Talk:Anti-Russian sentiment/Archive 2

This is an archive of past discussions about Anti-Russian sentiment. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Rusophobia

I think Rusophobia is a duplicate of this article... no? --W.marsh 01:11, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I have made Rusophobia a redirect here. There were a couple of additional examples of Russophobia in the Rusophobia, but I think there were quite a number of exaples here already. abakharev 02:27, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

The article is in need of a cleanup but the neutrality challenge tag is unwarranted. It sits here for months and this is clearly not the suggested usage of the tag. Whoever, please list the POV callenges here or I will remove the tag. --Irpen 06:08, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

There was significant revert warring on this page around 8 November 2005, Molobo was the one inserting the POV tag, perhaps you could ask him/her. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|M|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 00:14, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Molobo is an unrepented troll, and no sensible editor would feed the trolls. --Ghirla | talk 11:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure about Caucasus and Chechnya being mentioned as NPOV examples of Russophobia. What do you think ? --_Lysy^talk 01:42, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Welcome to Chechnya if you want to learn. The Chechens like Poles. They don't cut their heads, as is customary in their dealings with Britons, Russians, and other foreigners. --Ghirla | talk 11:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

What I meant is I kńow there is a conflict between Chechnya and Russia, but it seems much more severe than "dislike of Russia". Do you think it's appropriate to call it Russophobia ? --_Lysy^talk 21:16, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

You are right. Of course, it is not dislike, it is hatred. And it is started way before the bombings of Grozny. And hatred is also included into the basic definition of an antinational "-phobia". mikka (t) 08:21, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes indeed especially thousands of Russians who lived through the Chechen genocide of 1990-94. I personally took part in the second Chechen campaign to liberate the Chechen rebublic from the occupationalist Maskhadov government. --Kuban kazak 02:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

What the--

What is up with that picture? I don't understand the image's relevance in any way.--1 black han d 11:45, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Which picture? mikka (t) 08:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Le Merridien hotel. --_Lysy^talk 17:45, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

If it is evidence of Russophobia, then it is also evidence of Belarusophobia, Kazakhophobia etc. (note the reference to Russia and CIS states). Maybe the Thai owner of this particular hotel was just annoyed that most hotels in former Soviet countries charge foreigners extra. I would remove the picture.Salo - sila 09:41, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Polonization and Russophobia

Can please someone explain the relevance of Polonization to this article. But please do not use the "Polonization was against Orthodox, Russians were Orthodox therefore Polonization was against Russians" kind of logics. I would apprieciate the frank explanation, not ill-formed rhetoric figures. --_Lysy^talk 21:56, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

First of all, what's wrong with this logic? Nevertheless it is not the case. "Polonization" is mentioned in a very specific context. Please read the sentence carefully: it speaks about conversion to catholicism, and Polonization is a example of such processes. Now, back to the suspected logic. Judging from your name I suspect you are a Pole, and I am surprized of your underestimation of the influence of religion on people's worldview. If ksiądz tells you that russians are heretics, what shall you think? mikka (t) 08:05, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Here's what's wrong with the above logic: "Russians fought Germany in WW2, Germans were Europeans, therefore Russia was against Europeans". What I'm concerned about is that mentioning Polonization in this context suggests that there was a policy of Polonization targeted against Russians in medieval Poland. We are not talking about 20th century Polonization policies, are we ? Medieval Catholic Church used Latin, not Polish. I believe this is simply a misunderstanding but if you insist, I would ask to support the Polonization of Russia claims to be supported with some reasonable sources. (I did not understand your remark about ksiądz telling me that Russians are heretics) --_Lysy^talk 08:26, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"what's wrong with logic": Exercise: find the difference in logical structures of "Orthodox" and "Germany" examples. My daughter does such brainteasers at school. Also, there was no Polonization of Russia. And if you don't understand what happens with parafia when their ksiądz keeps telling them that Russians are heretics, then you are thoroughly underqualified to discuss the issue. mikka (t) 10:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Good, I'm impressed with your intellectual superiority. Now, could you please either explain your theory of medieval Polonization or remove it from the article. It could help the discussion if we both appreciated that we obviously come from different cultural backgrounds and things that seem obvious to you may not be so obvious to me and vice-versa. I'm sure you're aware that showing some minimal respect towards the others would help too. Anyway, are there any sources to support this theory of the influence of early Polonization on Russophobia ? --_Lysy^talk 07:32, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue is not my superiority. I have my own problems as well. There are sources (are you really claiming that Poles just loved Muskovites, Russians, Soviets? That they longed dolaczyc sie do przyjaciół Moskali?). BTW, Polonization was not only medieval. The referred artricle is called Polonization, not Medieval Polonization; yet another example of your attempts to skew the discussion to suit your goals. Since it seems that you failed to find useful books, you may start from wikipedia article Logical fallacy. This particular case is known as "straw man" (convenient twisting of opponent's position). mikka (t) 22:21, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

You mentioned "Do przyjaciół Moskali". Did you read that poem? Maybe you should have. ("Żrąca jest i paląca mojej gorycz mowy,(...) / Niech żre i pali, nie was, lecz wasze okowy.") --Monkey Man 10:14, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Mikka, I beg you try to assume my good faith, even if you suspect me of the worst Russophobic intentions. As to whether Poles just loved Russians, obviously not. I think it's been some sort of love-and-hate relationship. An obvious but maybe useful stereotype oversimplification could be that Poles usually loved Russian people and hated Russian goverments. My concern here however is about the way that Polonization is mentioned in the article. No doubt there were different types of Polonization throughout history. We are probably best aware of (or first think of) the 20th century Polonization policies towards national minorities in Poland. The article however says "In the centuries following the East-West Schism of 1054", which suggests it does not refer to 20th century, but earlier times (of course someone could claim that 20th century is one of the centuries following 1054). Are you aware of any forced Polonization of Russians before 20th century ? --_Lysy^talk 22:41, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Article rename

Whatever the category was before, it is now renamed to Category:Anti-national sentiment, and I see several articles have already been renamed into this format. Therefore I suggest to rename this one into Anti-Russian sentiment as well, since it has overgrown the scope of my initial "Russophobia" stub. mikka (t) 00:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Russophobia is a common name therefore I see no reason for such renamings? --Kuban kazak 02:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Second Kuban kazak. It is a dictionary word (see very top of this page) and there is no need for a descriptive title if we have a specific English word. --Irpen 02:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
  - It's probably my poor command of English, but (sometimes) I find the term confusing as I tend to think of it as "fear or Russia", and not the broader sense presented here. Is the meaning of Russophobia in English and in Russian the same ? --_Lysy^talk 13:27, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
- Actually Russophobia is not common name. Anti-Russian sentiment was way before the "-phobia" term was coined. Not to say that it is a loaded political accusation, i.e., a non-neutral term. mikka (t) 02:47, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

- - The term Russophobia is an established term. a common name that exists in normal European languages such as Russian or English or French for far longer than ... let's take some inoffensive example -for longer than the entire history of written literary Finnish or Latvian?

Here is a passage referring to the events in 1836 - from (1911) Encyclopedia Britannica entry on Richard Cobden, referencing period text of "Soon after his return to England he began to prepare another work for the press, which appeared towards the end of 1836, under the title of Russia. It was mainly designed to combat a wild outbreak of Russophobia which, under the inspiration of David Urquhart, was at that time taking possession of the public mind"

The notion that anti-Russian sentiment existed (universal anti-Russian sentiment? any proof thereof? B The entry is on Russophobia, an actual word one can look up in English or French and so on and on dictionary; it is not on anti-Russian sentiment. The idea that existence of a sentiment or abstract conception invalidates human words is laughable. The concept of flight existed for millenia, it existed well before artificial word aviation was coined. Should the entry on aviation be removed even though ancestors might have dreamt flying on tree stumps ages before terms aviation or aeronautics appeared?

The cure

Amusingly, Russophobia can be easily cured [1] with almost 100% success rate. --_Lysy^talk 13:21, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, wikipedia says exactly the same: see -phobia#Phobia lists :-). mikka (t) 02:49, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Russophobia is a valid accepted terms that exists in a number of languages.

How to improve the article

The article is not as bad as Polonophobia but still has much space left for improvement. Right now it is mostly a compilation of POV demonstating examples and personal theories of individual editors. The topic is of course quite sensitive and would benefit from more stress on facts and less on opinions and judgements. The major general problems are:

The definition of Russophobia in the article is very broad, ranging from dislike of Russians or CIS, through military conflicts to ethnic cleansing; It's quite misleading, unless it's clearly stated which of these is the case in different parts of the article.
It is full of questionable examples, aimed at proving disputable theories
After reading the article it seems as its primary agenda is to convince the reader that Poles were and are Russophobes.

Your manner of dispute, combined with lack of basic skills of logic thinking becomes boring. No one is going to prove that "Poles are Russophobes". Here again is your basic defect of logical thinking. Please find some book that will explain you the difference between expressions "Poles are Russophobes" and "there has been a significant degree of Russophobia in Poland". mikka (t) 22:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The article claims there is a "broad Russophobia throughout Polish society". I'm not claiming whether this is true or not. What I'm calling for is reference to some research to suppport it. --_Lysy^talk 07:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Overall, more scholarly references, and less generalisation, personal opinions and POV pushing examples would help. --_Lysy^talk 21:54, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Examples cannot be "POV-pushing". Examples are just facts. If you don't like facts, then this is your POV, not article's. mikka (t) 22:10, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Of course selection of examples can serve POV-pushing. Here is an example from the article:

Catherine the Great was known for her words: "The Polish people hate us so deeply, that there is no other way out for us and our security, than to subordinate and to control them".

What does it tell us ? That Poles hated Russia or that Catherine the Great was Polonophobe ? Or maybe she needed some justification for partitioning a neigbour country ? --_Lysy^talk 07:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Or that there was an eternal geostrategic rivarly between Poland and Russia for the heritage of the Ancient Rus that created these eternal tensions and hatred. --Irpen 07:40, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

There's no doubt that there've been many military conflicts between Poland and Russia, but significant hatred deveopled in 19th century. As for "the heritage of the Ancient Rus" I think you are using this as an euphemism for Ukraine ? --_Lysy^talk 19:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not just Ukraine, but also Belarus and even Western Russia itself. And this was going on for centuries and continues to this day. Remember the "Russia without Ukraine is better than Russia with Ukraine" quote by Kwasniewski? --Irpen 19:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see. This sentence is a bit misleading because of the "heritage" word. I'll try to replace it with something clearer. --_Lysy^talk 19:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about ? Heritage of Ancient Rus ? What heritage does Poland posses connected to it ? Poland has no links to Ancient Rus and originated elswhere. --Molobo 11:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Translation

Who is the author of this translation to English: "Partition of Russia is fundamental for our policy in the East. Our position will depend on who will take part in that partition. Poland shouldn't stand aside in this remarkable moment of history. Our task is to prepare ourselves both morally and materially. Our principal aim is weakening and defeat of Russia" (report of the Polish General Staff, 1938, «Z dziejów stosunków polsko-radzieckich. Studia i materiały», T.III. Warszawa, 1968, S. 262, 287.). --_Lysy^talk 21:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

About Polish love to Russians

Juliusz Osterwa:

"Co my, aktorzyki spod zaboru austriackiego mogliśmy wiedzieć o Rosji? Znaliśmy Moskali z 'Kościuszki pod Racławicami', widzieliśmy ich na obrazach Matejki, Grottgera, Malczewskiego i Kossaka, dowiadywaliśmy się o nich z dziejów porozbiorowych, z dramatycznych kronik, z patriotycznych wizyj poetyckich... Uczyliśmy się, jak 'Car-Katarzyna zabijające oko trzymała nad nami...', że 'dała nam za króla... króla z trupią głową, potem kradła spod niego dziedzinę grobową... więc zemsta!'. Znaliśmy z 'Dziadów' Nowosilcowa, emisariusza szatana i znaliśmy z 'Kordiana', z 'Nocy listopadowej' W. Ks. Konstantego... Wiedzieliśmy, jakim arcypsem był Murawiew Wieszatiel. Moskale! Sępy nad bohaterskimi postaciami Kościuszki, Łukasińskiego, Traugutta! ..."

Deep ignorance demonstrated by Lysy combined with stubborn denial of extremely well-known facts and laziness to use google is disgusting. mikka (t) 22:38, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware that in every comment you posted on this talk page, you're trying to offend me one way or another ? Which do you consider my stubborn denial to "extremely well-known facts" ? --_Lysy^talk 22:47, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Those you call "disputable theories". mikka (t) 23:02, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Things are not getting "extremely well-known facts" only because you strongly believe they are. Contrary to what you claim I've not denied what I call "disputable theories", but asked for sources to support them, other than personal opinions of individuals. --_Lysy^talk 08:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Mikka, I agree with you on issues here but there is no need to be so rude. Thanks, --Irpen 22:44, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"Deep ignorance demonstrated by Lysy combined with stubborn denial of extremely well-known facts and laziness to use google is disgusting" Indeed the Polish falsehoods about Catherine known for her love for Poland and desire to protect that country and humanitarian mission by Wieszatiel who fought for protection of Polish people are troublesome...In other words ask yourself if anything there is untrue. --Molobo 22:49, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please notice that we are not discussing Russification here. I am very well aware of and wrote quite a few articles that expose it (Ems Ukaz, Knygnesiai, to name some of them). The issue in this discussion is vigorous denial of Russophobia (BTW, I don't like the term and suggested article renaming). Now, colleague, does your ironical say mean to prove that Poles loved Catherine and her moskali? mikka (t) 22:58, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

The issue in this discussion is vigorous denial of Russophobia (BTW, I don't like the term and suggested article renaming). Now, colleague, does your ironical say mean to prove that Poles loved Catherine and her moskali? Phobias are irrational fears-not lack of love. In your view Poles are Russophobes because they didn't love Catherine the Great or Wieszatiel ? Concentration camps prisoners didn't love German guards either, but I wouldn't call them germanophobes. --Molobo 23:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Please not assign me "my view". Please read my remark to "lysy" on exact the same topic. I am not saying that "Poles are Russophobes". "Moskale! Sępy nad bohaterskimi postaciami Kościuszki, Łukasińskiego, Traugutta!" A Pole writes that this is one of the first things that comes to his mind when he thinks about Russia. I call it Russophobia (translated: negative attitude to Russia or Russians), like it or not. Or you are saying it is a neutral attitude? The extensive quotation says that it was not his personal experience of Russia (BTW, for him it was rather different); he is speaking about the general cultural attitude. And of course, Ivan Groźny, Catherine and Myravyov - Wieszatiel contributed to this attitude. And you are wrong that KZ were not germanophobes. I assure you: they hated all Germans. You simply cannot imagine the degree of this hatred on the deep, animal level. I cannot speak for Poland or Russia, but in Belarus the words "Hans" and "Fritz" were strong curse words. mikka (t) 00:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As to moskali-its a neutral term. --Molobo 23:05, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, just like Polaks. mikka (t) 00:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo wrote: "Phobias are irrational fears". In medical sense, yes. But the term is most commonly used in wider sense, see Phobia#Non-clinical uses of the term. mikka (t) 01:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

A Pole writes that this is one of the first things that comes to his mind when he thinks about Russia. I call it Russophobia (translated: negative attitude to Russia or Russians), like it or not Why should he have positive reaction if he is discriminated and his country occupied ? You can't say that somebody "dislikes" fire because his home is on fire. It is simply absurd. --Molobo 01:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

No it is not absurd. People develop genuine phobias exactly after traumatic experiences. mikka (t) 01:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

And you are wrong that KZ were not germanophobes. I assure you: they hated all Germans. You simply cannot imagine the degree of this hatred on the deep, animal level. You have very biased outlook on these people-your thesis that prisoners of German concentration camps all hated Germans on animal level is easly disproven by examples of people like Wladyslaw Bartoszewski or Andrzej Szczypiorski who worked quite hard to bring reconcillation between German and Poles. --Molobo 01:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Bartoszewski and some other are exceptiojns that prove the rule: if there were not hatred to Germans, they should not have to "work hard". mikka (t) 01:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

if there were not hatred to Germans, they should not have to "work hard" But they didn't hate, and your pushing a very strong POV, I wouldn't call mistrust towards a state that is based on rational historical reasons a phobia.--Molobo 02:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Apart from the fact that this dispute above seems funny, I'd like to note that the abovementioned quote from Osterwa is extremely ironic. And if it's mocking anything, it's mocking lack of knowledge of Russia among the Galician Poles at the beginning of 20th century. In harsh translation it goes like this:

What did we, pathetic actors from the Austrian Partition, know about Russia? We knew Moskals from the Kościuszko at Racławice painting, we saw them on paintings by Jan Matejko, Artur Grottger and Kossak; we learnt of them from the post-Partition books, dramatic chronicles and patriotic yet poetic visions... We learnt how >>Tsar-Catherine had her killing eye on us<< and that she'd >>given us a king with a dead head and then stole his domain... so revenge!<<. We knew from the Dziady the emissary of the Satan, Novosiltsov, and we knew Archduke Konstantin from Kordian and Noc listopadowa... We knew what an arch-dog was the Hanger, Muraviov. Moskals! But vultures over the heroic Kościuszko, Łukasiński and Traugutt!

