Talk:League of East European States

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


The present entry is highly incomplete. It omits to mention how this concept is a standard component of antisemitic writings in Poland. After all, what is better to generate hostility towards the Jews then to claim that they want to rule over you.

From Antisemitism And Its Opponents In Modern Poland by Robert Blobaum page 61

Only at the beginning of the twentieth century and especially in the wake of the 1905 revolution, did the Jew become a powerful personification of a mysterious "enemy from within", conspiring to deprive the Poles of their expected self-rule. These native aliens who demanded equal civic rights supposedly could not be satisfied with equality; instead they would strive to prevail over Poles in towns and cities, to humiliate them, and finally to turn Poland into a Judeo-Polonia. It is no wonder that such a myth was subsequently activated during every political crisis or electoral competition. It certainly reflected a Polish national feeling of being manipulated - as a national entity - by the great powers, secret societies, or other forces beyond people's knowledge and control. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes I think the term Judeopolonia should be split from actual proposal of Boddenheimer and others.However the proposal is not a myth in itself. It was actually proposed by him.

For instance Germany, Turkey, and Zionism 1897-1918 Author: Isaiah Friedman page 231 also recalls this idea[1]. --Molobo (talk) 15:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Reference to numbers of ethnic groups[edit]

Can be found in Germany, Turkey, and Zionism 1897-1918 Author: Isaiah Friedman. The number of Ukrainians is different by a large degree.

[2] --Molobo (talk) 15:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Google Books worth consulting[edit]

Search for "Bodenheimer" in:

From Bodenheimer's memoirs (English translation)[edit]

pg. 234

In the event of a Germany victory a League of East European States should be created, which would run approximately along the edge of the Pale Jewish of settlement. In this League the Poles would be the strongest nation, but Ukrainians, White Russians, Lithuanians, Estonians, and Letts would maintain a balance. The Jews together with the Germans would turn the scales. For the constitution of the new State I set up the principle of the national autonomy of the alien peoples within the Russian Empire. From the Jewish angle propaganda for should be undertaken among the Polish-Russian Jews. If the invading German troops could be regarded by the Jews as delivereers from the Russian knout, the propaganda would have a certain prospect of success. For the German empire the creation of this state would be of the greatest interest since it would be freed thereby from the constant threat of a Russian attack. So far as the Jews of Russia were concerned I expected a mighty national upsurge, which could also facilitate the establishment of a Jewish State in Palestine.--Pharos (talk) 08:02, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Is Pogonowski an WP:RS for this topic?[edit]

He's not a professional historian, and he's using bizarre terms like "Judeopolonia", so I question it. I have seen nothing about Lublin being the capital in any of the other sources, and this sounds frankly like he made it up based on other incidents in Polish history. I don't think we should be using him as a source for this.--Pharos (talk) 04:38, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Primary sources[edit]

Besides Bodenheimer's memoirs, two primary sources from the time stand out (being cited by good secondary sources):

Also, see the relevant section of the Bodenheimer archives.--Pharos (talk) 03:46, 2 January 2008 (UTC)


I think I will move back the article about Judeopolonia to this name, since the name League of East European States doesn't appear on any google search outside of Wikipedia, the term Judeopolonia has been adopted (rightly or wrongly) as the widespread name of this concept. While some may feel discomfort at this, Wikipedia is not a place to judge accepted naming, similar situation is in Polish Corridor article which is a propaganda term that describes an area of Polish administrative region with different name, yet the propaganda name has entered widespread usage. Also a proper move should be be made after voting and discussion. The term Judeopolonia is widespread enough that I think is notable to have an article on wiki.--Molobo (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps a an article about Attempts to create Jewish state in Central and Eastern Europe ? But at beginning they will be similiar to each other.--Molobo (talk) 04:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The term "League of East European States" is the one actually used by the proposer of this plan. "Judeopolonia" is a term of 19th century antisemitic origin that has no historical connection to the plan, and is not used in writings by professional historians. The term "Judeopolonia" should indeed be explained in the article, but the description of the real historical incident should not be clouded by putting it under the name of the conspiracy theory; perhaps we could have another article on the "Judeopolonia" concept, but this concept seems very similar to Żydokomuna.--Pharos (talk) 04:34, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I know what the term was made by the man behind the proposal. But the most widespread and most common term seems to be Judeopolonia. --Molobo (talk) 04:37, 16 Janu

ary 2008 (UTC)

This term is not in use by professional historians at all, and by noone at all in the English-speaking world.--Pharos (talk) 04:39, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Well I don't know how to judge if somebody is professional or not, however Wikipedia's guidelines note the widespread usage usually dominates the naming issue. What do the professional historians use to name this proposal ? And of course indeed from what I gathered its not widespread knowledge in history books in English world or even treated as myth despite the actual history.--Molobo (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
We judge widespread usage in WP:RS. I have looked over quite a few English-speaking world books which mention this subject and none of them use "Judeopolonia" as a neutral, historical name. This is an extremely obscure historical event, and it has no standard name in English — however several books do mention the actual name of this plan (in various translations), as the name is also mentioned in period documents from World War I, as well as in Bodenheimer's memoirs. Bodenheimer's plan is actual history, and should be known under its actual historical name, rather than a made-up name associated with antisemitic myths.--Pharos (talk) 04:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Well we have all sorts of articles describing non neutral or propagandic terms so that by itself is no argument. I certainly believe that Judeopolonia is widespread enough to have its own article for anybody interested in the term. Since it doesn't concern itself with communism but with attempts to create a Jewish state in Central and Eastern Europe I would say it isn't connected to Żydokomuna article. Btw-why not Attempts to create Jewish state in Central and Eastern Europe ? While obscure topic, it is neverthless a historic subject that did happen and I think worthy of an stub for now.--Molobo (talk) 05:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Because there were no 'Attempts to create Jewish state in Central and Eastern Europe' other then the Bodenheimer plan, which wasn't even a plan for a "Jewish state" at all, but rather a plan for eastern Jews to get a favored pied-noir-like status in a German client state, similar to that of Sephardic Jews in French Algeria. If we were to have a "Judeopolonism" article, it wouldn't be on the Bodenheimer plan itself, which deserves a real historical article, but rather on the long-standing conspiracy theory.--Pharos (talk) 05:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Rename to East European Federation[edit]

I'd like to suggest a rename to East European Federation, as looking at the proposed form of government, it's clear that it was not meant to be multiple states, but that the "federal" aspect would be non-territorial. This form is also closer to the original German name and that used on Polish Wikipedia.--Pharos (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2017 (UTC)