Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive 4

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. 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.

Contents 1 Disputed 1.1 Rudi Pawelka 1.1.1 Discussion on the Pawelka's speech 1.1.2 Discussion on the WDR source 1.1.3 Proposal with stress on Preußische Treuhand and retribution 1.1.4 Second proposal with stress on Preußische Treuhand and retribution 1.1.5 Pawelka speech and Hitler ones 1.1.6 Molobo's statements on pushing anti-Polish POV 1.1.7 Pawelka speech and Hitler ones contd. 1.1.8 Pawelka also accuses Poland of guilt over the war 1.1.9 He also accuses Polish liberation of atrocities and names it aggression 1.1.10 A discussion about sources 1.2 CDU/CSU 1.3 Teaching of Polish 1.4 German courts and Polish culture 1.5 German media's portrayal of Poland 1.6 Origin of what is translated as "Today stolen, tomorrow in Poland" 1.7 Harald Schmidt 1.8 Florian Illies 1.9 German left-wing media "anti-Polish"? 1.10 France increasingly "anti-Polish"? 1.11 Martin Schulz's remark 1.12 President Chirac's remark 1.13 German Polish Friendship 1.14 anti-Polonism in Russia

Disputed

Rudi Pawelka

Couldn't find Rudi Pawelka's remark on the net. If he really said so, it would surely have caused a scandal whose traces could be find on the net easily.NightBeAsT

This information was reported by Polish Press Agency on July 3rd, 2005. Source: 1. It was also published in Gazeta Wyborcza2 and actually many other Polish press. He also accused Poland of not being a law-abiding state, because of which Polish Silesia Civic Movement appealed for recognizing him persona non grata in Poland. 3 English

How about: Polish Press Agency reported that Rudi Pawelka the president of the Preußische Treuhand and the Territorial Association of Silesia in his speech made during the society's congress in Nuremberg blamed the outburst of the World War II on, in his opinion, acts of aggression committed by Poles during the period 1918-1938. --SylwiaS 05:14, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

~Please, I want quotes for any alleged sentence he has said. I know the Preußische Treuhand is very unpopular in Poland. And what is not liked may be treated not quite fairly, eg one might make a false statement of fact that injures someone's reputation. Make sure it's credible and not some lie to earn money withsensationalism. I would quite honestly see another source from a country besides Poland. There are enough news agencies on the net and quotations can be found easily. And I highly doubt that the statement could be real if it is so unpopular. If it was a fact, it would probably have caused a scandal.

Discussion on the Pawelka's speech

I guess this is the German original. Please, let us read it carefully. Alx-pl 14:43, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

No, sorry, I've read through it but couldn't discover any grounds for the accusations. In his speech the accused criticises the Eu, the Polish government and the german one for their attitutude towards his de:Preußische Treuhand but does not allocate guilt for the war. I'm pretty sure this man is very unpopular by some here and criticising the polish government (or anything related to Poland) alone is considered in the article as anti-polonistic. And criticising the article, like I did, is considered by some as "German POV-pushing". No surprise then, that the propaganda article is "vandalized" so many times. NightBeAsT 16:12, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I doubt Gazeta Wyborcza is a nationalistic source :)Molobo.

Who cares? If its article is based on the speech posted by Alx-pl but makes such weird accusations, it is simply a misunderstanding or anything else unworthy of inclusion.NightBeAsT 17:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

To clarify. Gazeta Wyborcza is not a nationalistic journal. Its editor in chief Adam Michnik was awarded by European University Viadrina in Frankfurt upon Oder for his contribution to Polish-German reconciliation [1]. Alx-pl D 12:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

But he didn't write this article, did he? And why couldn't that person write another article if he was right and so many other magazines and newspapers ignorant?12:10, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

No, he did not write this article. The aim of my remark was just only to underline that this daily treats Polish-German relations in a serious manner and if it presents something as a problem in Polish-German relations then it is really a problem and not a seeking of cheap popularity. From my analysis below, you can clearly see that Pawelka's argument is on the verge of accusing of Poland for the guilt for WW2. Gazeta Wyborcza just took the side of the interpretation that he really said so, because they think he wants to slowly revise the current European order at the cost of Polish citizens. Alx-pl D 13:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

One long speech of Pawelka (over 130 sentences) to Silesians shortly commented (5 sentences -> less than 1/25 of the speech) on the Treaty of Versailles and the forcible expulsion of Germans after the first World War in the context of "problems and tensions" before 1933 that "people don't talk about" but which also contributed to a "situation in Europe" that "Hitler" then managed to "explo[de]" when he started the second World War. A journalist of the most popular daily in Poland jumped to the conclusion that Pawelka wanted to completely blame Poland for World War II and although that was not Pawelka's point in the speech, the journalist, who certainly didn't win a prize for the story, succeeded in creating a scandal in Poland. Scandals often increase the rate of sales of the magazines who cause them. That summarizes this entire problem in my opinion. Actually I don't even want to know Molobo's summary because I can see it in the article: Pawelka said Poland, not Germany, is guilty for the second World War! That's why all the organizations in which Pawelka is in must think so too! And the entire CDU and CSU think so too because they were once reported by a Polish source to have met with these organizations!!!NightBeAsT 14:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