What did Mikka want to prove by posting the quote here? Halibu tt 03:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I am proving exactly what you said: "mocking lack of knowledge of Russia". This "lack of knowledge" replaced by hatred and prejudice (aggravated by real grievances), a typical medicine case of xenophobia. Irony, my dear friend, is based on something really real:"we kew that...". Ask yourself: how did they "know"? mikka (t) 04:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

To anyone knowing Polish and its nuances well it is clear that the text by Osterwa is an emotional polemic employing heavy irony and exaggeration. As such, it must be treated with caution, especially by people whose's first language is not Polish and who might not understand the subtext of the article. Please user:mikkalai, if Russophobia in Poland was so widespread and well known, it should be easy to find plenty of scholarly sources which document it, without referring to unscholarly quotes from a Polish theatre critic, in this case poorly understood and taken out of context. Balcer 02:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

BTW, as to the term Moskal. In 19th century and early 20th century it still was more or less neutral (apart from the fact that anything Russia-related smelled like Russification, massacre of Praga and Muraviov). It simply denoted a person of Russian nationality, as opposed to the term Rossyanie, used to denote Russians by citizenship. It was not until the Polish-Bolshevik War that the term came out of use as a common name for the nation and was replaced by Rosjanie. It's pretty clear in Mickiewicz's poem Do przyjaciół Moskali from the Dziady. The exact translation would be To my fellow friends the Russians. Otherwise calling someone a friend and then offending him in the very same line wouldn't have much sense, would it. Halibu tt 04:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Aren't we the one who was sooo offended by the word "Polak"? This, and the happy defencence of Polonophobia article while bashing the Russophobia article, reminds me a good old Russian joke.

Sidyat dva lobotryasa, skuchayut. "Slysh', Ivan, delat' nechego skukotishcha!" - "A von dva obloma navstrechu idut. CHto-to oni mne ne nravyatsya. Davaj dadim im v lob!" - "Nu-u, a esli oni nam navalyayut?" - "A nam-to za chto?"

(I cannot render it in English in a funny way, but the plot is like that. Two hooligans sit bored. "hey, Ivan, it is nothing to do; I am so bored" - "OK then, see the two approaching? I don't like them. Lets kick their asses" - "Uh, what if they will kick our asses?" - "Why would they want to?")

mikka (t) 04:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Mikka, I have no idea what is the purpose of your campaign. Yes, the comment was ironic, yet your own interpretation of a single description of the state of knowledge of Austro-Hungarian actors at the beginning of 20th century seems not enough to draw such a conclusion. As a matter of fact the fear of Russia (as a state, not as a nation or culture, for which there is a lot of love and fascination in Poland even now) did not start in 20th century and the knowledge of Russia was not limited to the actors of Vienna, Lwów or Kraków. There were also several millions of Poles who spent their entire lives in Russian Empire and I doubt their knowledge of the state was as stereotypical as the guy mocks. As to other issues: indeed, I was and I am offended by calling Poles Polacks, as the term is clearly offensive. Which does not mean that I did not accept Ghirlandajo's explanation that he spoke 16th century English rather than modern English and that his comments should be treated as such. Note that calling a Russian "Russian" (Moskal in 19th century context) is quite not the same as calling a Pole "Polack" (in modern context). Also, I'm not bashing the article, I might be pointing at its NPOV or lack of accuracy, but I try to be more specific and not generalize too much. Perhaps such a tactics would do you good as well... Halibu tt 08:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Will you excuse me... I was extremely specific with my example. And there were "several millions of Poles who spent their entire lives outside Russian Empire and I I am sure their knowledge of the state was as stereotypical as the guy mocks". That you don't like it and therefore you are trying to turn table speaks not very good of you. "Single description" is an example, to demonstrate the stereotype. Do you really want a thousand examples in an encyclopedia article? And I am not "drawing a conclusion", I am presenting a fact of prejudice, published by a notable person. mikka (t) 16:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If you really want to trace the roots of Russophobia you might try to search for some more rational sources. This article (or rather part of the article) might be a good starter. Lots of good jokes there, BTW. The one about Stalin and Roosevelt is particularily funny.Halibu tt 22:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Sources

All right, I've looked for some research, and found this: Marcin Jóźko, "Stereoptypy narodowe Polaków i Ukraińców" in "Antysemityzm w Polsce i na Ukrainie. Raport z badan.", Warsaw 2004. The article presents the results of several sociologic researches. One of them is relevant to our topic, since it refers to the "stereotype profile of a Russian" in Poland. The research survey of 1992 gives this simple picture:

positive view of Russians: 23.1%,
negative: 26.2%,
neutral: 22.2%.

Contrary to the "well known facts" you claimed, this presents an overall fairly neutral picture. Here are the basic traits of a Russian in the Polish stereotype, according to another research:

alcoholics - 24.9%
friendly, sincere people - 23.7%
not friendly, not sincere - 15.4%
good workers - 13.9%
joyous, optimistic - 10.5%
bad workers, lazy - 9.9%

Again, this gives a fairly balanced view, and you can see that "friendly" dominates over "unfriedly" and "good workers" dominates over "bad workers". What is disturbing however is that according to the same research of 2002, young Poles have less sympathy towards Russians than the older ones: over 50% (or 60%) have positive attitude towards Russians among people older than 24, but only 41% among those of 24 or younger. The sympathy towards Russians grows naturally with the level of education (56.5% for basic education, and 66.4% for higher education). --_Lysy^talk 08:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

My two groszes to the above list:

2001 CBOS survey on Polish external policies: Is partnership and friendship with Russia possible? 69% yes, 29% no.
1999 CBOS survey on national minorities in Poland: What is your opinion of Poles of Russian nationality? 24% positive, 45% neutral, 26% negative
Unfortunately the most recent survey by OBOP (2005; by the way, its title is O Rosji i braciach Moskalach) is unavailable to me as all surveys from 2004 and 2005 are not free of charge.

Halibu tt 10:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

As to Poland-Russia state relations: http://www.cbos.pl/SPISKOM.POL/2005/K_202_05.PDF 51 % believe they are bad, 41% neither bad or good, 3 % good.

67 % believe they can become good and based on partnership.22 % don't believe so. --Molobo 12:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

You all still persisit in basic logical blunder. I again stronlgy suggest you to review logical fallacy article, and straw man in particular. I am not trying to prove that all Poles are Russophobes. Yor survey clearly shows that 1/4 of poles have a good chance to be Russophobic. Also, the survey speaks of today. I am wondering what were the results during the times of Muravyov and Panslavism.

This dispute becomes sickening, and I am recusing from it. I thought it was only Lysy among you who lacks basic thinking capabilities, now I see that talking to all of you is waste of my time. mikka (t) 16:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

"I am wondering what were the results during the times of Muravyov and Panslavism." A man bitten from a snake seeking a cure for poison doesn't suffer from phobia. A man fighting for his surivival doesn't suffer from phobia. A nation fighting against being destroyed doesn't suffer from phobia. --Molobo 19:07, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

some more quotes for those who turn blind eye on history

12 / 2003

Янина Куманецкая

ПОЛЯКИ И РУССКИЕ: ТРУДНОЕ СОСЕДСТВО

«Между неприятием и восхищением» — так называется открывшаяся в Национальной библиотеке выставка, на которой представлена история польско-российских культурных контактов, рассматриваемых в перспективе непростой истории двух народов

В XVIII веке военное и политическое превосходство было на стороне России, однако тип взаимоотношений двух стран еще не определился окончательно. Только в конце века в результате разделов Польши большая часть земель прежней Речи Посполитой отошла к Российской империи. Политическая ситуация была недвусмысленна. Именно тогда в Польше зародились те антирусские настроения, которые в дальнейшем не раз получали новую пищу, а многие сохранились и по сей день

"grattes un Russe et vous trouvers un barbare"

Mikolaj Rej: (rough translation) "People of Sween and Denmark are uneducated and foul, in their nbarbarianism comparable to Muscovites" (here Muscovites are not simply barbarians; even better: they are the measuring stick for barbarianism)

Jerzy Faryno, Polacy w oczach Rosjan. Rosjane w oczach Polaków. Zbior studiow. Warszawa, IS PAN, 2000

Wojciech Gilewski. "Rosja Mikołaja I w oczach pamiętnikarzy polskich":

"Kolejnym czynnikiem, który obok historii obu państw wpływał na kształtowanie się wizerunku Rosjan, były i może nadal są różnice religijne...Katolicy uważali, że prawosławie jest schizmą, a przez to wyznaniem z gruntu fałszywym. Pochodną takiego stanowiska było dążenie do zatarcia granic dzielących obie religie....Zatem Rosjanie, jako niechrześcijanie, schizmatycy, nie zasługiwali na godne traktowanie, na zrozumienie swojej odmienności - można było ich bezkarnie poniżać i z nimi walczyć. Właśnie na bazie takich rozbieżności kształtował się przez wieki stosunek Polaków do Rosjan - często ze względu na religię, powszechnie uważaną za gorszą, także wschodnich sąsiadów uważano za gorszych"

Rosjanie jako naród w relacjach pamiętnikarskich

Rosjanie jako naród nie mieli u naszych pamiętnikarzy pozytywnej prasy

"Polacy i Rosjanie. 100 kluczowych pojęć" ISBN 83-88032-45-3 Warszawa 2002, s. 350

Praca zbiorowa pod red. Agnieszki Magdziak-Miszewskiej, Moniki Zuchniak, Pawła Kowala

"Ta książka powstała z potrzeby przełamania stereotypów i uprzedzeń polsko-rosyjskich."

Kilkadziesiąt esejów zostało napisanych specjalnie do tej książki przez wybitnych polskich i rosyjskich intelektualistów zdających sobie sprawę, że ciągłe patrzenie na siebie przez pryzmat utartych schematów jest nie tylko anachroniczne, ale również szkodliwe. Szkodliwe dla Polaków, którzy ze swoją odwieczną podejrzliwością wobec Rosji budzą zdumienie w Europie, jak i dla Rosjan, którzy - także podejrzliwi - mogą popełnić błąd w ocenie miejsca i roli współczesnej Polski.

Enough? Or more hundreds of primary and secondary sources? mikka (t) 17:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

More "quotes" I brought earlier to a different talk page.

Aby nie mącić jasnego widzenia rocznice wyzwolenia kolejnych polskich miejscowości przez armię radziecką przemianowaliśmy na rocznicę zniewolenia. A monument marszałka Iwana Koniewa, który ocalił Kraków od zniszczenia, wyekspediowaliśmy do Rosji. [2]
"Dla Polaków w zasadzie każda rocznica jest dobra, by dokopać Rosjanom" (ibid)
"Zostałem wychowany w duchu skrajnej nienawiści do Rosji takiej czy owakiej" [3]

I can tranlsate, if necessary. --Irpen 18:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Very good, but you're still missing the point. Where do you have your Polonization of Russia in all this ? --_Lysy^talk 19:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ah from the main communist propaganda tube paper. --Molobo 19:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

The heritage of the ancient Kievan Rus

Could someone explain the meaning of this phrase in the article: "the history of the long Russo-Polish rivalry for the heritage of the ancient Kievan Rus which ended unsuccessfully for Poland". What is "the heritage of the ancient Kievan Rus" supposed to refer to ? --_Lysy^talk 19:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Indeed puzzling. Poland has little to do with affairs of East Slavs. --Molobo 19:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Pathetic try... So Henryk Senkiewicz's 'With Sword and Fire' is entirely based on fantasies? And king Jaggielo who driven his army to support Mongols in Kulikovskaya battle against Russians has nothing to do with the affais of East Slavs. You ignorance is more puzzling, indeed.Vlad fedorov 06:46, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

See my response to the previous post by Lysy above. --Irpen 19:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Irpen honestly -what are you writing about ? Ancient Rus as heritage of Poland ? This is a very bizarre idea. What has Poland to do with it ? Please explain-this is getting weird. --Molobo 19:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Ukraine and Belarus are from Kievan Rus. These lands were area of polish-russian wars. Of course, the phrase "ended unsuccessfully for Poland" is silly. It also "ended unsuccessfully for Russia" as well: both ukr and bel are independent states last time I've read newspapers. mikka (t) 20:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC) Of course, the phrase "ended unsuccessfully for Poland" is silly. It also "ended unsuccessfully for Russia" as well: both ukr and bel are independent states last time I've read newspapers. That's again strange-since Poland welcomes independent and strong Ukraine.Belarus of course is a dictatorship controlled by Russia and dangerous to its neighbours. --Molobo 20:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Belarus dangerous? ROTFLMAO! mikka (t) 21:26, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes there is nothing dangerous in dictatorship murdering its own people, or persecuting ethnic minorites. --Molobo 21:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Molobo: "Poland wants an independent and strong Ukraine".

The historic experience have shown what Poland really wants. It wants the territory of Ukraine to be Poland, or at least as much of Ukraine as possible. For a starter's review, I can recommend you several articles from 300+ years ago history (PLC, History of UA) and the 20th century history (articles devoted to modern Polish expansionism are Miedzymorze, Kiev Offensive, Polish-Ukrainian War, the latter needs work, to name just a few). The second best thing Poland wants for Ukraine is simply not to be Russia. And for Ukraine not to be Russia being just next to it indeed requires Ukraine to be strong. That's why Poland wants now Ukraine "strong". So, don't bring any selfless motives here for Polish desire in helping Ukraine to get out of the Russian control. Poland is taught by its own history to have every reason to be afraid of strong Russia. There is no stronger blow to Russia (geostrategically) than to make it, as you president said "without Ukraine". That what Poland supports. It has nothing to do with what's really best for Ukraine (which is to choose for itself what it wants rather than being told from the west for 300 years and from the east for another 300 years). --Irpen 02:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Poland wants Ukraine's territory? Even the most extreme lunatic fringe of Polish nationalists do not advocate that. As for it being in Poland's self-interest to promote a strong, independent Ukraine, what the hell is wrong with that? In any venture, I would much prefer to have a partner who has a strong self-interest in assisting me than one who is doing it for "selfless motives", whatever that might mean. Common interests are the surest foundation of good relations between friendly states. Balcer 03:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, I am not saying that Poland wants Ukrainian therritirry now. I am saying the geo-strategy exists in a longer than "now" realm. Poland and Russia are historic geostrategic rivals for whatever is between Moscow and Warsaw. And even not having any offensive plans at present, Poland knows where the greatest danger to itself is coming from, it is Russia. I don't blame Poles for thinking that because it is true as has been true for centuries. Poland is interested in weaker Russia. In that, it's interests coinside with those of US and that's why "New Europe" is a much stauncher ally of the US than the "Old Europe" which for one has reasons to oppose the US world-wide domination and (for two) is less threatened by a strong Russia (if at all). Sorry for going off topic, but this returns us to the main issue. Poland has every reason to beleive that weakening Russia is in its interest and this is simply an objective fact. This issue is impossible to view separately from the century old relationship defined by the geography and natural interests of competing powers in Eastern Europe. --Irpen 03:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I must say I am flattered that you think Poland could actually aspire to be Russia's rival for controlling all the territory between Warsaw and Moscow. For me even one look at the relative potential of the two countries shows that the idea is ridiculous. Besides, who in Poland would ever really be interested in acquiring more territory? Today, the poorest and most socially problematic part of Poland is the so called Eastern Wall or Poland B, the portion of the country east of the river Vistula. It is infamous for containing the poorest regions of the whole European Union. Now do you really believe that Poles would be interested in acquiring additional thousands of square kilometers of similarly poor and problematic territory? Do you honestly believe Polish nationalists dream at night of acquiring millions of hectares of Russian forests and swamps? Why on Earth would they want that? We no longer live in an age in which having a large territory is so important to economic well being. Look at Singapore, South Korea, Taiwan and Hong Kong. Today Poland is mainly interested in achieving ever closer integration with Western Europe and slowly matching its living standards.

