 12:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

The discussion has already started some time in the past. It is here and has not finished wth conclusion. The issue which was discussed most (Rudi Pawelka) is summarised on this page in the section Talk:Anti-Polonism#Rudi Pawelka - summary. If you have some specific questions concerning the structure of the discussion (which is very complicated and interwoven) I can try to answer them. I can also try to translate some of the Polish sources in case of doubt. Alx-pl D 03:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Moved from above, I think the following should be deleted until sourced:

• "In addition they [SIC] have been cases were Polish workers have been ordered by their employers to talk in German during their private time outside of work." No source, and I don't see how it can be proven anyhow. Was already sourced, given name of person who quit the job after persecution, name of the clinic as well as newspaper showing the case was given.Read previous talk.--Molobo 19:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• "German constitution grants German citizenship to Polish-born persons if their ancestors were Germans citizens living on German territory as of 1937." Anyone desiring German citizenship faces ancestry requirements. I can't become a German. This violates the treaty signed with Poland by not reckognising Polish German border after the war.--Molobo 19:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
• "In addition radical German organisations expressing anti-Polish views(blaming Poles for WWII), are visited on regular basis by leading CDU and CSU politicians." Which organizations? Which politicians? See previous talk.--Molobo 19:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Further, it is never asserted that such policies (if in fact they are policies) differ substantially from the treatment given Turks, Arabs etc. Are the Poles singled out or this a general tendency toward homogenization (which, ultimately, the larger German society is free to pursue)? Poles have a long tradition in Germany of persecution and antipolish feelings are expressed on regular basis in Germany.In the past they have led to murder by Germans of 6milion Polish citizens.See previous talk.--Molobo 19:53, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

I really think the last point is important. It isn't Anti-Polonism if it occurs across the board with minorities, any more than Japanese attitudes are anti-Koreanism (xenophobic yes, but toward virtually every foreign group). I know, for instance, third-generation Turks cannot become Germans. So please prove the above points and attempt to show their notability vis-a-vis other groups. Marskell 09:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

What remains of Anti-Polonism in Germany section

Everything what is now in the anti-Polonism in Germany today - section is false.

Rudi Pawelka paragraph:

• "Poland is accused by some groups of having caused World War II." Has never been verified and is as ridiculous as accusing Poland for it would be. The sentence's origin lies in the (false) assumption that Rudi Pawelka did so, and because he is in the Preußische Treuhand and the Territorial Association of Silesia, Molobo alleged that these organizations, too, accuse Poland of having caused World War II. This is as absurd as any sensationalist could put it.
• "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." Rudi Pawelka's speech NEVER did so. It's only Molobo who interpreted it like this. Original research and blown out of all context. See Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive_4#Discussion_on_the_Pawelka.27s_speech.

German courts and Polish language and culture

• "German courts have not only forbidden divorced Polish-speaking parents to teach their children Polish" Actually not. See Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive_4#Teaching_of_Polish
• " but also voiced objections to raising them in Polish culture, claiming that to do so would be harmful to their development" Not even Molobo could make an attempt to defend that made-up crap. See Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive_4#German_courts_and_Polish_culture
• "In addition they have been cases were Polish workers have been ordered by their employers to talk in German during their private time outside of work." Still unsourced, unexplained and illogical. How could an employer do so?

Harald Schmidt Show

• "Another example of anti-Polish bias in the German media is the "Harald Schmidt Show." 'Another' example? Any others?
• "The highlights of this extremely popular program are insulting "jokes" about Poles, Polish culture and Poland. Harald Schmidt, who exploits antipolish views and stereotypes that a few decades earlier accompanied German crimes of genocide against the Polish people, such as supposed inferior intellect or natural criminality of Poles," Complete nonsense. See Harald Schmidt (for info on him) and Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive_4#Harald_Schmidt, Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive_4#Origin_of_what_is_translated_as_.22Today_stolen.2C_tomorrow_in_Poland.22 and Talk:Anti-Polonism#Harald_Schmidt_Show (for discussions on the talk page)
• "has received the Bambi viewers' choice award, the Grimme Award, the Golden Camera, and the Golden Lion as best show host." And of course for being Anti-Polononistic! Great journalism, Molobo - even journalist Joseph Goebbels could hardly have put it more propagandistic.