You forgot about Polish "agression" in Upper Silesia, lawlessness of Polish state, whose fingers must be watched, and the fact that he is angry about the fact that when WW2 is mentioned Poland isn ;t remembered for her aggression. --Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Was the brutal and deadly expulsion after World War II not aggressive? In what context did he accuse Poland of being a lawlessness state? In the context of their rejection of his demands. And that's what the speech is about, his demands, not your Miss Poland. And I've told you three times already that you don't translate word for word but according to its meaning, so there was no claim of "watching hands". How about you learn German before claiming you're better informed about the German language than me, the Collins Dictionary or the Honos dictionary?NightBeAsT 22:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"And the entire CDU and CSU think so too because they were once reported by a Polish source to have met with these organizations!!!" I don't know if they think so(Stroiber is a bit antipolish but I will have to look) but they tolert such person who uses Hitler's rhetoric. --Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Any reasnoble person cares, well except German nationalists I suppose :)--Molobo 22:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

So every reasonable beings except "German nationalists" cares whether or not you think Gazeta Wyborcza is a nationalistic source? Delusion of grandeur? It's this simple: If its article is based on the speech posted by Alx-pl but makes such weird accusations, it is simply a misunderstanding or anything else unworthy of inclusion. NightBeAsT 16:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes you are right.Saying that he is angry Nazi Reich is accused of agression when it was Poles that were aggresive doesn't mean he accuses Poles of WW2 or he is antipolish :)--Molobo 18:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC) And of course GW is a right wing nationalist newspaper :) --Molobo 18:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC) Sorry? NightBeAsT 18:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC) And of course this part of the text is very propolish also : Polen ist mit einer solchen Rechtsprechung kein Rechtsstaat. Unser Appell an Europa: Schaut diesen Epigonen des kommunistischen Unrechtsstaates auf die Finger !--Molobo 18:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

But does it mirror an "irrational or malicious histility towards Poland"? Maybe in your opinion. In my opinion he was argueing in favour of his organisation and this sentence, one of hundreds in his speech, is an overstatement he uses as rhetorical device to argue for his cause, not argument why Polish should be detestable. NightBeAsT 18:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

How silly of me to forget that "showing the finger" is a friendly "rhetorical device" :) --Molobo 20:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

No, giving someone the finger is not a friendly rhetorical device as such. It is a gesture venting anger that has nothing to do with what we are talking of because "auf die Finger schauen" means "to keep an eye on someone", not "give sb a finger". NightBeAsT 21:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

I don't Poland is a thief that needs her hands watched.Also I don't think claiming that the treaty that restored Poland from occupation was "unjust", or diktat, nor do I think liberation of Poles was "aggression", that we need to remember besides Nazi Reich...--Molobo 00:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Allright, do you consider a person an anti-polonist who says, "which hand that has put itself and us in such chains [meaning the Versailler Vertrag] wouldn't whither?" And if that person added, "this treaty is unbearable and unattainable!", would you see him as an anti-polonist or rather a nazi?NightBeAsT 20:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Please stick to the topic and aks me personal questions on my talk page.What we are talking is Pawelka speach against Polish state in which he among accusing Poland of aggression, blaming Poland for WW2, insulting remarks that Poland must have her hands watched, also said that liberation movement of Poles was aggression, and treaty that created Poland was injust.--Molobo 20:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I never made an off-topic edit and this was not an attempt to do so either. As for aggression: was the Expulsion of Germans after World War II not maybe a bit aggressive considering millions of Germans died in an aggressive way? As for your thief theory: you guys personalised Poland by calling it "her", like a woman, now, Molobo, you're complaining that someone applies the personalisation "to keep an eye on someone" to Poland, like Poland were a woman or man. And get over these thief theories. Collins dictionary: 'jdm auf die Finger sehen/schauen='to keep an eye on sb', 'jdm scharf auf die Finger sehen/schauen='to keep a close eye on sb'; the latter is more emphatic ... but Pawelka only said the former thus less emphatic - therefore less inflammatory - one. We translate the meaning of the term, not word for word, or else saying "to let the cat out of the bag" would certainly not mean "to tell a secret carelessly or by mistake" if you translate it to Polish for example - if you translated it word for word it would sound like an accusation of cruelty to cats, whereas a "cat burglar" would not be "a thief who climbs up the outside of a building in order to enter it and steal sth" but translating it word for word you'd have a "burglar that steals cats". If keeping an eye on sth is a crime, then I'm guilty of keeping an eye on the article, and so are you. Do you accuse the article of being a thief? As for your accusation of war guilt: I think I've explained why it is nonsense now (read the comment below starting with "No, that's overstated etc". Even if you still accepted this conspiracy theory, what difference would it make? If you ask Pawelka whether he thinks Poland is responsible for the situation that led to WW2, would he confirm it? No. Has he accused Poland for the situation that led to WW2 in other speeches? Certainly not (unless you could find a source). Even if you didn't change your mind, no source except for one little source thought so too. Politically Pawelka played a relative large role last year and attention from the media was not missing, yet no source thinks he blames Poland for WW2? And a scandal is usually good for a magazine's rate of sales and Pawelka's approving rates were not really high so who should want to gloss over such things? Not even those who'd even care about Prince Charles and other such worthless gossip, right? By the way, are you accusing Prince Harris of being a nazi after he wore a nazi uniform? Certainly not. Because you could guess that he would deny any such accusations, because that would only be speculative, because that person himself is actually irrelevant. So why are you so pedantic about small parts of that long but irrelevant speech? As for the question I asked you about the treaty: what I was trying to point out was that objection to the Treaty of Versailles was dominant in Germany. That statement came from Scheidemann by the way, the important politician who called out the beginning of the Weimar Republic, not some anti-polonist. I argued that he Pawelka used the treaty as argument that injustice doesn't justify injustice. The treaty of Versailles, believe it or not, is known to have been a factor for the Weimar Republic's end and Hitler's success. The treaty intentionally humiliated Germany - for example the place and time of that treaty are those of Bismarck's foundation of Germany. Because the Germans were dazzled by Wilson's 14points, they were all the more shocked about the incredibly high demands of the treaty. Don't forget that WW1 has been a tragedy for Germany too. The treaty meant a shock and decreased Germany's right of self-determination, which Pawelka said too. Sprengler, a historian, summarized the entire treaty with a "continuation of the war with other means" and that's how they were seen in the tragedy of the Weimar Republic. The treaty was a "mortgage for the Weimar Republic" according to my history book. I know the treaty has also to do with the history of Poland, but the territorial changes weren't even the core of the treaty and Poland was just one - Lithuania, France, Belgium and Denmark profitted too and there was also the loss of Saarland and all the German colonies in Africa and elsewhere. These are just details. When Pawelka shortly mentioned the treaty, he wanted to remind of the treaty as a whole. Maybe to Poles the treaty meant a big change for Poland's territory. To Germans this meant just an insignificant detail - there was never much controversy about Poland about the treaty. And Pawelka and the listeners were Germans and most probably didn't even know that the treaty had something to do with Poland too. To them it was a humiliation, a shock, a continuation of the war with other means, a Diktat, anything associated with injustice. And this is what Pawelka is arguing with. Please don't forget that Poland is not the centre of the universe, not saying that Germany is, but when people in Germany hear 'Prussia' or 'Treaty of Versailles', they are not often reminded of Poland. In the history class tests about Bismarck and later about WW1 and the treaty of Versailles, I wrote 0 words about Poland and still I got the best marks in my history course back then (not saying I was so good in others subjects too), I just can't imagine I've missed the point.NightBeAsT 23:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes we can add to the article that history about Bismarck's campaigns of germanisations and persecutions of Poles aren't mentioned in German schools.Thank you for pointing that out.--Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure and on doing so we delete it for original research and lack of verifiability. Is it too hard to understand that any country focuses on history relevant to their country? Do you guys in Poland learn about the history of China? No? Aren't you anti-Chinese then? No, because the history of China has actually only little effect on your country's history. And that Germans gloss over important parts about Polish history is ridiculous: why don't they spare German students all those nasty details about the Third Reich, of course, including Poland.NightBeAsT 22:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