As for Poland being afraid of a strong Russia, in my view Poland is not afraid of a strong Russia in all circumstances. It is mainly afraid of a strong Russia run by a nondemocratic, nationalistic government, obsessed with restoring Russia's imperial status as the dominant power in Eastern and Central Europe. Everybody in Poland understands that a truly weak Russia, unable to police its own borders and open to be taken over by its larger neighbours, would be a real problem for Poland and all of Europe. Balcer 04:14, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, you misunderstood me. I am not saying that Poland is aspiring now to rival with Russia. I am saying that this is the old rivarly that now is out of the immediate picture, but history have shown repeatedly that two countries are destined to compete for what's betweem them. It is a historic fact. As for Poland is not being afraid of one stronger Russia and is afraid of another, this is a naive view IMO. All countries feel their geostrategic aspirations. These aspirations are in the very instincst of their political elites and the state apparatus. And all this nondemocratic/democratic bla-bla-bla is secondary to that. In my opinion, you very much underestimate the importance of geopololitcs. At least so I judge from your entries. Please don't take it as an offence. --Irpen 04:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC) Oh, forgot to say, I do agree with you that democracy is good and nationalism is bad. This, however, is also secondary to the world realities. --Irpen 04:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I must say my view of history differs radically. In my opinion we are not doomed to repeat behavior from the past. Consider France and Britain, countries which fought with each other for hundreds of years, from the Hundred Years War to the Napoleonic Wars, yet which managed to be at peace for the last 200 years. I am sure one could find dozens of other examples to disprove your thesis.

On the other hand, very distant future is very difficult to predict, in this age of rapid technological advance. Will Poland's cyborg soldiers finally conquer Moscow in the 24th century, thus finally achieving its geostrategic aspirations? Your guess is as good as mine. Maybe the final battle between Poland and Russia will take place in Valles Marineris on Mars. Or maybe the conflict will be settled on Alpha Centauri. Heck, maybe Polish physicists will invent a time machine, go back to 1612 with a few hundred Kalashinikovs, and really make sure Wladyslaw really becomes a true Tsar of Russia. In the distant future, anything can happen. :)

I am just kidding, of course, in order to illustrate the point that the distant future is likely to be quite complex and unexpected, and I hope in it Poles and Russians can find some more interesting things to do than fight each other. Think how boring that would be. Balcer 05:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure your sentence about cyborg soldiers or the time machine will be sooner or later quoted as an example of Polish Russophobia ;-) --_Lysy^talk 05:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

If we are really talking about science fiction, I suggest this satirical website for a good laugh. [4]. Their map of future Poland is especially funny [5] Balcer 05:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, I understand that his was good natured humor on your part but perhaps you indeed underestimate the importance of geopolitcal trends and being democratic or not means much less. Look at the US. Far from ideal, it is rather democratic and still ask any country in Latin America whether they have reasons to fear the US and you will hear a resounding yes. And not that the US are particularly bad natured. Any strong power has a huge pressure from inside towards expansionism. The idea that Poland may one day challange Russia again may seem ridiculuos now, nut no more than it was in 19th century when Poland was partitioned. Yet, in the 20th century Pilsudski succesfully challenged Russia in wrestling control on much of Ukraine and even being pushed back managed to get a hold of a significant part of it. Before and after that Russia partitioned Poland. And before even that the Poles were in Kremlin. The reality is that whenever Russia is strong, Poland suffers and whenever Russia is weak, Poland is first to take advantage of it. This was not set recently and technology affects the global trends much less than it seams to most people. Russia and Poland fought each other in Eastern Europe for many centuries. This is the hard fact. The reason of this is a long term one. I hope there will be no wars between France and Britain. But I cannot be sure that the current peaceful trend is an eternal one. The most sure way to err in the long-term prediction is to simply extrapolate the current trends. Such extrapolation, from the 19th century point of time, would have never predicted that Poland would even exist, let alone challenge Russia. --Irpen 06:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

This attempt by you to paint the conflict between Russia and Poland as a conflict between equals rather disturbs me. Sure the Poles got to the Kremlin once, in 1610. It appears even 400 years later some Russians are unable to get over this trauma. But how many times since then has a Russian army approached Warsaw? The fact is that since about 1717 until 1989 Poland (or at least key parts of it) has been under almost continuous Russian geopolitical control one way or another (except of course for 1918-1939 and a few other short periods). So for roughly 250 of the last 290 years Russia has in one way or another controlled Poland. In return, Poland managed to challenge Russia successfully only once, in 1919-1921, and even then this was due to the collapse of the Russian state which was certainly not Poland's doing. Even then Poles certainly had no intention to advance on Moscow or to impose any regime on Russia. In fact they could have helped the White armies to overthrow the Communist regime in Russia but consciously chose not to.

Needeless to say then, I see the situation as strongly asymmetric. The fact is that for most of the last 300 years it was Russia that has been almost uniformly dominant, with the Poles unable to threaten it in any serious way, except in the one case when the Russian state collapsed completely first. Now, trying to even out this basic historical reality by making predictions of supposedly "inevitable" future agressive behavior by Poland is, to say the least, difficult to justify. Balcer 06:36, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

True, Poles had no intention to advance to Moscow and the reason is that Pilsudski had little desire to help the White Movement for good reasons (for Poland). I have no trauma over the fact the Poles were in Kremlin and even most Russians (I am not) don't think of it that much. I am not evening anything out. Right now, taking over Russia is not in any realistic Polish picture, but weakening of it is. Don't you agree? And this is exactly due to a fact, as you have correctly pointed out, that for 300 years Poland "has been under almost continuous Russian geopolitical control one way or another". This is unpleasant to be under someone's control and Poland's desire to see Russia weak is un understandable one. --Irpen 06:50, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I can agree that, given their perception of history, some Poles might wish that Russia be weaker so that it could not threaten Poland. Some politicians might even imply this from time to time in unfortunate statements, which they often later retract. However, actually pursuing such a policy involving concrete acts towards accomplishing that end would surely not be in Poland's interest, as it would antagonize Russia. Therefore, I think it rather unlikely that any rational Polish government would pursue a serious policy like that. To my thinking, one thing the Poles have learned from history is that antagonizing Russia is something that should be avoided.

Now of course you might counter this by mentioning recent events in Ukraine. Well, first of all, Ukraine is not Russia, it is an independent country, so supporting its continued independence is not a weakening of Russia by any reasonable definition. Supporting fair elections and a peaceful resolution of a political crisis, especially in a neighbouring country, are surely laudable goals. Of course Poland had an interest in the success of Ukraine's Orange Revolution, but from what I read it would be difficult to claim that Poland played any kind of a decisive role in its outcome. Anyway, a much greater interest for Poland was avoiding destabilization and civil war in Ukraine, and objective which was in fact achieved. Overall, Poland's participation in those events did not greatly antagonize Russia, as can be seen by the fact that the relations between the two countries did not worsen in any significant way because of it. I hope every reasonable person in Russia understands that Poland's role in those events was largely peripheral.

We must also remember that Poland's good relations with Ukraine should not be seen only as a tool against Russia. Unfortunately, Poland has a long history of conflicts with Ukraine and Ukrainians as well. Surely it is in its interest that it maintains peaceful and constructive relations with Ukraine, to avoid any rekindling of historical conflicts. One way to ensure this is to make sure Poland is always seen as a keen supporter of Ukraine's independence. Balcer 08:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Balcer, I was talking about weakening and not about actions aimed at simply antagonizing Russia. Such were the disgusting malevolence in Polish press during the Beslan school hostage crisis or poorly concealed intrigues aimed at derailing the North European Gas Pipeline. This is antagonizing and I agree that it is indeed silly. I am not talking about antagonizing here and I don't beleive this is what rational Polish government would do. I am talking about weakening and this is what any rational government in Poland would do. That it has to do it indirectly, is due to Polish limited political clout (for now).

As for the weakening, no other blow can weaken Russia more than it's "loosing" Ukraine. Now, put aside the moralistic issue that Ukraine is an independent country and Poland was just doing the right thing. If Poland was conserned about the common good, it could have helped the victims of Darfur conflict whose suffering from the genocide and famine is much more miserable than the suffering of Ukrainians due to the election almost stolen by a pro-Russian party. Poland had every reason of its own to help Ukrainians and it did all it could. True, it could not do much. The Orange Revolution is 99% a purely Ukrainian event, made by Ukrainians themselves and even most of the money on both sides were Ukrainian no matter how much is said about the Russian and US involvement. I do beleive that the O.R. may be good for Ukraine but in no way it is good for Russia and again, please no moralizing in geopolitcal issues. Getting Ukraine for itself is out of any realistic picture for Poland now and I beleive you that even the fringe nationalists there don't advocate it. Hoping that Russia won't recover and doing its small part to prevent a recovery, is a different matter. The famous "Russia without Ukraine is better than Russia with Ukraine" quote that slipped from Kwasniewski's mouth is telling of what he really was thinking. Nothing in this phrase mentions what's better for Ukraine itself. --Irpen 09:05, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

The famous "Russia without Ukraine is better than Russia with Ukraine" quote that slipped from Kwasniewski's mouth is telling of what he really was thinking Well nobody here denied that Imperial nationalistic and expansionistic Russia that tries to conquer neighbouring countries isn't seen as desired in Poland. The desire for independent Ukraine is repeated over and over in countless government documents and statements by politicians: For example 30 March 2004: "nie ma niepodległej Polski bez niepodległej Ukrainy i nie ma niepodległej Ukrainy bez niepodległej Polski"."To jest najświętsza prawda. To obowiązek, aby to dzieło trwało i owocowało" - powiedział Aleksander Kwaśniewski." There is no independent Poland without independent Ukraine and there is no independent Ukraine without independent Poland. This is the holiest truth. Its a duty that is work endured and gave fruit-said Aleksander Kwasniewski. http://msz.gov.pl/file_libraries/44/5809/SERW29.doc?PHPSESSID=f1c7fe264d42ea827ecece0e79954efb Istnienie silnej niepodległej Ukrainy jest dla Polski równie ważne co przynależność do NATO-Jan Nowak Jeziorański. Existance of strong independent Ukraine is for Poland equally important as being in NATO-Jan Nowak Jeziorański.

"I do beleive that the O.R. may be good for Ukraine but in no way it is good for Russia and again" I'm saddened by your attitude, do you wish that Russia pursues an imperialistic policy that ruined it in the past instead of developing itself ? But that of course is OT.

I'm afraid the belief that Poland wants to posses territories in the East speak rather more about the unfortunate conditions of perception of world politics and history by some people from former Soviet Union countries, rather then about Polish political goals. --Molobo 09:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Golden rule: don't feed the trolls and russophobes. --Ghirla | talk 09:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Or, maybe, the Polish society supported Ukraine so strongly during the Orange Revolution not because we hate Russians but because we like Ukrainians? Many Poles have been to Ukraine as well Ukrainians in Poland and quite a few people in Poland, including myself maintain contact with Ukrainian friends. On the other hand hardly any one in Poland has ever been to Sudan or knows any Sudanees.

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. By the same logic would you argue, of course considering the scale, that the sentiment Poles hold towards Armenians is caused by hatered towards Turks or support for the Irish is caussed by Anglophobia?

Catherine the Great was known for her words

Was Catherine the Great really known for these words ? Or was she known to say the words ? --_Lysy^talk 20:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Filnand

From http://www.alli.fi/nuorisotutkimus/julkaisut/virtanen/1/2.html

Karemaa (1998) describes the emergence of anti-Russian sentiments and prejudices as a common feature in European society, dating back to the 16th century. In Finland, she claims, early sentiments towards Russians were directed against the Russian administration and its representatives, not against the Russian people in general. However, among the activist movement, the actual hatred of Russians was the rule rather than the exception. In everyday life, Russians were chosen for the role of rival, scapegoat, and enemy. This hatred was by no means directed solely against Russians, but also against native-born friends and mates of Russians; victims of harassment may have included Finnish women who were known to consort with Russian solders.

Karemaa, O. (1998) Vihollisia, vainoojia ja syöpäläisiä. Venäläisviha Suomessa 1917-1923. Bibliotheca Historica 30. Suomen Historiallinen Seura. Helsinki.

In 1918, stronger manifestations of anti-Russian sentiments followed with the return of the German-trained Jaeger corps to Finland. Alongside the activists, the Jaeger troops were the fiercest preachers of deliberate anti-Russian propaganda. The branding of Russians as scapegoats for every and any form of evil that needed explanation served at the same time as a rallying point round the White battle flag. In the 20s, the ideology of hatred against Russians finally spread widely among the masses of the Finnish population, regardless of age. The motives for younger people to incite ethnic hatred was manifested in the new Finnish Army - in the hope of finding a good status in society. By the 1920s, the Finns had become quite inclined to adopt the idea of 'Russky hating', specifically the seeds for racist thinking, and ancient Western stereotypes connected with Russians. However, it was the domestic scene - the independence struggle - that was needed to instigate the generation of a genuine racist hatred. Russians had become, in the Finnish view, foes forever, fiends eternal, and filthy vermin.

Orthodox church

Russians constructed Orthodox churches in centres of many cities in Poland 1815-1914, not only to prise the Lord, but to show who rules. Your description of the RC pressure is biased, you don't mention the other side. Xx236 11:52, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Which parts of Poland? Yes we did built Orthodox Churches including the shamelessly destroyed cathedral of Alexander Nevsky in Warsaw. However they were not built to show who rules who, but to represent the Russian minority. Hey there are Polish cathedrals in Moscow like this one built in the same time period, and recentely restored. Who is the one that now has to show the opposite gesture of tolerance and agreement? --Kuban Cossack 13:21, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Eventhough the last census showed that there are barely any Orthodox people in Warsaw, we do have three Orthodox churches and a monastery here. As to the destruction of Nevski's cathedral in Warsaw, it was indeed a shame that it was destroyed as it was indeed a precious piece of architecture. However, after the Russian retreat of 1915 there were barely any Russians left in Poland and at the same time the church was indeed seen as a sign of Russian domination and a monument to times of forcible Russification of Poland and the times when people here had to name catholic churches after the ruling tsar in order to make their construction possible at all (as was the case of St. Alexander's church, for instance). The destruction of a single Orthodox church occupying one of the central points of Warsaw and dominating its landscape (it was the tallest structure in the city back then) was not aimed against Orthodox people of Warsaw (who were left with, if memory serves me right, some 10 churches altogether - not bad for a community of less than 10,000 people) but against Polish traumas and Russian 19th century imperialism. Halibu tt 13:09, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

So what happened to the other seven? --Kuban Cossack 18:30, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok, and the Cracovians dismantled the monument to Marhsal Konev (who saved their city from sharing the fate of Warsaw, Konigsberg, and Dresden in WWII) and sent it back to Russia not out of Russophobia but to show their gratitude to Russian liberators? What a hypocrisy! --Ghirla | ^-трёп- 13:48, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Konev was a Soviet marshal, he not only liberated Cracov, but also brought with him NKVD units to kill and imprison Polish people. Xx236 15:10, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

but to show their gratitude to Russian liberators? The ones who brough Stalinism with them-executions, deportations, poverty, mass murder of Home Army soldiers etc ? --Molobo 17:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I see that you prefer to have seen your country un-"liberated" and left to the mercy of the Nazis, until there would have been not a single Pole left alive. Well, it's your own choice, not mine. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 17:59, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I see that you prefer to have seen your country un-"liberated" and left to the mercy of the Nazis, untilUntill the Western Allies would liberate Poland of course. Anyway your stance is like demanding from a woman that she should be gratefull that she was rescued from being murdered and instead was beaten and robbed(I will spare you a more frequent comparision of the situation used among Poles). That's absurd. --Molobo 18:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If you think that the Western Allies with their negligible armies could have done anything against the Nazis without the USSR, well, I feel for you. Honestly, you are so amusing. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:22, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