Florian Illies

• "Florian Illies,[...], also cashes in on a clear anti-Polish bias, with jokes on the Polish language and cleaners" Oh yes? Where and when did he say what? And what makes it anti-Polonistic.
• "Incidentally, Illies actively supported a motion to reanimate name the name of "Preußen" (Prussia) for a new German federal state to be formed by a merger of the capital Berlin with Brandenburg; hostility towards Poland had been one of the political cornerstones of historical Prussia[55] Funny even the stated source puts it differently. See Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive_4#Florian_Illies

So this is the anti-Polonism of today's Germany in the article: chimeras dressed as facts. None of the allegations is true. Molobo, I know your passion for Nazism and other things connected to WWII but face it: we live in the 21th century, times have changed. Don't invent facts only to try to connect a WWII article to today. Does anyone apart from Molobo think any "fact" should be included?NightBeAsT 12:08, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Hopefully not! The "facts" mentioned in this article are simply wrong. At that point I agree with you, NightBeast. During this discussion I tried to point out, even if Molobo does not want to face the truth, that there are several Poles, me included, who completely disagree with this article. Molobo only gives sources, whose seriosity or/and neutrality are disputed. And he is not the only one. When you look at this discussion you'll realize that the links to the sources often start with www.google.de/... . If I brought sources like that in a text written for University, my Professors would kill me for that. So, if you want to give sources, give us real and neutral ones. I'm pretty sure you can't find any, Molobo. Best Greetings, Micha.

Thanks for compiling this NightBeAsT, I thought of doing it myself. -guety is talking english bad 01:48, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Hallo NB/Micha :) If you would read the history of the article you want to delete you will find that It wasn't me who added info on Florian's antipolonism :) As to your rest self repeating allegations, they have been resolved before on talk.--Molobo 19:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Hallo Mo/Micha :) I couldn't care less about who added the claims listed above first and do not hold you responsible for bringing them in first. But what I do hold you responsible for is with reverts re-adding them despite pages of discussion. How much support did those claims have? Huh? You alone. Okay, it's obvious Space Cadet and Witkacy would support you there if you simply tell them to do so. The only paragraph which had support was 'German Polish Friendship', written by Alx-pl. Apart from me, Bayerischermann supported it. Ironically it was the only paragraph deleted by you, because you "question if such thing exists at all." Only Anti-Polonism does exist, right? Of course we have to acknowledge that Molobo's point of view is more important than those of others, do we not? And once no one sees a need to have the last word but just doesn't reply, they have lost the discussion, which is then "resolved", isn't it? Anyway. What I listed above are not "self-repeating allegations" that "have been resolved before on talk", but what remains of the 'Anti-Polonism in Germany today'-section with reasons for their deletion on the basis of previous discussions, and links to the relevant parts of the talk page.NightBeAsT 18:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Please don't lie NB. I said clearly that I support the article on attempts to erase traditional antipolonism in German culture and adding link to the main article.As to the title-in terms of culture such thing as friendship between two nations is a bit unscientific in my view, of course they exist nations that have culturaly friendly views to each other, this is not the case of course with Germans and Poles so title would be false. --Molobo 12:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree that these issues are still open. Alx-pl D 19:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear NightBeast! You think that I deleted the 'German-Polish-Friendship-Section'. Well, that is not true. Unfortunately my IP is a shared IP, 15.000 Students use it every day. It is possible, that someone else deleted the section... I have no influence on what people use our server and what they do with this page. Micha.

Add info and article

http://www.westfr.de/ns-literatur/konservative.htm --Molobo 19:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

Somebody vandalised several of my posts

So please watch out for akward statements such "add this lies" etc.--Molobo 20:03, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

POV comment

The entire article confuses several terms and meanings, and interprets everything as Anti-polish prejudice without real understanding. Overall, it is pure POV with little real content.