And please your nationalistic rant about Germany being "humilitated" by losing what it grabbed in XIX century from others isn't ontopic.Of course its nice to forget about other aspects about Pawalka's speech.--Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

(No, Molobo, the Treaty of Versailles was an intentional humiliation and you could know that ... or do the Polish schools gloss over that fact to reinforce their anti-Germanism? An impartial Molobo would now suggest to add that to the article) If it is so off-topic, why are you too commenting on it? Are you trying to distract from Pawelka's *world-shattering* speech?NightBeAsT 22:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"And Pawelka and the listeners were Germans and most probably didn't even know that the treaty had something to do with Poland too." Oh I am sure.Poznan, Pomorze Gdanskie, Gdansk, Upper Silesia have no meaning to Germans.Especially those near Pawalka :)Especially since they want to get possessions in those regions. --Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and what difference does it make to what I've stated? None.

Asking me personal questions is offtopic.--Molobo

The "off-topic" question was aimed at checking whether all objection to the treaty was anti-polonistic to you and the revelation that it was a founder of Weimar and not Hitler or Pawelka should have made you question your views but if you think that was off-topic because it was personal, well, I don't see you criticising yourself for your off-topicness.NightBeAsT

"As for your thief theory: you guys personalised Poland by calling it "her", like a woman, now, Molobo, you're complaining that someone applies the personalisation "to keep an eye on someone" to Poland, like Poland were a woman or man." I never complained at compering Poland to man or women.I complained about Pawelka antipolonist portay al of Poland as lawless communist state that needs her hands watched.--Molobo

I'd like you to show me where Pawelka said Poland needs his/her/its hands watched.NightBeAsTNowhere.::He said that Polands hands should watched, not washed.Look up watched in dictionary.--Molobo

Then check a dictionary for 'watch' yourself because one discussion fragment below your misspell that too. But no, he actually made no mention of "hands" at all. I told you not to translate terms word for word. If you have a more trustworthy source than Collins dictionary, don't come up with your translations. Just like a 'cat burglar' doesn't steal cats, Pawelka never accused Mr Poland of being a thief.NightBeAsT

I made a search on the statement Pawelka used, results were about criminal or illegal activity.