If you think that the Western Allies with their negligible armies could have done anything against the Nazis without the USSR Well Americans feed, armed and supplied the Soviets while at the same time fighting on their own and expanding their armies. So I can't see why not. --Molobo 18:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

I prefer to resort to WP:DFTT here. They fought in Sahara, Birma, Antarctica and other improbable place which the Germans didn't really care about, while the Soviets broke the bones of the Wehrmacht with their own courage and blood. And please stop spreading around CIA-sponsored Cold War legends about "feeding" and supply. The Land Lease was negligible, providing less then 5% of the input of the Soviet war industry. I will not respond to your trolling any more. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 18:43, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

From Lend Lease

For example, the USSR was highly dependent on trains, yet the desperate need to produce weapons meant that fewer than 20 new locomotives were produced in the USSR during the entire war. In this context, the supply of 1,981 US locomotives can be better understood. Likewise, the Soviet air force was almost completely dependent on US supplies of very high octane aviation fuel. Although most Red Army tank units were equipped with Soviet-built tanks, their logistical support was provided by hundreds of thousands of high-quality US-made trucks. Indeed by 1944 nearly half the truck strength of the Red Army was US-built. Trucks such as the Dodge 3/4 ton and Studebaker 2.5 ton, were easily the best trucks available in their class on either side on the Eastern Front. US supplies of waterproof telephone cable, aluminium, and canned rations were also critical. Xx236 09:23, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

What? Soviet Airforce being entirely dependent on US supplies? Most mass produced aircraft in the war: Il-2 Sturmovik and the Yak series.--Kuban Cossack 13:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I have written that Konyev was a Soviet Marshal. If you like to start Sovietophobia of Poles artickle - be my guest, but do not pretend, that Konyev was a Russian Marshal. You seem also to ignore that the SU divided Poland in 1939 together with Nazi Germany. The SU eventually partially solved the problem it created. Xx236 14:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

He was from a village Lodeino in the Vologda Oblast that my freind is in Russian Federation. --Kuban Cossack 13:31, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

And Chamberlain actually condemned the annexation of lands recoginesed by the proposed Curzon Line. --Kuban Cossack 14:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

The facts of genocide of Russian population have been carefully avoided

According to the Russian authorities the death of 23 000 isn't a genocide. Who murdered more than 23 000 Russians? 156.17.5.73 12:32, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Which genocide? The 1990-1994 in Chechnya, then its about 250,000 that was the officialy how much the population of Russian decreased in Chechnya and Ingushetia, from 300000 in 1989 to 50000 in 2002. Data collected from census.--Kuban Cossack 18:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Census Year	Russian	Chechen	Ingush
1939	201010	368446	83798
1959	348343	243974	48273
1970	366959	508898	113675
1979	336044	611405	134744
1989	293771	734501	163762
2002	5559 + 40645	95403 + 1031647	361057 + 2914

2002 is given for Ingusheita and Chechnia respectively

But the number of Chechens and Ingush increased from 0.9 million in 1989 to almost 1.5 million in 2002 ! --_Lysy^talk 22:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Exactly which even more states the obvious that despite war, these people have been breading happily whilst the Russians were being driven out and massacred.--Kuban Cossack 23:11, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right... The ethnic cleansing of Russians living there must've started in 1970's, as the population of Russians dropped by almost 100,000 between 1970 and 1989... Halibu tt 14:28, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

The population decrease during a span of 19 years (with a drop of 20%) compared to a span of 13 (drop of 70%). Most of the Caucasus-Russians during those years were actually encouraged to leave and settle in the Baltic.(Look in Latvian/Estonian/Lithuanian statistics - or follow census figures and you will not that the Baltic-Russian population trace most of their roots to the Caucasus). However that is nothing compared to the ethnic clensing unleashed in 1990-94. I personally know many survivours, their tales are truly shocking. --Kuban Cossack 18:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

So do I. My neighbours were forced to leave as early as 1991. --Ghirla ^-????- 18:24, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder, why do they hate Russians so deeply. It would be good to have this explained in the article. --_Lysy^talk 19:27, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

They don't hate Russians. They hate Christians. The Poles too. Remember Beslan and all those Ossetian children? Or those Englishmen who were beheaded? --Ghirla ^-????- 19:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I start to understand the sarcasm in your earlier remark on this: The Chechens like Poles. They don't cut their heads, as is customary in their dealings with Britons, Russians, and other foreigners. So you're saying this does not qualify for Russophobia, but it's rather the hatred of Christians in general ? --_Lysy^talk 20:44, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Not really, they hate Russo-freindly people. Serbs in Kosovo, Ossetians, Abkhazians and Armenians and even muslims like Tatars and Bashkirians. Traditionally anti-Russian people be they Poles, Western Ukrainians, Baltic peoples, Crimean Tatars, Albanians and now Georgians receive quite a lot of political support (or at least the leaders, or more often - societies that represent, or claim to represent, those peoples) have a read on Kavkaz Center.--Kuban Cossack 23:15, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I understand correctly

The Chechens hate Abkhaz
and they support the Georgians

That's certainly a groundbraking development, please elaborate further on this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.183.50.164 (talk • contribs).

In their Russophobia, yes. If one remembers just how Georgia behaved with the Pankisi Gorge. --Kuban Cossack 18:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Please provide some references. Right now I am under the sad impression that in fact you know nothing about the Caucasus. The Chechens have actually fought against the Georgians along aiding the Abkhaz (I hope you have heard at least about this "gentleman"). I suggest you do a google search for «????????? ????????».

Well that is because Basaev was initially a pro-Russian agent and went to serve the Abkhaz against their enemy, once he started to fight for Chechnya sympathy towards the pro-Russian Abkhaz plumeted and for the Georgians rose. Have a look at Kavkaz Center [6].--Kuban Cossack 14:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

I quote from the article:

"The facts of genocide of Russian population have been carefully avoided by journalists in mass media and by scientific circles[citation needed], from what appears to be fear of physical elimination by the perpetrators of genocide. Hence, only personal accounts on various non-official websites offer a glimpse into the matter. [6] At the same time reports of hooligan attacks against non-Russians in Russia are widely picked up and analyzed often with an attempt to paint Russia and Russian people as intolerant and racist."

To me this seems an opinion and not a fact. Nobody can prove this is the way journalist think. I like Rusia, but you have to understand that lines like this are not gonna make Rusians verry populair. It looks arrogant and is verry hard to prove. I do know from Russian friends that Western reports about Russia are often one-sided but that (Western)-journalist make Russia look bad, cause they like that (!) is not true (ore atleast verry hard to prove), there sources of information are just poor ore they don't inverstigate that much, lack of time most of the time(I studied journalism for a while). Please rewrite this section, you would be doing yourself a favor. Paka! Mariah-Yulia 03:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

If we are to compare (which is obviously OT here, as most of the discussions above), then I guess the difference is that Poles usually arrive to Chechnya with humanitarian aid while Russians arrive there with tanks and missiles. Which however does not explain the flee of Russians from outside of Russia proper after the fall of the Soviet Union. Or only partially. Halibu tt 15:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry what humanitarian aid are you talking about? Really do not bring OT into conversations. I have participated in restroring Russia's territorial integrity in the Second Chechen Campaign of 1999-2000 if anything then the Russian army was along with fighting the terrorists also repaired more than 80% of the Chechen infrastructure. --Kuban Cossack 18:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I wonder what was the number of Soviet state officials, Russian language teachers and military personnel who simply returned home after the fall of the USSR rather than were expelled by anyone from anywhere. In 1991 alone, for instance, the population of Russians in Poland dropped by over 100,000 people. One could say it was also an ethnic cleansing as the Northern Army Group of the Red Army (then Russian Army) was composed almost exclusively of Russians. Among the expelled were 53,000 soldiers, 7,500 civilian workers of the Soviet bases and roughly 40,000 of their families. In the preceding years additional 100,000 Russians were withdrawn from Poland - quite a huge number as for a non-Soviet state. I wonder what were the numbers for ex-Soviet republics. Halibu tt 15:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Well here you state the obvious, returned home they lived in a foreign country and returned home, probably not having that country's citizenship. In Chechnya, the 300,000 Russians were born there and that was their homeland. Don't mix salt with sugar, these are two different aspects. And if fact not that many Russians came to Russia from their homes that they legally moved into during the USSR times (one country) as examples with Latvia, Kazakhstan and Ukraine clearely demostrate this. Most of the people who did left were from Central Asian and Caucasus republics, but that was because of the appaling living conditions that their cessesion from the USSR brought (I would strain a point that they formed only a small fraction of the people who left those republics, most were actually those who represented their respective nationalities, but left for the same reasons) --Kuban Cossack 18:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

As for the statistics, the raw numbers don't seem at all usefull, it could that those Russians were in fact Chechens and Ingush who during soviet times declared their nationality as Russian just in case or simply that Russians fled the poor and instable region while the native Ingush and Chechen population has no where else to go?

First of all in the Soviet times nobody would have declared their nationality as someone elses that is absoloutely rediculous. Under Soviet law all birth cirtificates were handed out with the mother's nationality automatically, and nationalities were written inside all internal passports, which was the main document of all Soviet citizens. All of the Russians in the Caucasus are descendents of Terek Cossacks, who settled the area in the 18-19th centuries and particulary made themselves useful in the Cacasus war of the mid 19th century. As for refugees then you do realise that the majority of those Russians were ingnored by the state and received no support whatsoever. I remember perfectely how in 1990-94 several hundred people temporary placed their families in our stanitsa whilst the fathers went all over Russia to search for a place to live and work. In terms others in 2002 in Russia there are 1360253 Chechens and 413016 Ingushetians in Russia and the majority of them seem to be very well off in fact this migration into Russia proper seems to cause quite a few concerns, given the strength of their control on all Russian businesses. --Kuban Cossack 14:12, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Added "Many in Russia believe" and "it is speculated" too the part of the article "Ethnic Cleansing of Russians" to make it more neutral. I'm not a suporter of the Chechens rebels, I just wanted to make the article more neutral, because the less neutral this article is the more people who don't like Russian will say "Told you so!". Welcome to the wonderfull world of PR, pushing your idea's through somebody's throat just doesn't work ???? (trust me). ?????? ??????? ????, Paka! Mariah-Yulia 01:52, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but I reverted your addition. If you claim that facts of Russian genocide are not avoided and only "many russians believe", please provide non-russian references where a spade is called a spade. Article neutrality cannot be achieved by weasel words. mikka (t) 09:06, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

It would be good to support the fact of the genocide of Russians somehow then, so that it does not look like original research. It seems unlikely that people of Russia, who fought for free press for years in spite of all the repressions are suddenly afraid to write about something now, when Russia became a democratic country. --Lysy^talk 12:07, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

Western media doesn't make Russians look bad, I saw a Belgium (Flemish) tv-show where Russians look very sympathetic. Western media does make Russian politicians look bad, but not the rest of the country. Thats the point I was trying to make. But the way "Ethnic Cleansing of Russians" is written now THAT makes Russians look bad. (In my humble opinion) it should be rewritten. It would be nice if the original auther changed it...Mariah-Yulia 02:38, 13 March 2006 (UTC) OK, I rewrote it again, how does it look now? BTW there really is plenty of positive news about Russians on Western TV, remember Maria Sharapova? Mariah-Yulia 02:57, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Two thumbs up, Mariah-Yulia. As to what KK wrote, I only hope he does not believe he's impartial here, having taken part in the war himself. As to what humanitarian aid I was writing about - check the web-page of Polish Humanitarian Action, one of the best-known of such organizations to help Chechens. English version (not as complete) is also available here. //Halibu tt 18:18, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

"Partition of Russia is fundamental for our policy in the East. Our position will depend on who will take part in that partition. Poland shouldn't stand aside in this remarkable moment of history.

Would you please decide if the SU was Russia? The quoted text is about the Soviet Union, called till today "Russia" by many. Xx236 12:13, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think many people (including Russians) still confuse or associate (rightly or not) Russia with SU. Therefore Russophobia presented in this article is often in fact Sovietophobia but the first term is much more popular. --Lysy^talk 08:29, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

The few Russians, who have created the article, certainly mix apples and oranges to prove, that the biggest land of the world is the most terrorized one, by Latvia and Moldova. Xx236 10:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Partition of Russia is fundamental for our policy

1. It's about the SU, after the Great Famine and Great Purge, the most criminal state of that time. 2. The book is a Communist product, edited by the censorship.

Stop the pro-Soviet propaganda, you will have less "Russophobia". Xx236 14:33, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Atheists

During the Cold War, the "godless (Russian) communist" figured heavily in American propaganda, so much that the Pledge of Allegiance of the US was changed to include "Under God" in order to distinguish America with the atheist Soviet Union.

But it is true. The communists, many of the Russian, have killed hundreds of thousands of religious people, destroied thousands of churches. It's not Russophobia. This article is a mixture of the most absurd stories. Xx236 12:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Although (worldwide) there are plenty of media outlets who provide positive news about Russia and Russians.

So they are biased. Xx236 12:32, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

It's not a private Russian article

It's the mixture of ignorance and Russian imperialism. My comments in the Talk page aren't answered, but when I cpntibute, the Russians remove my texts and call me a troll.

Orthodox isn't the same as Russian and Russian isn't Orthodox. If you want to describe anti-Orthodox activities, do it in a correct place, not forgetting who exterminated Orthodox people and destroied the Church in Russia. Xx236 12:42, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Well the article was written by users that use Soviet Encyclopedia and books from Imperial Russia as serious sources. One of them even had sentences about "unruly Poles that didn't knew how good they had under the glorious Tsar", so good luck on making this article neutral :) --Molobo 13:50, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course the Poles writing their articles about Belarusians and Russians based on Henryk Sienkewicz fantasy, science fiction literature, are the ultimate objective source of knowledge in the Galaxy. And Henryk Sienkewicz is 'the only objective historian' in the world. I figured you out as Pole, because only Pole could know that such thing like Soviet Encyclopedia existed.Vlad fedorov 10:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Alleged Polonization

When were the Russians Polonized, if ethnic Russia starts hundreds kilometers from Poland? Hallo, hallo, it's not a phantasy forum, it's Wikipedia. During the years 1920-1939 many Russians were White immigrants. If they were unhappy in Poland, they were able to return to Russia. Xx236 13:13, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh come on, it's obvious. Just read any 19th century Russian history book and you'll see hundreds of stories of blood-thirsty Polish prozelytes and innocent, unarmed Russian soldiers slaughtered in Orthodox churches in Warsaw... (check here if you think I'm joking). //Halibu tt 18:12, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Belarusians and those belonging to the Orthodox religion were deprived of the right to heir any property in Rzeczpospolita and Grand Duchy of Lithuania after Krew Unia and according to numerous privelij's of Polish king. Polonization refers not only to the creation of Uniat religion by Polish catholics in Ukraine and Belarus and depriving non-catholics of any rights, especially Belarusian and Ukrainian nobility, but also refers to the policy of Pilsudski government on occupied territories on Western Belarus, where belarusian schools were closed, Orthodox churches were made Catholic churchers, where all belarusian literature and press was forbidden, while Polish occupants, who were taking place of forcibly moved into Poland belarusian population, accounted only 20% at best times. Even now, students of law in Poland do not study three Lithuanian (Belarusian) Great Statuts of Great Duchy of Lithuania, who were the most complete codes of law in 16th century in Europe, and study only Court book of Kazimierz.Vlad fedorov 10:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The Union of Krew did not forbid any Orthodox from anything. In fact it only mentioned the Pagans (in this context - the pagan Balts)
Nor did any of the privileges issued by Polish kings forbid anyone from the sacred law of inheritance. Otherwise there would be no Orthodox or Uniate nobles at all.
Belarusian schools were being closed down, just like Polish or Lithuanian or German or any other. Mentioning only Belarusian schools without mentioning the context is a gross understatement
Numerous Orthodox churches were not only made Catholic churches (see Field Cathedral of the Polish Army), but also some were being demolished (see Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Warsaw). Just like a century before Catholic churches were being converted to Orthodox ones or demolished and the entire Uniate rite was forbidden. So..?
As to students of Law, who cares about Lithuanian Statutes, even the Roman law is not obligatory any more (o empora, o mores). It's a tragedy, but hardly related to any sort of polonization. //Halibu tt 14:03, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Wrt to point #3, then you are forgetting that the Uniate rite in Russian Empire was not forbidden, but it was reunited with Orthodoxy by the efforts of a Uniate synod headed by a Uniate Bishop Joseph Semashko at Polotsk in 1839. Nearly all of the Uniate churches were formerly Orthodox anyway...--Kuban Cossack 17:16, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

When I said 'after Krew unia' that doesn't mean 'according to Krew unia'. You better see the article "Logic".
Privelejs from Polish kings always stated that the right to heir 'majantek' belong only to catholics. Explain why Belarusian nobility was converted to catholic religion.
Poles closing Polish schools? Fairy tales is another article of Wikipedia. Try your skills there. But your problem is that not only schools were closed, now try to explain why Poles forbidden the literature and press on Belarusian. War on communism? War on terror?
Who first began violently seize churches on Belarusian territory? Belarusians siezing their own churches? You have very good 'logic', pal. Or Polish occupants? So what's your problem? Hit me baby one more time? Jaki pan jest interesujacy...
Yeah... Who cares about a state made up of pagan orthodoxes, even you has union and actually live in one state? So you say Rzecz Pospolita? I offer more correct term - occupation of Grand Duchy of Lithuania and Ukraine by Poland Empire. You say republic? By not studying the law of the union state you uncover your real motives - occupation. That's why Rzecz Pospolita was an Empire, indeed.Vlad fedorov 17:29, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

All right, you're entirely right. No need to argue, as you apparently have seen the light. Have a good day. //Halibu tt 18:47, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Dzieki panu za pomoc.Vlad fedorov 06:41, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Although (worldwide) there are plenty of media outlets who provide positive news about Russia and Russians.