• Bad jokes. A good example is the Harald Schmidt show. In reality, bad jokes about one's neighbor are very common in Germany. Neighbor may mean the neighboring state (or country), or even the neighboring city. That does not indicate an Anti-anything prejudice. It is just bad jokes. Also, based on Schmidt's jokes, Germans are also Anti-Catholic, Anti-Japanese, Anti-East-Germans, Anti-Women, Anti-Bavarian (Bavaria is a German state), and so on. Germans must be Anti-Everything, I guess.However Germans didn't use such stereotypes to exterminate East Germans, Bavarian or women in specific.Jokes that Harald Schmidt uses are repeat of stereotypes that have led to mass murder of 6 milion Polish citizens and destruction of Poland and the fact that he is awarded for them certainly speaks something about German society if only about the lack of awarness of those German atrocities towards Poland, if not about the lack of will to know about them.--Molobo 12:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Wartime propaganda. A good example is Gott strafe England - does the existence of this phrase and its use during World War I that mean that Germany is Anti-British ? No, it doesn't. Wartime propaganda is just bad, not more and not less. Again, it does not indicate an Anti-anything prejudice.However English weren't classified as subhuman animals to be exterminated as Poles were by Germans.--Molobo 12:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
• Right-wing and other fringe group propaganda. Same thing here. Sure, it is bad, but it does not reflect the opinion or attitude of the population in general, only of a few. Plus, such groups are probably Anti-foreigner all over the world, so what is the point ?. Doesn't matter, since antisemitism for example isn't reflected by all of society but elements of it expressing such views are noted.So we can add info that People expressing antipolish views sucha as Rudi Pawelka still exist in Germany unopposed.

--Molobo 12:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Some specific concerns:

• Rudi Pawelka. The article itself admits that the statements made do not reflect common opinion, so what is the point ? He doesn't have to reflect common opinion to be added to the article.However I don't know common opinion on such topics in Germany. Can you provide polls.

--Molobo 12:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• German courts and Polish language and culture. The information provided is wrong and/or misleading. The incident does do not reflect a court order, but a decision by the "Jugendamt" or "Jouth Welfare Office" in one city in Germany. The referenced article in German is in fact very critical of the decision. In which way is it wrong. And why are you talking about incident when several ones have been noted-please read previous talk.

--Molobo 12:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• German media's portrayal of Poland - see above comments about Harald Schmidt. If statements made by Harald Schmidt reflect an Anti-Anything attidude of Germans, Germans must be Anti-Everything, including Anti-German. The conclusions made do not make any sense.It makes if you know such stereotypes led to mass murder of Poles by Germans in the past.

--Molobo 12:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

• Florian Illies. It seems to me that his comments about Schmidt's Polish jokes are actually meant to be positive, not negative (in the context used, making jokes about someone or something reflects some level of respect for the target of the jokes, not disrespect). But obviously that is just my POV.
• Persistent prejudice against Poles (1945 to present). Seems to me that the references made do not reflect Anti-Polonism, but rather poor choices of word. To read an Anti-Polish attitude or "hostility" into misrepresentations of events in the early days of World War II seems to be a quite arbitrary claim, not supported by anything but the author's opinion.

Some statistics about German jokes on the Web (from Google search results):

• Blonde women: 574,000
• Men: 388,000
• Musicians: 349,000
• Women: 286,000
• Government employees: 223,000
• German army: 195,000
• Doctors: 182,000
• Politicians: 156,000
• East Germans: 147,000
• Bavarian: 124,000
• Polish: 92,700
• Jews: 79,400
• Chancellor: 79,300
• French: 72,900
• Belgian: 72,900
• West Germans: 72,300
• Austrian: 70,100
• Swiss: 70,100
• British: 431
• Italian: 99
• Danish: 69
• American: 13
• Norwegian: 10
• Spanish: 3

I think this proves my point that German jokes are more about direct neighbors and do not reflect a specific prejudice. Two groups you listed were target of extermination policies by Germans. --Molobo 12:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC) Groeck 20:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. And to extend the point a little farther: is John Cleese anti-German?: is Steve Coogan anti-French?: is Chris Rock anti-white? Sure, if you pick a given skit, but in general no. Keep your thinking cap on. An anti-Polish joke on German T.V. is not the reappearance of the SS. Is Canadian culture anti-American? Of course. But no more anti-American than American culture is anti-Canadian (according to ME)...and of course it reveals a bond as much as anything else (why, incidentally, did German-Polish friendship get removed?). Nothing on the page proves to me that this is specific and particular to Poles. I asked this above and I think it important: is the treatment of Poles in Germany different than that provided Turks and Arabs? I'd like to see somebody prove yes. Marskell 23:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC) An antipolish joke in modern German TV certainly would be enjoyable by still living former Polish inmates of Auschwitz where SS guards have already told them such fine examples of humour. --Molobo 12:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC) Exactly. I collected some more stats, this time about articles in German language mentioning hate of foreigners. Countries are mentioned in such articles as follows:

• USA: 67,900
• Turkey: 46,200
• France: 38,300
• Austria: 35,600 (note: this number is misleading since it includes a lot of information about hate of foreigners in Austria)
• Poland: 30,800
• Arab/Muslim: 30,500
• Italy: 30,000
• Africa: 25,200
• Spain: 19,000
• Netherlands: 16,500

Obviously, there is no statistical relationship between the number of jokes and the amount of "hate".

There are several good articles on the web about hate of foreigners in Germany, including some with Polish-German specifics and theories about its roots. For example, it apears that the East German SED (the only political party in the German Democratic Republic before the reunification) started an anti-Polish campaign in the 1980's. This is information which can easily be confirmed and should have a well deserved place in the Anti-Polonism article. Unfortunately, that is not the case. Instead, there is a lot of non-information, information which would usually be removed from Wikipedia as "original research".

I would suggest to remove all unconfirmed information, i.e., all original research, and replace it with information which can be confirmed through independent references. Groeck 04:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC) All information in the article was already confirmed in previous talk.Please read it.--Molobo 12:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

All your claims have been dealt with previously.Read talk archived.Also you didn't read the references in this talk pasted in here above.For example http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/401/212schlott.html Polonia in Germany Malgorzata Warchol-Schlottmann

In contrast to the United States or Canada, Germany is a society that developed cultural homogeneity in the course of its long history. This acquired monoculturality has recently been subject to disturbances. During the past fifty years Germany has moved toward being a multicultural society. Three factors contributed to this development: the 1955 initiation by the German government of the recruitment of guest workers from the Mediterranean countries of Europe; a liberal asylum policy in the 1980s; and special provisions for the Aussiedler, or people of presumed German origin from East European countries. Western European integration and interaction with the world markets further challenged Germany's ethno-national homogeneity, contributing to the formation of new ethnic minorities. At the turn of the millennium, some 6-7 million people, or 8.5 percent of the population, were not of German background. 'Foreign' residents constitute more than 25 percent of the population in Frankfurt and Stuttgart. The Turkish enclave in Berlin is the largest urban settlement of Turks outside Turkey.

The new ethnic minorities are mostly immigrants from Turkey, Poland, former Yugoslavia, Greece, Italy and Spain; smaller groups are from Asia and Africa. However, in spite of these numbers, the legislation concerning minorities lags far behind that of other western European countries.

The UN Subcommission on Discrimination and Minorities defines a minority as "a group numerically smaller than the rest of the population of a State, one that is in a non-dominant position and whose members, while being citizens of the State, show a sense of solidarity directed toward preserving their culture, traditions or language."(Report of the International Commission of Jurists, 1984) Many inhabitants of Germany possess all these characteristics with one exception: they are not citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany.

In the years 1980-1990, 1,300,000 Poles emigrated to Germany; of these, 800,000 were classified as the Aussiedler. Between 1988-1999, 530,000 Aussiedler left Poland.

Among the few minority groups to whom German citizenship is a birth privilege are the Danes living close to the German-Danish border. This unique status is the result of a joint Bonn-Copenhagen Declaration signed in 1955. (1) The two other groups are the Frisians in Schleswik and, after the unification of Germany, the Sorbs, a Slavic enclave inhabiting areas near Bautzen and Cottbus in the former GDR. The Frisians and the Sorbs constitute the so-called autochthonous or historical minorities; they are de jure first of all Germans. The regional governments in Schleswik (for Frisians) and in Saxony and Brandenburg (for Sorbs) oversee the execution of some special rights that these minorities possess, such as education in the ethnic language, ethnic periodicals and bilingual road signs in Sorbian areas. (2)

Size and status of the Polish group in Germany

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. The Aussiedler have two passports, German and Polish. Poles who married Germans, as well as those with permanent and temporary work permits, have a status that can be renegotiated. The euphemistic German term for those who live in Germany without the rights of citizenship is ausländischer Mitbürger, or 'foreign fellow citizens.' These Mitbürger pay taxes (which support political parties, among others), but they have no right to vote. There is a group of Poles whose state is defined as Duldung, or tolerated residence: they can be told to leave at any moment. Finally, there are thousands of illegal immigrants who do not show up in German statistics. 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.