For example http://www.golem.de/0002/6233.html --Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"but Pawelka only said the former thus less emphatic" Actually saying that Poland is lawless state, and appeal to Europe to "watcht there hands" seem quite emphatic.--Molobo

If you still come up with that finger, I told you not to translate word for word but according to the meaning. And Pawelka said didn't just say "Poland is no state under the rule of law", he said with that verdict Poland is no state under the rule of law", intentionally overstating the verdict against him and criticising it sharply.NightBeAsT

"If you ask Pawelka whether he thinks Poland is responsible for the situation that led to WW2, would he confirm it?" And would I ask Hitler as a reporter if he wants to murder all Jews in Poland would he confirm it ?--Molobo

That Hitler killed Jews is a fact. That Pawelka is anti-polonistic is merely your personal speculation. If he confirmed this sentiment, you'd have a fact. If he killed Poles, you'd have a fact too. That Hitler is the devil would be a speculation. There's a nice rule: not guilty until proven guilty. So find facts, not speculations.NightBeAsT

Of course.Saying that Polish liberation from German was aggression, and he is angry that Polish aggresion isn't remembered when talking why the WW2 started isn't antipolish at all :D

--Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Your comment has nothing to do with what I've said. That he called the brutal expulsion after WW2 an aggression even though Poland profitted from it is from the point of view of a Slesian. That he accused Poland of being responsible for WW2 is your personal speculation. Not guilty until proven guilty.NightBeAsT

" Has he accused Poland for the situation that led to WW2 in other speeches" I don't know his other speeches, he did in that.But wait ? You know his other speeches ? Do you listen to his speeches often ?--Molobo

If that strange magazine writes as probably the only magazine out there an article which accused Pawelka of having accused Poland for WW2, why should it not write another if it had more proof so it could demonstrate it was right? So obviously it has no more proof. And no, I have never read or heard any other speeches apart from what Alx-pl posted and why are you accusing me? You appear to have a passion for jumping to conclusions (you migh like to look 'to jump/leap to conclusions' up in a good dictionary if you don't know the term).NightBeAsT

"yet no source thinks he blames Poland for WW2" Actually the largest and most respected Polish paper(often accused of antiPolish attiude by nationalists) thinks so.--Molobo

A Polish newspaper for the bulk of the population, thus comparable to the Bild Zeitung. That was the "little source" (little because I consider it to be as unreliable as the Bild Zeitung) I was referring to.NightBeAsT

Actually Gazeta Wyborcza is one of the most respected papers in Poland.Please don't comment about things you have little knowledge about.--Molobo

Not unlike the Bild Zeitung. Like my old English book, you can distinguish between 'popular' newspapers and 'serious' newspapers.NightBeAsT

" By the way, are you accusing Prince Harris of being a nazi after he wore a nazi uniform? Certainly no" Please stay on topic.This has nothing to do with antipolonism.--Molobo

Not so fast. A hasty conclusion might be that he is a nazi after wearing that nazi uniform. So add him to the article because being a nazi means being anti-polonistic. It's only about as far fetched as your other stories including Pawelka's.NightBeAsT

"As for the question I asked you about the treaty: what I was trying to point out was that objection to the Treaty of Versailles was dominant in Germany. " Dislike for Poland and desire for its destruction was commonplace in Weimar Republic.See Stresseman and his attempts to destroy Poland by economical means.--Molobo

Again you miss the big picture: Germany's foreign policy mainly consisted of an attempt at reverting the Treaty of Versailles in general, until Hitler succeeded in doing so --> a continuation of the war with other means. (It's Stresemann btw)NightBeAsT

Ok lets see how our Stressi viewed things

"[A] final and lasting recapitalisation of Poland must be delayed until the country is ripe for a settlement of the border according to our wishes and until our own position is sufficiently strong." According to Stresemann's letter, there should be no settlement "until [Poland's] economic and financial distress has reached an extreme stage and reduced the entire Polish body politic to a state of powerlessness".2"

Stresemann in a letter to the German ambassador in London, quoted after Broszat (see above), p. 224. Martin Broszat, 200 Jahre deutsche Polenpolitik, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1972, Oh what a lovely peacemaker and friend of Poland ! --Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

He actually won the Nobel peace prize despite trying to revert the treaty of Versailles like any other German politician at that time.NightBeAsT

Good we shall add that German politicians at that time ware hostile to Poland.Good contribution from your side :) --Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, Molobo, Wikipedia is no vehicle for propaganda. If you want to mention that all the German parties were against the Treaty of Versailles and tried to revert it, you can do so (to get the statement deleted due to irrelevance to the topic), or if you only cherrypick the Polish part, you'll get it deleted for trying to use Wikipedia as a vehicle for propaganda.NightBeAsT 22:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"The treaty of Versailles, believe it or not, is known to have been a factor for the Weimar Republic's end and Hitler's success." Really ? That is your POV.In fact I could claim that it was the lack of enforcing it that was the source of German Nationalists success(surely you don't want to claim was an invidual set apart from all the rest of politicians in his views).--Molobo

My POV? "mortgage for the Weimar Republic", says one history book. Another ranks the Treaty of Versailles as one of the 10 reasons for the death of the Weimar Republic. But of course in your opinion they must be biased against the treaty. Surprisingly, however, they do not gloss over the crimes and all those nasty details of the Third Reich.NightBeAsT

"The treaty intentionally humiliated Germany - for example the place and time of that treaty are those of Bismarck's foundation of Germany."The WW2 was started to destroy Poland not to avenge signing of the treaty.--Molobo

Oh yes, to destroy the centre of the universe.NightBeAsTI see that you have no objective counterarguments.This is expected, since WW2 started over Polish territory desired by Germany.

--Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC) "Don't forget that WW1 has been a tragedy for Germany" Somehow I can find little sadness that the plan for economical exploitation of Central Europe to achieve German hegemony failed.If Germany hadn't purused dreams of being world power WW1 wouldn't happened.--Molobo

Not a tragedy? Millions were killed, millions injured, millions went missing in action, entire landscapes and cities were destroyed. Considering they only wanted a short war, not a world war, like the three previous wars (who did much to unite Germany), something like a war Poland wanted to have when it entered the Iraq war, yes, it was a tragedy. No one wanted a world war. German hegemony? No, not world domination, but a position equal to the world powers Great Britain, the USA and Russia was the aim of the German Empire. The central powers doubtlessly contributed much to the outbreak of the war, but at that time peace was very unimportant to most countries. I remember a nice quote by a historian who said that almost any country involved could have prevented the war ... if they really wanted to. And if you're really so indifferent to German suffering, like Pawelka is or was to Polish suffering or (since you like comparisons to Hitler) like Hitler was to Jewish suffering, just try to avoid indications because as you can see in the paragraph about Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it just forces the conversation off-topic.NightBeAsT

"Millions were killed, millions injured, millions went missing in action, entire landscapes and cities were destroyed. Considering they only wanted a short war, not a world war, like the three previous wars (who did much to unite Germany)"

Oh poor German imperialists.Theire short war to create empire failed.How sad I feel...--Molobo

I don't expect any more humane sympathy of you for the suffering of anyone except for Poles. See, that's the difference between the two of us - even though I'm an opponent of the Iraq war, I still don't think that 9/11 was right. I'm not anti-americanistic because of it. You? You blame every German without exception for their imperialistic, monarchic government. That Bismarck left and an imperialistic course was taken - much like any other government of a great power - was not their fault. I'm getting off-topic, but you actually want me to go off-topic because I've just told you to stop unnecessarily indicating your indifference to German suffering (comparable to Hitler's indifference to Jewish suffering) and what do you do? You immediately only voice your indifference even with sarcasm. You're either trying to force the conversation off-topic or you're just trying to make me angry. Whatever it is, stop it.NightBeAsT

"German hegemony? No, not world domination, but a position equal to the world powers Great Britain, the USA and Russia was the aim of the German Empire."

I already provided a quote of German war aims in Central Europe in the talk page.Maybe it seems strange to you but depopulation of Poland and turning into exploited economy isn't something which I would like...--Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Fine, you quoted a letter or whatever and I quoted a history book on the question whether Germany was trying to become a hegemony. Does that make anyone wrong?NightBeAsT

"And if you're really so indifferent to German suffering"

German failure to achieve a hegemony in Europe and conquer other nations doesn't fill me with sadness.And that is what made those "sufferings". --Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Germans usually thought it was defensive warfare, not an agressive war. Stop generalising from the government and using it to argue against Germans in general. You're unnecessarily expressing your indiffernce to their suffering again after I told you to stop doing so. What reasonable purpose does this serve?NightBeAsT

"To Germans this meant just an insignificant detail - there was never much controversy about Poland about the treaty. And Pawelka and the listeners were Germans and most probably didn't even know that the treaty had something to do with Poland too" If you think so, then please learn more about history.Destruction of Poland was one of main targets of German policy since 1918.Pursued by collaboration with Soviet Union, support for bolshevik invasion by von Seeckt, and economical war of Stresseman.--Molobo

Oh, was it? Yes, somewhere behind the Dolchstoßlegende, the Novemberrevolution, the treaty of Versailles, the Weimar Constitution, the seperatism, the attempted coup d'états by Kapp and Hitler, the inflatation, the fight about Ruhr, the new currency, the stabilisation of economy and state, the economic crisis caused by the black Friday, the collapse of parlamentarism, Hitler, NSDAP, SS, Hitler, Hitler, Hitler, the reasons for the collapse of Weimar, etc. I forgot about Poland? No, actually that's what pupils basically learn in the twelfth class of German grammar schools on the Weimar Republic and what is important to know in the subject History in what is equal to the A-levels. So yes, to Germans, Poland in the time of the Weimar Republic means just another insignificant detail, not to Poles, but I'm afraid Pawelka is not addressing Poles.NightBeAsT

How nice of you to forget German involvment in Bolshevik invasion, or the German aggression against Poles in Poznan or Silesia, Stressi's attempts to destroy Polish economy, Freikorps persecution of Polish civilians, and German cooperation with SU against Poland.

--Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Big deal! I was talking of the (lack of) German knowledge of Poland, not the (lack of) Polish knowledge of Germany, so what difference does your comment make?NightBeAsT

"Please don't forget that Poland is not the centre of the universe, not saying that Germany is, but when people in Germany hear 'Prussia' or 'Treaty of Versailles', they are not often reminded of Poland" How true.Upper Silesia, Poznan, Pomorze, Gdansk meant nothing to German politicians in postWW1 period I guess...--Molobo 23:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I was talking about Germans TODAY or did Pawelka held his speech in the first half of the 20th century?NightBeAsT 19:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Oh dear.How many members are there in expeeles organisations 2 or 3 milion ? Quite unimportant it seems indeed...

Btw how many votes did the NPD and other nationalist organisation received in local elections.How many Germans are in neonazi parties ?

--Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

First sentence: what are you talking about??? Second sentence: the surge of right-wing extremism is not uncommon of countries at the moment, or so I've heard. But anyway do you really think that more than 1-4% of Germans would vote for the NPD in the upcoming general elections in Germany?NightBeAsT

I don't care.If they exist, they will be mentioned.molobo

No rambo trips, molobo, please. I already argued that the NPD objects to foreigners in general, which is xenophobic, not anti-polonistic. And even then the number of votes they get can always be counted with a single hand. If you don't care about arguments or consensus and still do some ego-trips, maybe we should address further instances of dispute resolution.NightBeAsT 22:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The text I mentioned is indeed the text in question. I've checked it thouroghly by now. Let me point out the main problematic passage which sounds most offending for us Poles:

Es erzürnt mich aber auch, wenn alle Untaten von Deutschen ständig benannt, wenn Aggression und Schuld anderer Länder plötzlich nicht mehr zählen und mit dem Verweis auf 1933 oder 1939 weggewischt werden. Die Geschichte des zweiten Weltkrieges fängt aber nicht 1933 an, ungelöste Probleme und Spannungen in Europa waren auch vor 1933 vorhanden. Es bedurfte nur eines Diktators Hitler, der diese Situation zur Explosion brachte.