Media should inform about positive and negative aspects of anything, including Russia and Russians. The sentence "Although (worldwide) there are plenty of media outlets who provide positive news about Russia and Russians." says that Russia manipulates world media. Is it true? Xx236 13:22, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Partition of Russia is fundamental for our policy in the East.

The quoted text is about the Soviet Union. When I put a comment under the text, it's always removed. It reminds me many aspects of Russian and Soviet politics - lies, terror, insults and finally - "Russophobia". 13:28, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Polish General Staff quote

As this controversial quote comes from a rather obscure reference that is difficult to obtain outside of Poland, could the editor which inserted this quote provide the original text in Polish? I am concerned about the quality of the translation here. Was it a Polish to English translation, or maybe a Polish to Russian to English translation? At least the name of the translator of the quote would be quite useful. Even more ideal would be some link to an internet webpage which mentions this quote and vouches for its veracity. Balcer 19:41, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

I tracked down in the edit history that it was User:Ghirlandajo who added the quote (diff). So, I guess my question can be made very specific. Ghirlandajo, given that you are quoting an original Polish reference, did you translate the quote yourself? In that case, give us an indication how good your Polish is. Or else did someone translate it for you? In that case, who was it? At any rate, I am assuming that you have the reference within reach, so if you would be kind enough to insert the text in the original Polish, it would be much appreciated. Balcer 21:53, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Moving the quote from the article to here, for now.

"Partition of Russia is fundamental for our policy in the East. Our position will depend on who will take part in that partition. Poland shouldn't stand aside in this remarkable moment of history. Our task is to prepare ourselves both morally and materially. Our principal aim is weakening and defeat of Russia" (report of the Polish General Staff, 1938, «Z dziejów stosunków polsko-radzieckich. Studia i materiały», T.III. Warszawa, 1968, S. 262, 287.).

I provided reference, it's up to you to find it. Should I go to Warsaw to discover the book for you, scan the pages and post them online? There is no Wikipedia policy that allows to discard editions of historical documents as "dubious" only because one wikipedian failed to find the book in his local library. As for translation, I'll have to add similar tags to 90% articles of Soviet-Polish relations, as most of their content was translated either from Polish or from Russian and one can never tell whether "translation" was accurate. In short, your behavior may be classified as tag trolling with elements of vandalism (when you tried to delete the stuff that doesn't suit your POV) - we've been through it before with Piotrus and his buddy Molobo. Please take care, Ghirla ^-трёп- 14:25, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't make this issue more complicated than it is. The reference is in Polish. Since you inserted the text, do you speak Polish and have translated the text yourself? If not, who translated the text for you, and what are their qualifications? Can you provide an answer to these simple questions?

If I were to insert exact quotes from Polish books, translated into English by myself, I would be happy to make this fact clear. Furthermore, I would also at least make an effort to provide the text in the original language to people who request it, so that my translation can be verified. After all, my translation skills are obviously not perfect.

Surely, you can see that danger to Wikipedia if people can pick up obscure quotes from books in foreign languages, translate them unreliably to give them their own POV twist, and then flood Wikipedia with them, refusing to provide any proof of their reliability and inviting all those who complain to make a special trip to some faraway country and search the libraries themselves, if they want to proof of the quote's reliability (how likely is that to happen?) Balcer 14:41, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

(inserting my comments deleted by Ghirlandajo from his talk page, responding to his statement: I provided reference, it's up to you to find it. )

You have this all backwards, Ghirlandajo. You provided the reference, so presumably you have it within your reach and it is your task to explain any legitimate concerns that are raised about it by other Wikipedians. Furthermore, it is you who provided the translation, which was not part of the original work as it was in Polish. Once you put in a reference, you cannot wash your hands of all responsibility and send other editors on a wild goose chase.

I ask again the simple question. How did you obtain the translation of the quote from the original Polish? Is that information classified? Balcer 15:08, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

After 30,000+ edits, I cannot recall every single edit I've made months ago. I did not invent the book. First get hold of it and then we'll talk. By the way, your reiterated attempts to pass a wet sponge over infamous pages of your country's history made me think about starting a series of articles about Polish concentration camps for Russians. It is a worthy subject which could shed a precious light on the topic of well-entrenched Russophobia in Polish culture and mentality, Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:26, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I know the book exists, so I am not accusing you of fabricating the very existence of this reference. However, the book is obviously in Polish, so if you were working with it directly, you presumably had to carry out a translation from Polish to English. Do you speak Polish yourself, and just did it personally? Or were you maybe working from a Russian translation of the text, in effect translating twice, with all the danger to accuracy that this entails?

Yes, the book exists, like many Communist ones. There is a question, what is the value of a censored Communist book. I remeber books by Kowalski, who didn't know about the Soviet-German treaty or many books ignoring Katyn. It's not a problem to find a statement, there are millions Russian statements about anything. The problem is to select among the statements and to prove, that the statements were implemented. One may quote "The wise of Zion" to prove that "Russia" is antisemitic. It's the same level of manipulation. How many invested Poland to "destroy Russia" in 1938? 1 000 000 USD? 100 000 USD? The same quotation has been used in the Russian Wikipedia, as a reason of the Soviet aggression 1939. Xx236 13:27, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that this is not just any quote but the most prominent quote in a highly controversial article. We might want to go an extra mile to make absolutely sure it is accurate and not tainted by POV. Quite frankly, if you truly cannot recall the details about this quote and hence cannot vouch for the quality of its translation, maybe the best strategy would be to remove it. Balcer 16:07, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The other way is to translate thousands of anti-Polish Russian and Soviet texts, by Lenin, Stalin or from the Russian Wiki. Xx236 13:31, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

I could easily imagine this quote being from some WWI officer during the opening stages of the Polish-Bolshevik War, then quoted in that book and taken out of context by some Russian author who wanted to prove something with it. So yes, a citation could be nice.

Apart of that, I can hardly see the link between Russophobia (fear of Russians) and willingness to dismember the Soviet state. Was Gorbachev a Russophobiac? After all he dismembered the USSR... //Halibu tt 17:34, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like to remind you that in the Western eyes USSR was "Russia", and it actually was, for all practical purposes. `'mikka (t) 03:04, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Fatima???

I always thought the Blessed Virgin was refering to communism, not the fact Russians are schismatics. Could the author of this part somehow document his claims?

So in your view all Orthodox christians are schismatics...Lovely unoriginal POV...--Kuban Cossack

11:04, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

The Quote is still there

The Quote uses the word Russia to point the Soviet Union. It's a manipulation. Is the Wiki a dictatorship of one biased person, who can put or remove anything? Xx236 07:28, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I found the source in an academic book. Didn't have time to add an inline ref, but I will. Don't you worry. --Irpen 07:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Pykhalov, Igor. Velikaya obolgannaia voyna Moscow, 2005. ISBN 5699109137 [7]

http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=11&issue_id=505&article_id=22829 If Pykhalov is "academic" in Russia, we should run away to Australia. Xx236 12:05, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Good job, Xx236. //Halibu tt 12:36, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. This goes a long way to confirm my suspicion that Ghirlandajo never got his hands on the original «Z dziejów stosunków polsko-radzieckich. Studia i materiały», but instead copied the quote from some Russian translation, published in Velikaya obolgannaia voyna or a similar Russian book with a serious POV problem. This makes sense since obviously the original Polish reference would have been useleess to him, as I am assuming he does not know Polish.

So, at the very least the quote has gone through two translations, from Polish to Russian and then from Russian to English, seriously diminishing its credibility. Furthremore, the source information given is grossly incomplete, as it does not mention the fact of double translation and the second source from which it was taken.

Overall, to have such inadequate and misleading information about such an important quote in a controversial article is unacceptable. I am removing it until Ghirlandajo, who put in the original quote, supplies full information about its origin. Balcer 13:10, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

You are playing his game. The quote doesn't have any connection to Russophobia and shouldn't be here, even if perfectly translated. Xx236 13:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Even if it was, I guess it's fair to assume that it's been taken out of context, either by any of the authors who quoted it, or by Ghirlandajo himself. I could try to lay my hands on the book, but I believe there's no need to waste my time as the quote would be preserved through a revert war even if proved completely different in the original. //Halibu tt 14:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It might be a good use of your time. If you would find that the quote has been grossly mistranslated, due to double translation for example, then it could be considered as a blatant attempt at inserting false information into Wikipedia. There could be consequences to an editor who insists on doing that. You see, if Ghirlandajo correctly referenced the quote as "from Polish book A, cited in Russian book B", then any incorrectness in the translation could be blamed on the Russian author of book B. But no, Ghirlandajo insists on citing Polish reference only and provides no information about the translation. This can only lead the average Wikipedia reader to conclude that he had the book in his hands himself and can vouch personally for the quality of its translation. If that translation turns out to be wrong, then he is responsible for introducing errors, and inspiring false confidence in a quote which is obviously problematic.Balcer 14:37, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

If Ghirlandajo insists on refusing to provide information on where and how exactly he got the quote, and keeps reinserting it via endless reverts accompanied by rude comments, I believe this is good grounds for an RFC procedure. This is not about this POV or that POV, but about following basic Wikipedia standards and supplying other editors with essential information. The answer "run to the library" is insulting and rude. Besides, most Wikipedia editors live on continents where Polish books are hard to find, even in university libraries. Balcer 14:12, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I will repeat my simple questions for Ghirlandajo.

1. Did you have the original Polish reference you are citing in your hands and hence the quote comes directly from it? If yes, what are your qualifications that would vouch for its correct translation from Polish to English?

2. If you obtained the quote from a Russian source, what was that source? Please include a reference to it. Provide an indication how reliable was its translation of the original Polish quote.

Please take a break from your revert campaign and provide simple answers to these questions. Balcer 15:09, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Some exaples of Ghirlandajo's language: "go away, troll", "we've been through this idiocy before" (about the Ostashkov camp),"and I don't like your nationalist trolling" (His trolling is O.K., but anything written by anyone is "trolling"). Xx236 14:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Now our dear Irpen has added yet another Russian language source to mention the quote. I believe that the article Irpen provided is a particularly good example of manipulation. In all, the article is as biased as it gets. At the same time it's funny, since it tries to justify the Soviet alliance with Hitler through the Silesian Uprisings of 1919, the geographical location of Kamieniec Podolski, the Polish-German non-aggression pact (Poles siding with the Nazis! the guy obviously does not mention the Polish-Soviet non-aggression pact) and any other past Polish guilts, be them real or invented by the author. Speaking of which, the guy at several occasions simply invents facts. Not a credible historian if you asked me, but fortunately the source is there for all to see. //Halibu tt 02:49, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Our dear Halibutt, is missing the point, and obviously on purpose. The issue here is not the neutrality of the secondary source. The issue is that the citation is traceable and it is up to a challenger to disprove it. I can provide a number of other secondary sources that recite the same primary source. But I can't get a hold of the Polish book. I added the LOC identifier and anyone can get as a complete data of the magazine as necessary. The list of libraries that hold the item can be easily pulled out. Whoever thinks that the citation is false, or the tranlsation is manipulative is welcome to check it. The secondary sources cite the primary source very clearly, even with the page number. We will all be happy to see the report. --Irpen 04:38, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Irpen. That is all I was asking for. Now it is clear that the book quote comes to us second hand from a Russian source. Now Wikipedia readers can judge for themselves its reliability. It is only too bad this information was not provided at the beginning, when the quote was first inserted.

Anyway, it is clear now that the quote has undergone 2 translations, putting its accuracy into question. With each translation one looses more of the original sense of the text. Maybe it is time now to take a look at the original source. Halibutt, could you find some time to look it up in your university library, whenever convenient? Balcer 04:45, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

During the Cold War, the "godless (Russian) communist" figured heavily in American propaganda

What is the value of such statement? The SU was atheistic, there are millions of proves, since Orthodox martyrs till books and museums in churches. Yes, many Americans call Soviet people "Russians", it doesn't mean they are phobic in any way, they simply ignore geography and history. Xx236 14:27, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Polonization

When and where did the Poles "Polonize" ethnic Russians? Xx236 14:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Belarusians and those belonging to the Orthodox religion were deprived of the right to heir any property in Rzeczpospolita and Grand Duchy of Lithuania after Krew Unia and according to numerous privelij's of Polish king. Polonization refers not only to the creation of Uniat religion by Polish catholics in Ukraine and Belarus and depriving non-catholics of any rights, especially Belarusian and Ukrainian nobility, but also refers to the policy of Pilsudski government on occupied territories on Western Belarus, where belarusian schools were closed, Orthodox churches were made Catholic churchers, where all belarusian literature and press was forbidden, while Polish occupants, who were taking place of forcibly moved into Poland belarusian population, accounted only 20% at best times. Even now, students of law in Poland do not study three Lithuanian (Belarusian) Great Statuts of Great Duchy of Lithuania, who were the most complete codes of law in 16th century in Europe, and study only Court book of Kazimierz.Vlad fedorov 10:37, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

In fact there were a number of Russians who got Polonized in the last 200 years. I personally met a girl who was a direct descendant of some Russian 19th century general named Orlov. Her great-grandparents left Russia in 1917 and settled in Poland and she considers herself a Pole nowadays. However, I'm not sure if her case is typical in any way. //Halibu tt 16:13, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call the case "Russophobic" :-). Xx236 13:15, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't call it Russophobic or anti-Russian either (especially that the girl was Orthodox, contrary to her parents who were atheist), but I guess this example is the only one we're going to get here, as our friends are not really keen on presenting sources fo their claims - and if they do, the result is usually similar to the above-mentioned respected scholar... Or am I wrong? //Halibu tt 14:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Quote not there

I took Ghirlandajo's advice and I went to a big university library which had the original Polish book, to look up the quote. I happened to be attending a conference on that university campus and happened to have a bit of spare time.

Anyway, I expected that the quote has been mistranslated and wanted to see the original text. But there was a problem. The quote was not there! I checked the reference given and it was nowhere to be found. On second look, this was not suprising as the third volume of the 16 volume cycle "Z dziejów stosunków polsko-radzieckich; studia i materiały" gives documents about Polish-Soviet relations chronologically. In particular Volume III contains documents from between April 1920 and March 1921. Most of these documents are about the intense diplomatic activity leading to the Treaty of Riga. In fact the volume ends with a full inclusion of the treaty text.

Just to be sure, I checked other volumes which include documents from 1938, and no report from the Polish General Staff was found. This is again not suprising at all, as the whole book containts diplomatic documents. I could not see any secret reports of military intelligence in it.