There are occasional bright points of reciprocation. In Bremen, children from Polish families have an opportunity to study Polish as the mother tongue in five elementary schools, and Polish as the first foreign language in high schools. The so-called 'Bremer Model' is an example of how to introduce Polish into the German school system. But by and large, the policy of the Länder is to avoid any financial, moral or political support for Polish initiatives. According to Janusz Marchwinski, Chairman of the Polish Council in Germany, "while the Treaty obliges Germany to support and protect the Polish group in its ethnic aspirations in the same way in which the German group is supported in Poland, in practice this is not done."(5) This German policy was confirmed in the Convention of the European Council on Minority Protection signed by 30 countries in Strassbourg on 11 May 2000. In this document, the Germans drew a particularly restrictive declaration on the German minorities.

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.

In 2000, some 6-7 million people, or 8.5 percent of the German population, were not of German background.

German citizenship is inherited, and who is a citizen is decided by ius sanguinis, or bloodright. This archaic custom allows present-day inhabitants of some regions of Poland to claim hereditary German citizenship because these regions belonged to Germany at some point in history. Not all Germans are happy about it, but the law remains. R. Tichy writes: "Though they do not have any relations with Germany, they were not born here, they do not speak German, they do not understand the mentality of this country--they are declared to be German. Their only evidence of belonging to the German nation is often the fact that their grandfather was a soldier in the Wehrmacht during World War II." (6) A journalist comments bitterly: "Every day the same sad game: in front of us sit persons from Poland awaiting the confirmation of their German origin; they behave as if they were Germans, and we are supposed to believe them." (7)

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.

For a non-Aussiedler to apply for German citizenship, it is necessary to fulfill multiple conditions. A candidate must have lived in Germany for at least 10 years; he or she must have a permit to reside and a permit to work; he or she must own an apartment, speak German well and, last but not least, must demonstrate bonding to German culture and the German way of life. It is also required that previous citizenship be relinquished: Germany does not tolerate dual citizenship. For the majority of immigrants, among them Poles, the regulation imposing total abandonment of their previous identity is not acceptable, especially because it is administratively imposed. Under present German law, however, citizenship is the only guarantee of non-discrimination. The outcome of this Catch-22 situation is predictable: it is only too easy to treat with contempt and a sense of superiority waiters and waitresses, janitors and shop assistants of foreign background.

Poles in Germany expected that the 1991 Treaty would make it possible to have dual citizenship. But paragraph 5 of the Treaty states: "This Treaty does not take into consideration the problems of citizenship or ownership." In the opinion of many Poles, this remark consolidates the discrimination of Poles in Germany. While those Polish citizens in Poland who can prove by means of ius sanguinis that they are 'of German blood' hold special passes to Germany, just in case, Poles who reside in Germany have no comparable 'dual exit.' The 1991 Treaty was extremely advantageous for Germans in Poland but it did not change the status of Poles in Germany.

Germans and history; Germans in Poland

Few Germans wish to remember that the establishment of Poland's western border along the Oder-Neisse rivers is linked with the incorporation of 46 percent of Poland's prewar territory by the Soviet Union and the decision of the three Great Powers to transfer German population from Poland to Germany, and the Polish population from Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania to post-German territories. The forced human dislocation, without precedent in modern history, compelled 4.5 million Poles to leave their eastern and rural homelands and move to the industrialized region abandoned by the forcibly expelled millions of Germans. The Germans remember the tragedy of their dislocation but conveniently forget that of the Poles. The Poles, on the other hand, had no access to information about what happened during the first years of communist terror (1945-50), when disseminating political information of that kind led directly to prison. Only in the 1990s the tragedy of the Germans began to be remembered and written about in Poland.

The 1991 Treaty was extremely advantageous for Germans in Poland but it did not change the status of Poles in Germany.