Es ist unredlich, wenn man von dem ungerechten und das Selbstbestimmungsrecht missachtendenden Diktat von Versailles 1919 nicht mehr spricht, das der britische Premierminister Lloyd George als Keim für den nächsten Krieg bezeichnete. Es kann in diesem Zusammenhang nicht verschwiegen werden, welchen Leidensweg die 2,4 Millionen Deutschen in Polen bis 1939 gehen mussten, in der Tschechoslowakei waren es über 3 Millionen, die gegen ihren Willen in den neuen Staat gepresst wurden. Eine große Fluchtwelle und Vertreibungen aus Polen erfasste etwa eine Million Deutsche bis 1939.

Wer 1933 anfängt, geht auch hinweg über polnische Aggressionen gegen seine Nachbarn: 1918 / 19 Einfall in Russland und Annexion großer Gebiete, Mai 1921 Überfall auf das deutsche Oberschlesien verbunden mit unsäglichen Grausamkeiten an der deutschen Bevölkerung, Oktober 1938 Einmarsch in das tschechische Olsagebiet und Annexion des Gebiets.

these are translated into Polish like this:

Zloszcze sie jednak takze wtedy, gdy mówi sie stale o przestepstwach Niemców, podczas gdy agresja i wina innych krajów przestaje odgrywac role i jest zamazywana ze wzgledu na lata 1933 lub 1939. Historia drugiej wojny swiatowej nie zaczela sie w 1933 r.; nierozwiazane problemy i napiecia istnialy w Europie juz wczesniej. (the sentence: Es bedurfte nur eines Diktators Hitler, der diese Situation zur Explosion brachte. is not translated)

The second paragraph is not translated but related like this: Za jedna z przyczyn wybuchu wojny uznal Traktat Wersalski z 1919 r., który, jak powiedzial, byl niesprawiedliwy i ignorowal prawo narodów do samostanowienia. W tym kontekscie wspomnial o cierpieniach 2,4 mln Niemców, którzy wbrew swej woli zostali "wtloczeni" w granice nowego panstwa polskiego.

Kto zaczyna rokiem 1933, ten pomija polskie agresje przeciwko sasiadom - w 1918/19 wkroczenie do Rosji i aneksje duzych obszarów, w maju 1921 r. napad na Górny Slask i popelnienie niewypowiedzianych okrucienstw na ludnosci niemieckiej, zas w pazdzierniku 1938 r. wkroczenie na czeskie Zaolzie i aneksje tego terenu.

Oh, I begin to understand the origin of "Rudi Pawelka [...] blamed the outburst of the war on, in his opinion, acts of aggression committed by Poles during the period 1918-1938.". It must be this sentence: "Die Geschichte des zweiten Weltkrieges fängt aber nicht 1933 an, ungelöste Probleme und Spannungen in Europa waren auch vor 1933 vorhanden." (English: "The history of World War II, however, doesn't begin in 1933, unsolved problems and tensions existed in Europe before 1933") Furthermore he also mentions acts of Polish aggression in the thirties. But did he blame the outburst of the war on Poland? No. Thus "Rudi Pawelka [...] blamed the outburst of the war on, in his opinion, acts of aggression committed by Poles during the period 1918-1938." is a meaningless statement based on opinion. And that led some here to denounce the entire Preußisch Treuhand as 'anti-polonistic'???NightBeAsT 18:51, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

And of course Hitler killed Jews because they were bolsheviks not because they were Jews... Just like Pawelka doesn't blame Poland for WW2, he just wants us remember Polish "aggresion" before WW2 ;) Molobo Asking for "showing the finger" towards Poland isn't antipolish as well of course --Molobo 20:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Don't get it right, just get it written, huh? No, actually having an eye on sth or sb is not being hostile, or else you must be anti-german for having an eye on Polish articles related to Germany.NightBeAsT 21:41, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Watching somebodies hands is different and means usually that the other is not to be trusted or a thief. --Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Just like a 'cat burglar' steals cats, yes. Are you claiming to be more reliable than Collins dictionary when it comes to German words? Then let's ask another dictionary: "jmdm. auf die Finger sehen/schauen/gucken: [ugs.] auf jmdn. achten, jmdn prüfen <<Wenn du dem nicht genau auf die Finger schaut, tut er nichts>> (English: (colloquial) to pay attention to sb, to check sb <<if you don't check him, he's going to do nothing.>>) But I guess, as you're a native speaker of German (or not...), you know the German language better than anyone else, especially German dictionaries and other native speakers of German (like me who is also the son of a teacher of the German language).NightBeAsT 11:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

These quotes above are taken from the first source by SylwiaS. I ask you all to point out in the list

1. what makes you think that the text in the article is legitimate and
2. what makes you think that the text in the article is propaganda.