I hope this lays the whole matter to rest. It also sheds light at the quality of research of Russian authors who listed this quote. Given their intense POV, that does not suprise me. Balcer 18:08, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Kudos to Balcer. And shame-on-yous to the rest :) //Halibu tt 19:59, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The sad thing is that this quote false quote has been in the article for almost half a year, since Ghirlandajo put in in on November 9 diff. I could have checked it earlier, but I simply did not suspect that the quote was manufactured outright, and just thought it was taken out of context and translated with a POV slant. I think I have learned from this experience, and in the future I will be less trusting. Hopefully this incident will help other editors judge the credibility of the contributions by some of the users who were involved in this matter.

For just a moment, I was toying with the idea of simply pasting the quote into the Polonophobia article as an example of modern prejudice by some Russian "historians" against Poland, but I quickly decided against it. Stooping to the level of Ghirlandajo would only validate his tactics. Balcer 02:15, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Besides, such a forgery could be aimed at strengthening certain views, but it would be hard to tell whether it was aimed primarily at making the readers believe that Poles are Russophobiacs, or at making them fall into the besieged fortress syndrome. Hence such an addition would base mostly on original research. //Halibu tt 03:45, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I didn't expect to see Balcer/Halibutt red-faced and in hysterics over such a trivial matter. I recollect that I translated this sentence from www.polska.ru. There are about hundred websites which use the quote in Russian. Knowing Balcer for a determined POV-pusher, I cannot check whether he went to a library at all and whether he was able to consult the reference properly. But even if he did, I don't see how this may challenge the Polish plans to invade the USSR prior to WWII. Please remember they had done it before. I request more level-headed editors to find a replacement citation. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 15:23, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

First of all, if anyone should be red-faced here, it is of course you, who put in the false information. Even now you are admitting that you got it from some Russian website and NOT from the original source, as the citation you put in was asserting. You have thus knowingly concealed information about the true source of the quote, with the resulting sorry consequences.

I am somewhat suprised and disturbed by your belief that this is a trivial matter. If you think including false information in Wikipedia is nothing to be ashamed of, that only exposes your true attitude to the entire project.

It is amusing to hear you accuse me of not having checked the reference, given that you are now admitting that you yourself have never even seen it. Fortunately, in this case the matter is quite straightforward, so that you don't even have to trust me. The Polish reference consists of 16 volumes, containing a chronologically ordered list of diplomatic documents relevant to Polish-Soviet relations, from 1918 to the time the books were published, i.e. the late 60s. Given that, it is simply impossible for volume 3 to contain documents from 1938, especially given the fact that there were such intense negotiations between Polish and Soviet government before the Treaty of Riga, accompanied by the exchange of dozens of documents which are all included in the work.

As for Poland planning to invade the USSR, this is your pet conspiracy theory, yet you have never presented a shred of credible evidence in support of it. We are still waiting. Balcer 17:22, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Possible source?

The quote comes from http://www.pereplet.ru/history/suvorov/suv_polsh.htm and the author is AVo> Alexandr Volkov 2:478/3.88 The guy is fantastic:

А если пана Пилсудского послушать?

"Уже в 1918 году, независимо ни от кого, я поставил себе ясную цель в войне с Советами. Я решил приложить все силы к тому, чтобы сорвать любые попытки вновь навязать нам чужую, не самими поляками устроенную жизнь, причем сделать это как можно дальше от мест, где зарождалась и крепла новая жизнь. В 1919 году я эту задачу выполнил. Большевистские происки были сорваны так далеко, что Советы уже не могли препятствовать нам в возрождении нашей собственной жизни, хорошей или плохой - сейчас речь не об этом. Большое пространство, которым я отделился от "революции извне", имело в военном отношении и негативные стороны. При известном легкомыслии нашего народа, при, к сожалению, медленном и часто неумелом строительстве новой жизни были забыты законы, управляющие народом в военное время. Войну не видели вблизи, войну не принимали всерьез. Итак, намеченную цель я достиг в 1919 году." Пилсудский Ю. Война 1920 года. - М., 1992. - С. 263-268.

Видимо, легкая нажива не давала покою пану и в 1920 году? Если не так, то зачем нужно было втравливать свой "легкомысленный народ" в новую войну? Чтобы народ увидел эту войну поближе и принял в серьез? Или как?

Xx236 12:45, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

English, please.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 23:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Irpen's comment

Let me remind everyone who claims to be in the righteous rage over the quote that Wikipedia is not the collection of the truths but it is a collection of knowledge. The editor who placed it, didn't make it up. The quote is indeed easy to find at several Russian language web-sites. The way it is referenced in the ru-net sites with the volume and page numbers doesn't make an impression of the forgery. It might have been helpful to add "cited from..." to the reference under the quote but other than that, placing the quote in the article was totally appropriate. Personally, I doubt it is fake but I might be wrong. In any case, I am not inclined to go into trouble of getting the correct volume of the series and look through it for a quote, especially with my virtually non-existing Polish. As the particular reference points to nowhere (and I have no reason to think Balcer is not telling the truth), we should keep the quote out, at least until we find an original volume and page number. I think, it would be possible to find another Russophobic quote by the influential Polish politician of the time but I would leave this pleasant job to others.

The article is totally right devoting much space to Poland though. As Pushkin put it in his poem addressed to Gustav Olizar:

Певец! издревле меж собою

Враждуют наши племена:

То [наша] стонет сторона,

То гибнет ваша под грозою.

I would not dare to translate Pushkin, sorry Piotrus. The complete poem is here. The reasons behind this century old feud we already attempted to discuss above with Lysy and Balcer. See Talk:Russophobia#How to improve the article and Talk:Russophobia#The heritage of the ancient Kievan Rus. If our Polish friends view the article Polonophobic, they are welcome to show an example by cleaning up the Polonophobia from Molobo's contributions. --Irpen 00:27, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Um, Irpen, are we going to sparr with poetry now? In languages the second does not understand? :D Here is my reply then, in the words of Mickiewicz:

Wy, czy mnie wspominacie! ja, ilekroć marzę

O mych przyjaciół śmierciach, wygnaniach, więzieniach,

I o was myślę: wasze cudzoziemskie twarze

Mają obywatelstwa prawo w mych marzeniach.

The complete poem is here. I am glad you agree that the suspicious quote should be removed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

While looking for a translation of the Mickiewicz poem, I found one here, and also an interesting discussion of 'poet sparring' between none other but Pushkhin and Mickiewicz :) Enjoy :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 02:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

    РУССКИМ ДРУЗЬЯМ
    Вы помните ль меня? Среди моих друзей,
    Казненных, сосланных в снега пустынь угрюмых,
    Сыны чужой земли! Вы также с давних дней
    Гражданство обрели в моих заветных думах.
    О где вы? Светлый дух Рылеева погас, -
    Царь петлю затянул вкруг шеи благородной,
    Что, братских полон чувств, я обнимал не раз.
    Проклятье палачам твоим, пророк народный!
    Нет больше ни пера, ни сабли в той руке,
    Что, воин и поэт, мне протянул Бестужев.
    С поляком за руку он скован в руднике,
    И в тачку их тиран запряг, обезоружив.
    Быть может, золотом иль чином ослеплен,
    Иной из вас, друзья, наказан небом строже:
    Быть может, разум, честь и.совесть продал он
    За ласку щедрую царя или вельможи.
    Иль деспота воспев подкупленным пером,
    Позорно предает былых друзей злословью,
    Иль в Польше тешится награбленным добром,
    Кичась насильями, и казнями, и кровью.
    Пусть эта песнь моя из дальней стороны
    К вам долетит во льды полуночного края.
    Как радостный призыв свободы и весны,
    Как журавлиный клич, веселый вестник мая.
    И голос мой вы все узнаете тогда:
    В оковах ползал я змеей у ног тирана,
    Но сердце, полное печали и стыда,
    Как чистый голубь, вам вверял я без обмана.
    Теперь всю боль и желчь, всю горечь дум моих
    Спешу я вылить в мир из этой скорбной чаши,
    Слезами родины пускай язвит мой стих,
    Пусть, разъедая, жжет - не вас, но цепи ваши.
    А если кто из вас ответит мне хулой,
    Я лишь одно скажу: так лает пес дворовый
    И рвется искусать, любя ошейник свой,
    Те руки, что ярмо сорвать с него готовы.

I hope it is a good translation, Irpen. Please feel free to remove it after reading so it does not clutter the page. Balcer 03:06, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Getting back to the main topic of Irpen's comment above. There are two serious issues to be solved first:

What do we need a "Russophobic" quote for in the first place?
Who is going to decide whether the quote indeed is "Russophobic" and not anti-Soviet or anti-imperialist?

While the earlier question is related mostly to style and quality of wikipedia, the latter is related to original research. Of course, we are free to add that "in this or that year John Doe said that (...), which Dr. Terry Murphy interpreted as a sign of russophobia". However, a quote by itself, and especially a quote that is hardly Russophobic, is not enough. Also, if we suggest that "Poles are Russophobes" and support it with a single quote, then we should also present the other side of the story here for NPOV: that Poles are not Russophobes (and support it with an equally funny quote). However, I believe that's not what wiki's for. //Halibu tt 05:20, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

My summary so far

I think, Irpen, that you are downplaying the fact of the quote not being properly referenced. As it was inserted (here), it created the impression that the author had consulted the Polish book directly, thus adding to the credibility of the quote. The fact that it came from a Russian website really should have been added. Still, everyone makes mistakes, so I am not going to put too much blame on Ghirlandajo for this. What his true motivations were remains his business. The real problems with Ghirlandajo's behavior began once serious discussion about the quote's credibility started.

I raised the question of the quote's origin on April 14 (diff). This would have been an excellent time for Ghirlandajo to come clean about where he got the quote, and provide the full information. This was his duty as it was he who inserted the quote and it was his job to properly reference it. Ghirlandajo took a few days to think about the issue, then he reverted even the disputed tag placed on the quote, with an insulting comment diff, then he threw in some more invective in his comment on this talk page [8]

After that came Ghirlandajo's claim that he forgot where the quote came from (diff). At this point Ghirlandajo left the discussion. Irpen was kind enough to provide references to the Russian webpages which contained the quote. But Ghirlandajo could still find the time for a few more reverts, with more insulting or inaccurate comments: [9], [10], [11] .

Finally, at considerable effort, I tracked down the book (not easy in North America) and found that the quote did not exist, at least not in the reference that was cited. Ghirlandajo's reaction was to insult me one more time [12], and also admit that all of a sudden he remembered where he obtained the quote.

After this fiasco, did Ghirlandajo admit to any wrongdoing or apologize for his reverts and insults to well meaning editors? We have not seen it yet. In fact, far from apologizing, Ghirlandajo started a little campaign against me [13],[14],[15] which for now seems to have got nowhere. His latest angle of attack is that I am a new version of Molobo. Apparently Ghirlandajo misses him, and is looking for a replacement. I will not oblige him. Balcer 01:26, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Polish/Russian asymetry

One can quote Polish intelligence documents but many Soviet intelligence documents remaind secret. The SU financed terrorists in Poland, run schools for anti-Polish activists. Another problem was the genocidal destruction of the Polish minority in the SU Polish operation of the NKVD. Xx236 13:33, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Catherine's quote

I have a problem with the quote:

In the 18th century, when Poland was not yet partitioned, Catherine the Great was known to say: "The Polish people hate us so deeply, that there is no other way out for us and our security, than to subordinate and to control them".

First, there is no source provided. Second, why is this quote valid here? Many politicians will say the strangest things to justify their actions. Since when was Catherine the Great an expert on Poland anyway? Balcer 11:52, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, as one of my teachers used to say, the king of Poland s****ed her and then she s****ed him, so perhaps she might've known a thing or two, but this is of course OT here. //Halibu tt 11:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The phrase about Caucasian aspects is not neutral

This phrase: The facts of genocide of Russian population have not been reported by journalists in Western mass media and by scientific circles, from what appears to be fear of physical elimination by the perpetrators of genocide. Hence, only personal accounts on various non-official websites offer a glimpse into the matter. At the same time reports of hooligan attacks against non-Russians in Russia are widely picked up and analyzed often with an attempt to paint Russia and Russian people as intolerant and racist. is a typical propaganda statement clearly violating NPoV. There is no proof that the attrocities against Russians in the North Caucasus have any features of genocide. First of all genocide must have a planned character and there is no proof that the series of actions against Russian individuals was following any plan. It is also difficult to say which action was the example of anti-Russian resentiment and which was a common crime with no ideological backgroud. If you can prove that in all the cases it was clear that the actions were ideologically motivated - please explain it in discussion instead of reverting my contribution. the authors admit that the "genocide" has not been recognized outside of Russia and among scientific circles and the only source are only non-official websites. This is much like to say: "E.T. does exist, but scientific circles deny it". No information that is not recognized in scientific circles can be presented in Wikipedia as fact. In this case there are two solutions:

- delete controversial and not verified statements (as I tried to do at the beginning)

- write that these statements present Russian PoV and that there are also other interpretations (as I tried to do now).

I am reverting the text now, but I am open to suggestions if they are supported by rational arguments. I do not want to carry on any edit war. Regards, Jasra 14:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

When I first saw this section the entire thing looked like a joke. The sites that some of this material is based on appear very suspect indeed, as does the statement that Western journalists fear to publish the information because of the fear or "physical elimination". I am not that familiar with this particular situation, however the "evidence" presented is anecdotal at best, at least about the genocide. I fully agree with the removal of that part unless some credible sources can be found to support the information. TSO1D 14:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

First of all yes there is proof, of genocidal reference. Second see the census figures published above. Third having personally taken part in the Chechen conflict I have come in contact with quite a few Terek Cossacks. The autrocities that were commited against them speak for themselves. --Kuban Cossack

15:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not talking about the issue itself, because as I have stated before I am not familiar with it, but about how it was presented here. Statements such as: "we have to rely on some random blogs because Western journalists don't report the information because they fear to be killed" seem to discredit the entire article. Can you really picture a Chechen holding an AK-47 storming the office of the BBC because they discussed the situation there? I just wish the text would follow NPOV guidelines more closely and be backed by more prominent sources. TSO1D 15:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Caucasian aspects

Complete violation of NPOV. Where are the valid sources for such claims? What Genocide? Do you know what the term Genocide stand for? This section is full of POV statements and some hidden agenda. Please start using sources and remove POV statements. Ldingley 18:21, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that such terms like Genocide cannot be used unreferenced. We should either rephrase it or find sources that use the term. Until than, I think the section is tagged properly. --Irpen 22:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL

"The facts of genocide of Russian population have not been reported by journalists in Western mass media and by scientific circles, from what appears to be fear of physical elimination by the perpetrators of genocide. Hence, only personal accounts on various non-official websites offer a glimpse into the matter."