Before 1939, almost ten million people, among them 1.3 million ethnic Poles (so-called autochthons) lived in German territories east of the Oder and Neisse rivers. The expulsion of Germans from these territories (as well as from Czechoslovakia and Hungary) was implemented "in retaliation for Nazi oppression."(9) The retaliatory decision was undertaken by the Great Powers and not by the government of Poland. Poland was occupied by the Soviets at that time. Of the 3.5 million Germans remaining east of the Oder-Neisse rivers, the government of Soviet-occupied Poland transferred 2.3 million between 1946-49. About 3.6 million either fled before the retreat of the German army in 1945 or were evacuated by order of the Nazi authorities. According to the American Bureau of the Census, on 1 January 1949 there were in West Germany 6.2 million refugees from the East.

The transfers halted around 1950. The 1.3 million who were allowed to stay were dispersed to support assimilation. The majority of them could demonstrate Polish language competence or claimed Polish background, in ironic and reverse anticipation of what happened after several decades of communist rule, when the same group began to claim German background. About 65,000 ethnic Germans were also allowed to stay as needed professionals.

After 1956, when communist rule became milder, liberalized emigration procedures allowed about 275,000 persons native to the Oder-Neisse area to leave Poland for West Germany. Among them were many autochthons, almost all of whom were bilingual, speaking a Polish dialect at home and using German in official communication. As all borderland populations, the autochthons were influenced by both traditions; in conditions of post-war Soviet occupation of Poland and the ensuing destitution, their equivocal national identity suffered. The isolation and discrimination imposed on them by Poles who moved in from the East also induced many autochthons to 'choose Germanness' and emigrate when an opportunity presented itself. Others remained in Poland but gravitated toward a German identity.

In 1960, virtually all those who wished to leave did so, providing an excuse for the communist government to close down German language schools, church services and newspapers. Only in the 1970s, after West Germany officially recognized the Oder-Neisse rivers as the border of Poland (this happened on 7 December 1970), further emigration became possible. Willy Brandt's Ostpolitik allowed a number of persons who had relatives in West Germany to leave Poland. But officially, the government of Soviet-occupied Poland pretended that there were no persons of German ethnicity in Poland any longer.

The return of Polish national independence in 1989 dramatically changed the situation of Germans in Poland. The German Circles of Friendship (Niemieckie Kola Przyjazni), an informal (and illegal) entity during the waning years of communist rule, were transformed into German Social and Cultural Societies (Niemieckie Towarzystwa Socjalno- Kulturowe) with membership reaching 300,000 at the turn of the millenium. An umbrella organization, the Association of German Social and Cultural Societies in the Republic of Poland (Zwiazek Niemieckich Towarzystw Spoleczno- Kulturalnych w Rzeczpospolitej Polskiej) coordinates nationwide policies of these groups. The German youth and German farmers have their own organizations as well.

Polish sources say there are 400,000 ethnic Germans in Poland, while German sources speak of as many as one million. Over 90 percent of Germans live in Upper Silesia, in the voivodships of Opole, Katowice, and Czestochowa. The Social and Cultural Society of Germans in Silesia (Slask Opolski) is the strongest political force in the Opole region.

The government of the Third Polish Republic treats the Polish-German Treaty very seriously and supports its execution in every way. In 1992, a special office for minorities was created at the Ministry of the Interior, with branches in the Ministries of Culture and Education. The German minority in Poland has special privileges in the Parliament: the required 5 percent clause has been waived in their case in order to allow Germans to be represented in the Sejm. In effect, 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).

Polish views on the situation of Poles in Germany

Among Poles, two views on their situation in Germany are evident. A recent interview with Zbigniew Kostecki, chairperson of the Polish Congress in Germany (Rada Polska w Niemczech-Zwiazek Federalny), articulates the first view. Kostecki blames the German and Polish governments for the unhappy situation: the first for discriminating and the second, for its passivity toward discrimination. He also minimizes the fact of dispersion of Polonia in Germany and its inability to organize.(10) The other view emphasizes the indolence and apathy of the Poles themselves, their inability to cooperate and institutional weakness. This opinion is primarily voiced by the German officials.(11)

Which side is right? Here are the facts. As stated before, until the 1990s the German government largely ignored the presence of significant ethnic minorities in the country. While there were 6-7 million very visible 'foreigners' within Germany's borders, encyclopedias and history books stubbornly maintained that Germany was an ethnically homogeneous country. In contrast, the presence of minorities in Poland has usually been taken for granted. Now it appears that the percentage of minorities in Poland is smaller by a factor of two than the percentage of minorities in Germany. The ironies of history.