I realize that the paragraphs are in certain context within Pawelka's speach, so it is OK to refer to the surrounding of these paras in the German source. (And yes, indeed 'Gazeta Wyborcza' is often called philogermanic.)

My friends, Poles, please indicate if there are other offending quotes in the sources by SylwiaS, so that I could present them to others. Alx-pl 17:59, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Discussion on the WDR source

This article from German WDR may also help. Can anybody translate into English the section Rückgabe vor Entschädigung? Alx-pl 18:33, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Translation: In the interview with wdr.de, Pawelka counters with his own ideas of reconciliation: "No politician wants to get into the storm of protests which comes from Poland and which is spread in the media here." The Preußische Treuhand had only one aim: "We want the healing for the criminal expulsion." For, Pawelka continues, "every exile must have a right to decide whether he wants to have his property or not". This belonged to the "right of domicile" of the Germans who were driven out of Poland. "On the question of property, we're trying to do all that we still can." Primarily the demand was "Return instead of recompense". Only there "where restitution does not work anymore, because for example a hospital has been built there, we also accept payments of compensation", says Pawelka, who was the leading director of the police in Essen. Today he sits in the city of Leverkusen for the CDU in the city council. "We eventually want to achieve peace under the law for the future and complete human rights in Europe." Pawelka is also the chef of the Silesian national team, which has its headquarters in Königswinter, near by Bonn. Does not justify the accusation either.NightBeAsT 22:54, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm sorry that I didn't do it myself, but my German is quite weak and it would take me ages to accomplish it. Thank you very much NightBeAsT! What can be summarised by now:

• Rudi Pawelka and The Preußische Treuhand want to restitute the property that was in German hands before WWII
• They intend to use human rights and the European courts to gain this aim
• Poles commonly think that this implies coming back to the ethnic situtation from before WWII
• Poles are afraid of this because it means coming back to all the problems from before WWII and thus treat such claims as hostile anti-Polonism

Are there any objections against the summary? Can we make a text based on this? Is it well documented by both Polish and German sources? Alx-pl 00:23, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Alx-you forgot to add that it wasn't Nazi German that started the WW2 alone,"Polish agression" is also responsible--Molobo 22:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

And you must have forgotten that he never said so, but that you just interpreted that this way. Wikipedia isn't a place to express personal interpretations in articles as if they were facts NightBeAsT 16:18, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Of course he said.We have to rember the "injust Diktat"(oh how injust indeed it restored Poland, terrible) and Polish aggression.Thus not only Poland is to blame for war its also equal to Nazi Reich according to his words.--Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The WDR is part of the German Das Erste, a serious tv channel comparable (albeit worse in my opinion) to the British BBC. Compared to channels like ProSieben, WDR is quite unpopular, like most serious stuff is in relation to that containing more gossip (compare The Sun to The Guardian or Der Spiegel to Bild Zeitung). The article distances itself from the comments and doesn't give its opinion. I don't think its credibility is dubious, or does anyone think so? But what I'm certainly not sure of is how the information could be included if they should be included.NightBeAsT 02:04, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Is it your concern that Pawelka's action is not supported by majority of Germans? Maybe we could somehow mention it in the Polish-German friendship section? Maybe we could provide a better evidence for this information? Maybe you can see another constructive solution? Note that Pawelka's case is mentioned and/or criticised by the major Polish dailies: Rzeczpospolita (newspaper), Gazeta Wyborcza, and a very credible news agency (a kind of Reuters) Polska Agencja Prasowa. Alx-pl 02:43, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Okay, now I understand what you meant. It's a good idea in my opinion.NightBeAsT 16:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Proposal with stress on Preußische Treuhand and retribution

Can we agree on this formulation (it takes into account the remark that Molobo wanted to be included in the passage above):

The Preußische Treuhand want to restitute whenever possible the property that was in German hands before the World War II. To this end, they want to use human rights in the European and Polish courts [2]. This together with allusions of Rudi Pawelka, the leader of the Preußische Treuhand, concerning the guilt for the start of the World War II [3] are recognised by major Polish newspapers as anti-Polish [4], [5], as such a solution would result in humiliation of many Polish citizens.