Awesome. Are the authors of the "non-official websites" not afraid "of physical elimination by the perpetrators of genocide"? Is the Russian governement afraid of the "physical elimination", too? And why the Wikipedia editor who wrote this idiocy isn't adraid - or maybe he's already physically eliminated? ;) --HanzoHattori 01:25, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I beleive you have a point. The reason why the topic was avoided has more likely to do with political reasons rather than fear of perpetrators. --Irpen 01:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Anti-Russian sentiment → Russophobia — I have requested the page to be moved back, anti-Russian sentiment is not the same as Russophobia. First of all Anti-Russian sentiment can exist in Finland, Western Ukraine, Baltic States and is a contemprory form. Russophobia on the other hand is a historical term that is applied not only to Russians or Russia, but to Orthodoxy, to Communism, to Sovietisation and of course to the Holocaust wrt to Slavic peoples. Its a much broader term that specifically deals with the historic events. Kuban Cossack 12:37, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add * '''Support''' or * '''Oppose''' on a new line followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Support

1. As nom -- Kuban Cossack 12:39, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
2. Unlike Anti-Polonism, Russophobia is a valid and widely used English term, recognized by Webster and other authoritative dictionaries. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 12:53, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Oppose

There is nothing to discuss here. The move was unproposed and I reverted it. If the person who moved the article feels that such move is a good idea, he has to propose the move. Until he makes the case, the article stays at the original name. -Irpen 16:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

A fake photo

The one decipting a Finnish prison camp is a post-war forgery. Source: Muutosten maailma 4: Suomen historian käännekohtia (2005, WSOY), page 138 (ISBN 951-0-27645-6). See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Continuation_War#Picture_in_.22Finnish_occupation_policy.22 I'll quote (in Finnish): "On myös muistettava, että kuva on venäläisten sodan jälkeen ottama ja lavastama." A translation: "It must also be remembered that the picture is taken after the war and staged by the Russians." --Jaakko Sivonen 13:08, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Does the book give an authentic source for that claim? Otherwise it is a strict POV...--Kuban Cossack

13:16, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The book is a source itself, I have no reason to doubt it, now you should have a proper (not Soviet propaganda) source for it being authentic. If you do not have, it cannot appear in the article, that's non-NPOV (POV just means point of view...). --Jaakko Sivonen 13:23, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well excuse me, that is saying using Mein Kampf as a resource for the origin of Jewish people is also NPOV. I doubt the book as a resource because I have never seen it and there is no original source. Please provide them. It is your interest to take the photo down so please provide authentic, first not third-party sources. --Kuban Cossack

13:30, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

The book in question is a popular high school history book, not an "obscure one", and there is no reason to doubt it unless you give other reference. Thus, it is reliable. You have not given any evidence to support it's authenticity. In addition, the Soviets did a lot of propaganda on exactly these kind of things, are you denying that...? That photo's purpose is to show Finnish prison camps as somekind of Nazi-style concentration camps which they were not: rather they were more comparable to the American internation camps for the Japanese. You (or some other Finn-hater) put the picture up, therefore you must prove it. Until then I have a reference and you do not: Finland 1-0 Russia. --Jaakko Sivonen 13:38, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

We may use only those sources that conform to WP:RS. Pro-Nazi booklets, for instance, are not allowed. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 13:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That still changes nothing, books can also be faked, and based on dubious claims (take a Syrian book on Israil and Israili book on Syria)... I doubt there will be identical perceptions on Golan Heights...Please Find out the authentic source and then come back with full evidence, until then the photo stays and the assertion will be taken down. --Kuban Cossack

13:41, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Also please modify your comment, assertions like "Finn-hater" are hardly appropriate for WP:CIVIL and WP:FAITH, you wnat NPOV and yet you actually acknowladge to be a nationalist...sorry but Nationalism and Neutrality tend to be mutually-exclussive. --Kuban Cossack

13:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Now you should proove that Finnish high school books are untrustworthy, otherwise that argument is invalid. And Ghirla: WTF does Nazism have to do with all of this? The closest thing to it is Soviet Union which allied with Hitler in 1939 and started hostilities towards Finland! And since these people continue reverting that photo, what else could be their agenda? --Jaakko Sivonen 13:47, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes and Finland collaborated with Nazi Germany against USSR...but let's keep politics out of this, but it is your interest in removing the photo, you have to provide evidence to do so, the best choice for you is to find an echo source from a trusted resoure (eg. Britannica - that is fully trustworthy). I am not convinced about the source. Full stop, forgive for being so skeptical. You can do one of two things - you can give the authentic source that proves forgery (prefferebly from USSR institution that did forge it), file a mediation, or leave the page as it is until further notice. --Kuban Cossack

13:56, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

High school books are almost per definition biased in favor of the country in which they are used. This is valid not only for Finland, but also for Russia, the Netherlands, Spain, the USA, Great Britain etc. Just an example I know: Every child in the Netherlands learns that Michiel de Ruyter is one of the greatest Dutch admirals ever, and that his most brilliant endeavour was the Raid on the Medway. This feat however, is conveniently downplayed in school books in the UK, whereas the merit is probably exaggerated in Dutch school books. And I guess there are many more examples where that's from. Now I suggest we let this bickering behind us, and investigate for real, using independent sources, if the picture is really a fake or not. In the meantime, I'd suggest displaying the picture, with the appropriate caption that states the dispute about it being a fake or not. Errabee 14:09, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

It is a different thing to exaggerate than to lie and I see no need to doubt the book for lying. I do not know where to find sources that these people demand (they won't be satisfied with any source, I think), but as it is now, I have a reference and they do not. And since it was they (or other similar people) who added the picture, they have the burden of proof now. The picture can be seen in the article under the subtitle 'History' as one of the three photos (it now has a note of doubted forgery in it's caption). --Jaakko Sivonen 14:15, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the relations between Finland and Russia have been difficult in recent history. So have the histories of both countries. As of today, historians are still debating the role of Mannerheim in WWII, although it looks like it's gradually shifting to a positive view on him. In Finland however, there is no doubt at all about Mannerheim, and he is venerated as a great hero, with a large boulevard named after him and of course the obligatory equestrian statue in Helsinki. So high school books in Finland need not be objective, and could very well be trying to hide negative aspects of Finland's history. On the other hand, Stalin was very adept in faking photo's for propaganda purposes (one need only remember the Reichstag picture with the soldier with alledgedly two watches, which were photoshopped away avant la lettre). So the only way we might know for sure is to investigate. Errabee 14:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

First, using a term like "Finn-hater" is very not CIVIL. Second, a book used in classroom study sounds fairly reliable. Unfortunately, as I can't read Finnish, I can't research the book. It might do well to solicit someone with a Finnish Babel box to come in and help. Third, at least temporarily, putting a disclaimer on the photo with something like "some sources believe this photo may not be authentic" will at least give a warning while the dispute is worked out. Finally, as a disclaimer, I am married to a Russian, but I don't believe that leaves me with signicant POV on this issue. Thanks. --StuffOfInterest 13:51, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I'll cite user: Pudeo from here: "I just told all the information I got from "Jatkosota Kronikka" ISBN 951-20-3661-4, 1991. As this information isn't told in the article either. It has that image and says after the occupation. But use logic, the image is classed as taken in the USSR before 1973. Therefore, it is taken by Soviet photographers, be they propaganda or whatever, doesn't matter. I don't know whether they left the workers in the camps or not so I don't know if they put some children in the camp again just to make images for propaganda against "nazism"." --Jaakko Sivonen 14:58, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

That still does not mean anything, there are millions of Soviet photographs (I mean a photo camera was not viewed as a chique luxury even in Stalin's times) and to say that this particular one is faked, means that all other photos are faked as well. Nevertheless we all assume they are genuine (and I know that most of them are). So this proposal that because its Soviet its forgery has no clausible ground, unless one could point me to the original Soviet documents/archives that would prove it. --Kuban Cossack

17:25, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No one has said that Soviet photo -> faked photo, you're making this up... In this case there are evidence and I have given reference. --Jaakko Sivonen 21:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

It would be good to find the true source and history of the picture. --Lysy^talk 18:06, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Well I personally have no problem with the image, and believe that it is genuine, if the person is interested in proving its forgery, I am not stopping him from doing so, but lets be carefull that we're are not going into OR.--Kuban Cossack

14:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I have provided two references, you have provided none. Therefore it is more likely a forgery than genuine. --Jaakko Sivonen 21:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I removed the photo, evidence towards forgery is overwhelming. -Lapinmies 10:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The picture is framed, not a fake. There is a difference. I have never seen the book in question, but "lavastama" means "framed. "Fake" would be "väärentämä". Almost all of the war photos are framed. I see no problem with the picture. And the prison camp itself was authentic. Jaakko Sivonen has misunderstood the Finnish text. --Lalli 11:41, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah? Lavastama more like means staged[16], and therefore is not "reality". It's not "faked" 'väärenetty' by means that the Soviet Propaganda would have retouched the image, but is faked by means that it is taken for sure after the occupation, and is staged, therefore not reality in that case. But heh, is this needed, this is just playing around with words.. By the way, I fail to see what it has to do with anti-russianism directly anyway. Most of the labour camps workers were Ingrian Finns, and they were needed to work as farmers as people were dying to hunger. Remember Gulags, should they be anti-Baltic or anti-Ukrainian? The camps were not targeted to perish Russian/Ingrian population, but to get the much needed labour force and move them to East-Karelia from Finnish area after the presumed victory in WWII. If Finland would now get Karelia back, do you think Finns would want million Russians to their population? It would cause serious problems. Btw, on the recent news the Ingrian Finns' emigrating to Finland is being halted. The article doesn't even explain WWII, of which the Finnish actions is a minor issue, so I see very little relevancy. --Pudeo (Talk) 12:27, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

I dont understand the point. Staged and taken after the war equals fake. -Lapinmies 14:30, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Exactly, and 'lavastaa' is indeed 'stage' in English. --Jaakko Sivonen 16:37, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Point is, unless this (quite vague) phrase, there is no other proof. Calling this evidence "enough proof" is a bit rich to me. Besides, this photo was used at Nuremberg trials ^{[citation needed]} among other evidence, so I don't think the tribunal would accept a fake photograph as such. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Umm, what? Are you sure we're talking about the same picture? There was no one from Finland charged in Nuremberg so that would make no sense, source that ridiculous claim... Also, We have provided two sources, you none. Therefore there are enough proof to remove it. --Jaakko Sivonen 17:21, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It's written on the site the pic is taken from (here). -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:42, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Well since that page is using a fake photo, it probably isn't right on that either... Use your common sense - No representatives of Finland were prosecuted in Nuremberg and the Germans had nothing to do with the prison camps in East Karelia; so why would that picture have been used? BTW that's not a primary source either... --Jaakko Sivonen 18:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It is not a fake. "Stage" and "frame" are different terms in English language. The translation for both in Finnish is "lavastaa". Stage is a term used in theaters. You have misunderstood it. There were prison camps in Finland, too. But no concentration camps, which you seem to think are the same thing. As far as I know, there weren't any concentration camps in East Karelia, either. But prison camps there were. --Lalli 15:02, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

There was also a Finnsih concentartion camp in East Karelia: http://fi.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koveron_keskitysleiri

Not correct, it wasn't in East Karelia but in Finland, north-west of Tampere.--Whiskey 12:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

According to the information given by the publishing house of the book which deals with the subject, the concentration camp was in East Karelia. http://www.like.fi/kauppa/shop/shop_detail2.php?detail_id=3915

Do you have PRIMARY sources, like Soviet documentation with orders of forgery, or scientific analysis with the same conclusion. If you don't, don't even bother spamming the talk page with various books that have no sources to their claim. --Kuban Cossack

17:40, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Second that. Otherwise, I'll come up with "sources" that will state that Finns attacked USSR in 1940 and they were forced to retaliate... :) -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 17:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Ja vielä ihmetellään miksi venäläisiä vihataan? --Jaakko Sivonen 18:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

And what would that mean? -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 15:13, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

How about any source on it's authenticity? As it stands there are two against it and none for it. As long as you do not provide any reference, the sources mentioned are OK. Do you have any primary source for it's authenticity? --Jaakko Sivonen 18:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Your logic is flawed. A photograph is considered as evidence by itself, and it is up to the party which claims it is false or forged to provide the proof. If you were photographed during a bank robbery, the court would not be obliged to prove this photograph is genuine, rather, your defender should prove it is forged. That's the way the things work. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:05, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Two history books claiming it is a forgery are considered evidence by themselves also. Now you should prove that the two history books are lying. There is no reason to doubt the writers' honesty unless you give evidence. --Jaakko Sivonen 18:08, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

For the time being, all you provided from these books are quote. And since these books are in Finnish and impossible to get on the Web, one cannot even verify your claims. Which ruins WP:V, one of the most fundamental principles of Wikipedia... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

So? Most people can't read Egyptian hieroglyphs and thus cannot verify themselves what the Egyptologists have discovered from them, do you think that all hieroglyph texts should be doubted because of that? You are just making excuses and you know it... You can come to Finland and visit a bookstore and use a Finnish-Russian dictionary to verify it if you want to, so it is possible to do so, it is a totally different thing that you do not want to do so. --Jaakko Sivonen 18:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Your example is not the same. Here, you point us to an unknown book making an unsourced claim. I mean, what prevents you from quoting the whole paragraph rather than just this sentence? If the paragraph explains why this is a forgery, then it's OK. If not, the author makes an unsourced claim which is out of place on WP. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:35, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

It isn't "unknown", I have given detailed source on it: Muutosten maailma 4: Suomen historian käännekohtia (2005, WSOY), page 138 (ISBN 951-0-27645-6). I'll quote the entire paragraph (it is a caption of the picture), in Finnish: "Suomalaiset joukot valtasivat Itä-Karjalan syksyllä 1941 ja seuraavana vuonna siitä tehtiin oma hallintoalueensa. Vallatulle alueelle jäi noin 85 000 paikallista asukasta, joista venäläisiä oli osapuilleen 65 prosenttia. Rintamalinjan läheltä siirrettiin väestöä keskitys- eli siirtoleireihin. Suurimmat leirit olivat Äänislinnassa (Petroskoissa). Leireillä oli enimmillään 20 000 henkeä. Suomalaisten leirejä ei pidä sekoittaa Saksan tuhoamisleireihin. On myös muistettava, että kuva on venäläisten sodan jälkeen ottama ja lavastama." A rough translation: "Finnish troops occupied East Karelia in Fall 1941 and the next year it was made its own administration district. About 85 000 local inhabitants remained in the occupied area, of them about 65 per cent were Russians. From the proximity of the front line (some) population was transferred to concentration i.e. transfer camps. Largest camps were in Äänislinna (Petrozavodsk). The camps had 20 000 people at tops. Finnish camps should not be confused with Germany's extermination camps. It must also be remembered that the picture is taken after the war and staged by the Russians." As stated before, also another source mentions this as a post-war picture -> forgery and there is no reason to doubt this. --Jaakko Sivonen 19:12, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys, what is the source for the image? (I know [17] which seems to be "Russian heroes of WW2 website") There are 2 book sources and one "Russian WW2 heroes website". I could upload that image to Wikipedia and claim they're Finnish children in Russian death camp in Siberia (due to the fact the text in is Finnish also). All "sources" say it's taken in Petrozavodsk but no further facts, I rather believe the books than assumptions. And about getting Soviet sources to prove that it's forgery. That is very hard as it's just a very minor image, therefore I suggest using common sense and logic. Russia still hides a lot documents, and I doubt there is any document on this small image. There isn't any other possibility than it was taken by Soviet army (propaganda or other photographers) after the occupation. Do you really think Finnish troops would have let Soviet photographers to come at the camp? So, do you doubt it was taken after the occupation? And by the way, do you imply this "the author must say it's forgery" to Nazi e.g. Propaganda? Stalinist totalitarianism isn't that different. --Pudeo (Talk) 20:34, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it, the photo was taken by a soviet photographer after the liberation of Petrozavodsk. This view is supported by the image page Image:Konclagers.jpg, which claims that the photo is free from copyright. If the photo was taken by a Finnish photographer (i.e. during the occupation), it would most likely still be under copyright. The sign and the fence are authentic. There has been discussion in Finland as to whether the children in the picture (or only their parents) were interned in the camp. -- Petri Krohn 20:19, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand the argument. A staged photo is not a fake photo or a forgery. Many of the pictures taken at Auschwitz, ... were staged after the "liberation" (quotation marks because soem people do not believe that we should say liberation) of the camps. Shall we ban those too, and only use those pictures which were taken by the German butchers who were so proud of their handiwork that they took pictures of the Untermenschen they had slain? Do those who say it is a forgery, mean to "deny" (another awful word, that one, maybe we should refrain from using it at Wikipedia too) that there were any children at the Petrozavodsk concentration camp? The problem with that one is, that the Finnish government (and the German one, by paying a small amount of compensation to the victims still alive) have confirmed that that was so. And my source is Finnish: Helsingin Sanomat. (Loads rather slowly - some will prefer the Google cache)--Pan Gerwazy 13:27, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

First of all we must remember that it was the Russians who made the most terrible genocides in the 1930s, killing millions. Finnish camps were only meant as prison camps, there were no killings like the Russians and the Nazis had. Second, a post-war staged photo is a forgery: they made the children go behind the barbed wire and told them to look sad and maybe even made that sign themselves knowing the Soviet propaganda and lies... It can't say "Finnish run camp" since it was after the war: when the Russians made the children pose for the photo it was therefore a Russian run camp! So it cannot be portraid here as a genuine photo. --Jaakko Sivonen 18:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And all that is not mentioned in your quote. Therefore it is pure hypothesis and OR. -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 18:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

As for what the children felt like, read the interview with one of the survivors which is linked from the page I mentioned.( [18] )--Pan Gerwazy 22:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It says it is taken after the war, anyone with brains knows what that means. --Jaakko Sivonen 19:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

And "the pictures at the Russian-run camps of Auschwitz and Majdanek and the British-run camp of Bergen-Belsen were taken after the war, anyone with brains knows what that means."--Pan Gerwazy 22:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

One more google and I found this. Staged photo(s) or not - what about that post? --Pan Gerwazy 22:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It really would be helpful if exact date and photographer could be found, but I have nothing against using the photo in the article. To Jaakko: Almost every photo depicting fighting in WWII were staged, including that famous flag rising at Iwo Jima. So it is not necessary for photos to be authentic to be used in the article, well, that would result us looking only reconnaissence photos, which would become boring quite quickly. --Whiskey 22:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

I digged some information about the picture and added it to the picture itself. Go and check it there. Also, the 9 year old girl right at the front row was recognized (The lady in the HS article mentioned above) and had given interviews about her time in the Finnish camps. --Whiskey 23:43, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As Jaakko continues his crusade against the picture in question, I'd like to point some issues:

Almost all pictures taken and published about the WWII were more or less staged. There are very few exceptions. And the published ones are those which produce the strongest emotional effect.
Almost 40% of prisoners in the Finnish camps were underage due to Soviet evacuation of able bodied adults. So the demographics is genuine: There were a lot of childrens in the camps.
The fence and the signpost are real ones.
Galina Sanko took the picture at the end of June after Soviet forces had reached the city. There is no evidence (or even a suspicion) that the picture has been retouched or modified after that. So the picture is genuine.