The lack (until 1991) of a Polish-German treaty regulating the most basic elements of mutual coexistence further exacerbated 'the Polish problem.' The fact that 'People's Poland" was in fact a Soviet-occupied country exerted a negative influence on Polish aspiration to exist as a recognized minority. The oldest and most meritorious Polish organization in Germany, Association of Poles (Zwiazek Polaków, established in 1922), did not cooperate with the Association of Poles-Consent (Zwiazek Polaków-Zgoda, established in 1950). The second organization cooperated with the government of People's Poland, whereas the first one repudiated it. In the 1980s, neither organization was prepared to embrace hundreds of thousands of Polish immigrants arriving after martial law was imposed on Poland. The old organizations failed to update their 'Cepelia image' that was not attractive to the young and well educated immigrants. A 1990 guide to Polonia in Germany listed about 300 organizations, clubs, and enterprises possessed of Polish identity. (12) Owing to political inexperience, many of these organizations competed against each other instead of uniting into a common front. When in the 1990s the German side was ready for a dialog and demanded a partner that would represent the entire Polonia, it could not find such a partner. During a meeting of various Polish groups in Boppard in June 1995, a Council was selected and charged with preparing the statute of unification that would take into account two separate proposals for unification, one submitted by the Congress of German Polonia (Kongres Polonii w Niemczech) and the other, by the forum and Association of Poles-Consent. The second meeting in Boppard in November of the same year was the largest German Polonia meeting in history. 85 organizations were present, from the trivial to the significant. The meeting was sponsored financially by the German Ministry of the Interior. On 19 November 1995, the Polish Council in Germany--A Federal Association was created. Janusz Marchwinski was elected president. The unification had beneficial results: in view of a united Polonia force, the German government began to sponsor some Polish projects, such as the festival "Ojczyzna na obczyznie" in Berlin, the Festival of Folklore Groups in Dortmund, and the Song Festival in Bonn.(13) Characteristically, the German government encourages the 'Cepelia image' activities, while Polonia seems unaware that concerts, socials and songs have few if any long-term benefits.

In addition to this umbrella organization, the Congress of German Polonia remained a viable voice that represented Polish patriotism (while the Polish Council in Germany represented European pragmatism). The Congress is presently proposing a renegotiation of the Treaty of Good Neighborliness so that the minority status of the Polish group could become part of it. The Congress considers the attitude of the Polish government to be too conciliatory. It wants to organize a school system and acquire access to the mass media. It expects financial help from both Polish and German governments, since the German minority in Poland receives help from both governments. The Polish Council stands for 'integration without assimilation' in German society. The integration is understood to be a condition for the maintenance of Polish identity. Operating within the limits of the German legal system, the Council uses it as best it can to help Poles in professional and social domains. Language competence, good jobs, social status are issues with which the Council deals. (14)

The Polish Catholic Mission in Germany (located in Würzburg) remains a stable element of the Polonia landscape. It was formed in 1976. There about 60 Polish parishes staffed by 70 Polish priests. The most active parishes are in Bremen, Dortmund, Frankfurt, Hamburg, Lübeck, Hannover, Essen and München. In Sunday schools, in addition to catechesis, children learn the Polish language and get some rudimentary information about Polish history and culture. Conclusions

Sociologists have identified three ways of dealing with ethnic heredity in conditions of being an ethnic minority: isolation, integration, and assimilation. It appears that Poles in Germany all too often chose either isolation or assimilation. The old immigration in particular tended to build 'little Polands,' continued to speak Polish almost exclusively, maintained social and other ties with Poles only. In contrast, the assimilative strategy has been adopted by the Aussiedler. They regard themselves as Germans, but German society regards them as Poles. In my opinion, this is the most tragic group. They are often young people, and their personalities were formed by a Polish environment. Their attempt to reject it produces great social and emotional tensions.

These two extremist strategies are disadvantageous for the people involved. The first invites alienation and segregation, while the second forces one to reject an important part of one's life. The intermediary way is integration; Danuta Mostwin calls it "the third value" because it allows the immigrant to accept both societies and feel comfortable in both. (15) A creative synthesis of two sets of values need not be merely a compromise. It should develop into an ability to be affirmative and also critical of both cultures. But the development of an integrated personality requires a certain balance between Polish and German elements and similar institutional access to both cultures and languages. These conditions generate a sense of loyalty to both ethnic groups. Needless to say, given a turbulent Polish-German history, such a sense could have beneficial effects on relations between both countries in the future.

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.

In spite of the problems outlined above, many recent Polish immigrants are self-confident, dynamic city dwellers who easily intermarry and join German society. For them, ethnicity is not the prime category through which they wish to characterize themselves or want to be evaluated by others. In my opinion, however, their ethnic indifference if a factor disturbing their integration. The refusal to acknowledge one's ethnicity evokes pejorative associations with the sociologic notion of a 'marginal man.' The marginal man stands on the edge of two worlds: a part of both but a partner in neither; he is a man caught between two cultures and does not feel at home in either. The marginal man is 'not here, but not there either.' A sense of personal identification with an ethnic group, or groups, is essential to the feeling of self-worth; a person who declares himself or herself to be 'a European' or 'a citizen of the world' is trying to fool himself, but he seldom succeeds in fooling others.

Thus it appears that three factors determine the degree of integration of an ethnic group into political and social life of a host country: the policy of the host state (granting the ethnic group legal rights and guaranteeing the right to maintain an ethnic identity including support for its cultural activities; active support from the country of origin; and a willingness of the immigrants themselves to organize and identify themselves as an ethnic group. With regard to Poles in Germany, neither of these factors works in a satisfactory manner. It goes without saying that in the situation where institutional support from both Germany or Poland is inadequate, it is up to the Poles themselves to make up for these deficiencies and to exert themselves more than they had done in the past. Notes

1. A. Kuhn, Pirvilegierung nationaler Minderheiten im Wahlrecht der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und Schleswig-Holstein (Frankfurt-am-Main, 1990).

2. C. Schmalz-Jacobsen, Kleines Lexikon der ethnischen Minderheiten in Deutschland (München, 1997).

3. A. Timmermann-Lavanas, Die politischen Beziehungen zwischen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und der Republik Polen von 1970 bis 1991: vom Warschauer Vertrag bis zum Freundschaftsvertrag (Saarbrücken, 1991).

4. Niezalezne Forum Kulturalne, nos. 2-3 (1994).

5. "An Interview with A. Krzeminski," Dialog, no. 1 (1996). Also Roch Kowalski, Dialog, no. 1 (1993).

6. R. Tichy, Ausländer rein! Verschiedene Herkunft, Gemeisame Zukunft (München, 1993).

7. Der Spiegel, no. 52 (1989).

8. M. Warchol-Schlottmann, "Wplyw czynników pozajezycznych na nabywanie jezyka drugiego (niemieckiego) na przykladzie polskich emigrantów w Niemczech," Przeglad Polonijny, no. 4 (1995).

9. Minorities in Central and Eastern Europe (London: Minority Rights Group, 1993); Z.A. Kruszewski, The Oder- Neisse Boundary and Poland's Modernization: The Socioeconomic and Political Impact (NY: Praeger, 1972).

10. "Niemcy, Niemcy ponad traktat," Angora, no. 48 (1998).

11. "Polskie pieklo," Wprost, no. 49 (1995); an interview with J. Marchwinski, Dialog, no. 1 (1996).

12. J. Górski and D. Tymochowicz, Informator: Polska Emigracja i Polonia w Republice Federalnej Niemiec i Berlinie Zachodnim (Warsaw, 1990).

13. Dialog, nos. 3-4 (1996).

14. K. Karwat in Dialog, no. 1 (1996).

15. D. Mostwin, Trzecia wartosc (Lublin, 1994).

16. J. Mazur, "Jezyk polski jako narzedzie komunikacji przesiedlenców z Polski do RFN," Jezyki slowianskie wobec wspólczesnych przemian w krajach Europy Srodkowej i Wschodniej (Opole, 1993); M. Warchol-Schlottmann, "Jezyk polski w Niemczech--perspektywy zachowania jezyka etnicznego u najnowszej emigracji," Przeglad Polonijny, no. 3 (1996).

17. Der Spiegel, 19 September 1994. I pasted it again since it seems nobody wants to read what was written before. --Molobo 11:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)