Does the picture tell the truth? Yes. Does the picture tell the whole truth? No.

So, what the picture lefts out:

The camps in Petrozavodsk were located in the town itself, six blocks of tenement housing where Russians lived already before the war, surrounded by the barbed wire by Finns.
The fence around the camps was in reality so shabby that Finnish commendant had to issue several orders to the prisoners not to leave the camp. This was easily seen from other pictures Galina took at the same time.
At the summer of 1944 there were around 13,000 prisoners, 6,000 of them refugees from Finnish and German occupied territories, 3,000 security evacuations from the southern side of River Svir, and few thousand security evacuations from the coastal areas of Lake Onega. Even when Finns left, they were not able to return home right away before the security situation had stabilized and necessary food was secured. So there wasn't a need to force people back to the camps right after the Soviets arrived to Petrozavodsk: That was simply the safest place to be before the Soviet authorities could take responsibility.

Where does it takes us? The picture is genuine, but the situation it depicts is not but dramatized. (Sorry, Pan!) The children there are genuine. (Sorry, Jaakko!) But how they are located around the signpost is a work of Galina Sanko to get maximum emotional effect from the issue. Typical artistic stuff, and acceptable behaviour, not to mention it was used on the both sides of the frontline.

With the caveat that the picture is taken by Soviets after the occupation the picture is accepted also to the Finnish history books as we were told by Pudeo and Jaakko. So, the usage of the picture should be acceptable also in Wikipedia, but everyone should refrain extrapolating ideas from the picture or why the picture is added or claiming anything from the picture which is not supported by scientific research. Everyone should recognize the strengths and the weaknesses of the picture and act accordingly.

Jaakko, please drop your crusade. Instead of fighting against this picture, you should embrace it and the fact that it is the most emotionally charged picture Soviets have provided against the Finnish camps. Besides what is shown in the picture, it is equally important what is not shown in this or any other pictures published. --Whiskey 08:20, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I have no problem with this caveat of yours. Except for one major thing: one of the other reasons why there was such a high percentage of children was that most of the babushkas and dedushkas died during the first months, because there was not enough food. Knowing how important babushkas and dedushkas are in Russia when looking after children, the fact that only at the end of the war they set up a school, and refused a 13 year old child entry there (had her work instead), is particular. One wonders what they would have done with these kids should they have won the war. --Pan Gerwazy 03:18, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Ingushetia

I remember reports of a wave of Molotov/hand grenade attacks on an ethnic Russian houses (don't remember details), so someone can look for this and ass some details for the "violent attacks". Said Gubina was also blew up by a bomb some time before but survived. Clearly aimed at forcing remnant to leave and discouraging returns.

Also the Russians in Dagestan and an adjoining region complained lately to Putin himself, even if AFAIK all the clashes were between the Nogais and the local and federal armed forces. --HanzoHattori 14:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry about the PAs, I have merged the two versions, what we need is Russians in Northern Caucasus article instead of it being spread on a dozen of others.-Kuban Cossack

14:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Dispute on a retarded section

Major POV, unsubstantiated claims and sheer stupidity in bold. Some other simply weird ("foreign workers", "Christain groups" and what not), not to even mention unreferenced. One idiocy I disussed already, and no one disagreed (one person agreed).

Persecution and ethnic cleansing of ethnic Russians in the North Caucasus has been going on for almost two decades now. ^{[citation needed]} Recently, terrorist attacks by armed gunmen against Orthodox priests, Protestant ministers, and foreign workers have caused further tension in the minority Orthodox and Protestant Christian community. Russian and other "foreign" Christian groups have either left the region or been advised by Russian Baptist Union to do so.

From 1991 to 1994, as many as 300,000 people of non-Chechen ethnicity (mostly Russians) fled Chechnya, and an unknown number (some estimate as high as 50,000) were murdered or disappeared.^[1] At this time, a limited slave trade also re-emerged in Chechnya (the earliest known person taken as a Chechen slave, Vladimir Yepishin, was kidnapped in 1989 and released in 2002, and claims to have come in contact with other slaves kidnapped by Chechens in the mid-80s.^[2]

It is however difficult to say which of the acts of murder or kidnapping were examples of russophobia and which were the cases of crimes with no ideological background. Some observers also argue that most of anti-Russian resentiments should be seen in wider context of the Chechen conflict.

The facts of genocide of Russian population have not been reported by journalists in Western mass media and by scientific circles, from what appears to be fear of physical elimination by the perpetrators of genocide. Hence, only personal accounts on various non-official websites offer a glimpse into the matter. [19] At the same time reports of hooligan attacks against non-Russians in Russia are widely picked up and analyzed often with an attempt to paint Russia and Russian people as intolerant and racist. [20] [21].

Okay.

My proposed version (added points in bold, other changed):

Some Russian non-governmental sources allege persecution, and even ethnic cleansing, of ethnic Russians in the North Caucasus took place in early 1990s. From 1991 to 1994, as many as 300,000 people of non-Chechen ethnicity (mostly Russians and Cossacks) left Chechnya, and an unknown number are said to be murdered or disappeared.^[3] At this time a limited slave trade was reported to re-emerge in Chechnya; the earliest known person taken as a Chechen slave, Vladimir Yepishin, was kidnapped in 1989 and released in 2002.^[4]

It is, however, difficult to say which of the acts of murder or kidnapping were examples of Russophobia and which were the cases of crimes with no ideological background. Some observers also argue that most of anti-Russian resentiments should be seen in wider context of the Chechen conflict, and experts estimate that more than 4 million ethnic Russians have immigrated to Russia from other former Soviet republics in 1990s. [22]

The impoverished North Caucasian republic of Ingushetia is stepping up plans to persuade ethnic Russians to resettle or settle there, but a spate of violent attacks is undermining the efforts. Following the Ossetian-Ingush conflict of 1992 and the conflict in Chechnya that began in 1994, most Russians fled Chechnya and Ingushetia. Many had already started to leave the North Caucasus in the 1970s and 1980s due to the decline of the oil sector and lack of employment opportunities. [23] On June 9 2006 Galina Gubina, Ingushetia administrator in charge of a program to encourage the return of ethnic Russians, died after she was attacked by a group of armed men.

At the same time, some see injustice in a reports of discrimination and violence against foreigners and non-Russian minority groups, as presenting Russia and Russian people in general to be intolerant and racist. [24] [25]

I changed structure, removed weird and/or unrelated, NPOV-ed, broaded context, and addedd recent developments in (previosuly unmentioned at all) Ingushetia. Discuss.

Also important: WHERE IS TURKMENISTAN? From what I know, ethnic Russians face simply the apartheid there (and are completely abandoned and forgetten). --HanzoHattori 14:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree about Turkmenistan, for disputed, lets mutually work, sorry about reverts I attempted to merge the two versions (and I do agree on some of the retarted points), I also made a note above on making a general arcticle about Russians in North Caucasus rather than breaking the information on a dozen of separate ones. --Kuban Cossack

14:48, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Removed unrelated image

I've removed the unrelated Image:Merridien Web.png image from the article. To claim that it is Russophobic is plain speculation. We don't know the reason why the yacht club required additional surcharge from its Russian guest. It may be for insurance or any other business reasons. The surcharge is not limited to Russians only, but also applies to other guests from CIS states. If it was Russophobic, it would say something like "No Russians". Different charges for different nationalities is a normal business practice in many places and does not have anything to do with ethnic prejudices. --Lysy^talk 17:54, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

There are places in Russia too where foreigners have to pay more than Russians... --Jaakko Sivonen 18:10, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Not only in Russia, I have experienced at least in Slovakia and Turkey, that hotel and various service prices depend on nationality (E.g in Slovakia Americans would pay more than Poles who would pay more than Czechs who would pay more than Slovaks). While I may not like it, it is a normal practice in many countries, and to claim that it's Russophobic is clearly a conspiracy theory. --Lysy^talk 18:43, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Some foreign banks will not service American clients either but this is not "USA phobia" but just a result of banking rules (liabilities) that a bank incurs when it falls under USA jurisdiction. They avoid that by just saying no-Thanks to clients from United States. - Jallor 22:19, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Baltic states

What about the territorial demands of Latvia and Estonia ? The article currently says that "Lithuania chose not to have territorial demands towards Russia" and that "the politics of Estonia and Latvia are different". What are their claims then ? Is there any reference for them ? Who says they are Russophobic ? --Lysy^talk 09:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

The story of claims between Estonia (I think) and Russia was in the news some time ago (I'll try and find a link to the thing)... -- Grafikm ^(AutoGRAF) 09:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I wonder if it's a history now or is it still pending, and how official and on what level were these claims. --Lysy^talk 19:04, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

You may want to start from Abrene district and references thereof for the reasons why Russo-Latvian border treaty is not yet ratified. --Irpen 19:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, it says: The Latvian Foreign Ministry has reiterated "that Latvia has no territorial claims to the Russian Federation", which seems so contradict the statement that Latvia "has territorial demands". --Lysy^talk 19:31, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

It also says: On April 29, 2005, Latvia announced that it would sign an interpretative declaration in conjunction with the proposed border agreement with Russia, noting that the border agreement would in no way affect "the legal rights of the Latvian state and its citizens" under the 1920 treaty. As a consequence, Russia scrapped the border agreement., which seems so contradict the statement that "Latvia has no territorial claims". `'mikkanarxi 21:08, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but where are territorial claims in it. Latvia wanted to sign the border agreement with Russia, didn't it ? Also Latvian government confirmed that it has no territorial clams. Only Putin tries to increase the enmity against Latvians by saying that they claim the territory, despite Latvian statements. Where do you see Russophobia in this ? --Lysy^talk 21:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

All right, if there are not further comments on this, I'm going to rephrase the "Baltic States" section of the article into:

All the Baltic States consider their past adjoinment to the Soviet Union to be Soviet occupation. This however has been so far not recognized by Russia. Upon gaining their independence, Estonia and Latvia did not automatically provide their respective citizenship for their Soviet-time Russian immigrants. Latvia and Lithuania confirmed that they have no territorial claims to Russia.

which reflects more accurately the confirmed situation. Otherwise please provide proper references to confirm the specific claims and how they are related to Russophobia. --Lysy^talk 04:20, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Not quite. At the same time, Latvia makes a mutually exclusive demand that the basis of the relationship should not be the USSR dissolution but the Riga Peace. The former would have meant accepting the administrative intra-Soviet border. The latter means the Riga 1920 border. So, Latvia's claim that it has no territorial claims is in conflict with another claim it makes (Riga Peace). --Irpen 04:25, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

On December 23, 2005, Latvia’s President again reiterated the position that Latvia has no intentions to claim any part of the Abrene region. Do we have any proof of more recent claims of the region by Lithuanian government ? Even if Latvia had some claims in the past, it has them no more. Now, is it all right to restore this sentence to the article: Latvia and Lithuania confirmed that they have no territorial claims to Russia ? --Lysy^talk 19:22, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know, Estonia also doesn't have any territorial claims on Russia.--Staberinde 16:19, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The border treaty between Estonia and Russia, signed on 18 May 2005, was ratified by Estonian Parliament on 20 June 2005. It's not ratified by Russian Duma yet. Does that mean that this is Russia who has territorial claims?

This article is not the place to discuss unproved territorial claims of the Baltic states. Actually, this issue is discussed at the article of Territorial changes of the Baltic States. The conclusion there is that "...official governments of Latvia and Estonia do not support the issue, but it is supported by some, usually marginal, organizations inside these countries,,,,". But this is an issue with almost all bordering countries. Why not list the Karelian issue with Finland, or dispute over northern territories (Kuril islands) with Japan, or disputes with China? Actually the right place for information about these disputes is Territorial disputes of the Russian Federation. Also, saying that territorial claims (unproved, by the way) are proof of any kind of -phobia is very simplified and incorrect approach. 80.235.66.37 08:58, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hanging photo

I believe it's decipting captured Soviet partisans. It's a show (public threat) execution, and civilians would be lined up and shot without trouble with a hanging. Like in concentration camps, hanging was for the failed escapees. --HanzoHattori 13:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, if it's not a reprisal against the partisans (or their sympahisers), population would be more likely to be transferred for a forced labour (if possible). The only real German genocide commited against Russian civilians because of nationality was only of a Russian Jews and Gypsies. Generalplan Ost was about northern Slavs in general, but can be noted here. Large numbers of a Soviet military POWs were not only deliberately starved, but even shot or gassed in an organised campaigns, but they were hardly only Russians (partisans too, btw). In conclusion: Hitler didn't particulary singled out Russians for the Holocaust. Soviets would be killed for being Communists, partisans (or sympathisers), soldiers (especially political officers), Jews, etc (also northern Slavs). --HanzoHattori 22:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Behaviour of Ghirlandajo

Could some Russian editors please persuade Ghirlandajo to behave constructively instead of revert warring ? Thanks. --Lysy^talk 07:52, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Unexplained deletion of whole sections may be classified as vandalism. Take care, Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:05, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

The Georgian section is back and ready to be discussed. --Lysy^talk 08:13, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Semi-OT (great importance): WWII Soviet POWs and The Holocaust

[26] --HanzoHattori 01:39, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Help? If you care and agree, that is - right now I think I'm quite alone in my belief here. --HanzoHattori 01:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay. I see, you're not interested - pity. --HanzoHattori 16:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Natella Kaftailova

Dear Ghirlandajo, This person may or may not be Russophone, but if you look the definition give at the first section of this artcile, I don't see how it could be example of Russophobia. Even more, I may agree that language is quite important topic related to the Russophobia, but I don't see any evidence, that in this case the violation of article 8 of convention is related to the nationality, origin or mother tongue of Mrs Natella Kaftailova. Also, I find the secondary reference in Russian from the Russian source not very neutral (not to say objective). If you like to make this reference, please refer to the primary source - most of decisions of ECHR are public and published in English or French.

^ Sokolov-Mitrich, Dmitryi. "Забытый геноцид". Izvestia. Retrieved on 2002, 7-17.
^ Slave of the Caucasus. BBC. Retrieved on 2002, 7-16
^ Sokolov-Mitrich, Dmitryi. "Забытый геноцид". Izvestia. Retrieved on 2002, 7-17.
^ Slave of the Caucasus. BBC. Retrieved on 2002, 7-16

[1] Sokolov-Mitrich, Dmitryi. "Забытый геноцид". Izvestia. Retrieved on 2002, 7-17.

[2] Slave of the Caucasus. BBC. Retrieved on 2002, 7-16

[3] Sokolov-Mitrich, Dmitryi. "Забытый геноцид". Izvestia. Retrieved on 2002, 7-17.

[4] Slave of the Caucasus. BBC. Retrieved on 2002, 7-16

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]