I did not mention the PAP source by SylwiaS, because it seems for me a little bit suspicious. I've never seen a signed notice from PAP, and the one pointed out by Sylwia is signed. Maybe the notice is form another medium? I am in favour of adding the source, but after the real origin is sorted out. If this proposal is not acceptable, please, point out what should be improved. Alx-pl 22:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC) Please this is not the article about German revisionist organisations.What is important here is there antipolonistic ideology which they continue to spread.As to other goals, feel free to add them in articles about such organisations.--Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC) To be honest, I wouldn't agree fully on this. Apart from the formulation (eg Pawelka doesn't want to use the human rights but he sees the right of property as a human right and he wants to fight for this right), there were absolutely no allusions, simply statements of a speech taken out of their context. Pawelka didn't excuse the Third Reich in the speech ([6]). He said it was the "dictator Hitler", who lead the "situation" in Europe to "explosion". Shortly before (it's written right under the first long line) Pawelka said "I'm embarassed by what a nationalsocialist state has caused. For culturized people, who had given the world so much, it's almost incomprehensible." Four paragraphs below he said, "It's in no way about a weakening or a relativating of the actions of the NS-state, it is about the truth, human rights and the defence against the attempt to hide atrocities behind German atrocities." This is mirrored by a sentence in the sixth paragraph of the speech, which says: ""Concealing one's own atrocities behind the German atrocities is a European norm", this is how the Hungarian writer Esterhàzy put it in the Frankfurter Paulskirche." The entire speech argues in favour of his organization, not who or what was responsible for WW2. This is the context. Those who claim he put the blame for WW2 to Poland only want to bad-mouth him. That's why I cannot agree with you on these alleged allusions because in the context of his speech the allegations look ridiculous. And that's why I was so critical of an inclusion of the whole dispute: his allocation of guilt is just a meaningless allegation to shock some readers and earn money with sensationalism, based on the assumption that next to no one likes the Preußische Treuhand anyway. I'm 100% sure these journalists didn't even believe what they wrote themselves.NightBeAsT 23:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC) Nobody needs to bad mouth them my dear German citizen, he badmouthed himself when ha talked about Poland as thief(we need to look at Polands hands), accused Poland of agression in Upper Silesia, told that the treaty that restored Poland was injust, and that oh he doesn't like Hitler but please remember the Polish aggression.Such blunt revisionistic statements and insults against Poland and Polish people speak for themselfs.--Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I've read the paras several times now. I agree that Pawelka and PT are marginal. The main Pawelka's sin is that he wants the retribution of the property, not that he wants to revert the guilt. And I agree with you, that he does not allude. He simply states that the guilt for the war is partly on the Polish side and in the way Poland handled Germans within its territory. I agree also that he distances himself explicitely from the nazi regime. He even stays that Es geht keineswegs um eine Aufrechnung oder um Relativierung des Handelns des NS-Staates (The intent is not to recalculate or relativize the deeds of nazi state in any way) But in fact he does recalcutates and does relativizes its deeds stating that:

• Es bedurfte nur eines Diktators Hitler, der diese Situation zur Explosion brachte. (A dictator like Hitler was needed only to bring the situation to the explosion point).
• Wer 1933 anfängt, geht auch hinweg über polnische Aggressionen gegen seine Nachbarn (Who starts with 1933 puts aside the Polish aggressions against their neighbouring nations [in 1918/19/21/38]).

Pawelka just puts aside these two things so he relates them and thus in fact makes their mutual relativisation; he also recalculates the deeds of nazis because he says that there were certain sufferings and they were stopped by the explosion ignited by Hitler (but this is only alluded, of course).

I don't say that the situation before WWII should not be analysed and that the sufferings of Germans should be forgotten due to Hitler, of course. (Erich Maria Remarque's books are worth reading to gain more intuition on what was happening in Germany before WWII, by the way).

To make the long story short Pawelka states: I feel ashamed of Hitler, but Poland is guilty for the situation that led to WWII And this is one of his ways to make Preußische Treuhand property claims legitimate. Or at least it is one of his ways to be seen as a bold German property rights defender, as far as the properties before WWII are concerned. Am I not right? Alx-pl 01:28, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

"but Poland is guilty for the situation that led to WWII That is the exact sentence relevant and proper to be put into the article.As whetever they are marginal or not, that is of lesser importance.They do receive visits from top German politicians however.--Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

No, that's overstated, in this paragraph he argues that Poland because of its aggressions is not completely without blame in the situation that Hitler managed to explode, like he condemns the Versailler Vertrag (which is historically correct by the way). Of course he doesn't intend to use this argument change a line in a history book that would put more blame for WW2 on Poland, but his argument allows him to say that these injustices against Germany didn't do the world good either. This, in turn, strenghtens his main argument, namely that injustice simply doesn't justify injustice, that atrocities against Germany cannot be justified by Germany's atrocities against other countries. Because of this argument he wants the listener to conclude that the expulsion of Germans after World War II cannot be justified by Germany's injustice, put simply, those exiles have a right to their property they lost. To make this long story short Pawelka states: I know the Third Reich must be condemned and, for consistency, so must be all injustices because injustice never justifies injustice. For this reason the German exiles who had property before WW2, too, must get their property back.NightBeAsT 13:46, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

Please spare the revisionistic "atrocities against Germany".Btw he says clearly"Remember polish aggesion", and shows that Poland is a thief"Look at their hands".--Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Why are atrocities against Germany revisionistic? And for the fourth time: he never said to "look at their hands". That's slander. He said "keep an eye on it" because of what he considers to be an injust and nationalistic verdict.NightBeAsT 23:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It is probably wiser to practice an edit war containment policy, and I will probably regret mentioning it, but some of this should be discussed at the new reprivatization article

Second proposal with stress on Preußische Treuhand and retribution

Well, I am very sorry, but I have to be emotional about this issue. Please, don't take it personally. You are doing a very good job and my feelings are purely against Pawelka's programme. Pawelka calls for justice, but he tries to win this justice by means of another injustice. He has a reasonable project for Germans that were expelled from East Prussia and Silesia (and Bohemia), but does he have a reasonable perspective for these people who live in their previous properties now and who have lived there for the last 20, 30, 40, 50, 60 years? Will all these Germans be so generous to allow them live in the same place? I doubt. The people who will be forced to leave their properties, will they not feel that they are expelled (even if it would be not justified). What Pawelka prepared to offer for the neighbour of my mother's house? Before WWII she lived in Ukraine. After Germans and Russians invaded Poland in 1939 she and her family were expelled to Siberia. Her father and mother died there. After the war she returned (or better said was expelled for the second time) to the new Poland within new borders and her original home was left outside the Polish territory. (A good description of a 'journey' of this kind is in this interview; excerpt.) What Pawelka can offer her? Does he speak about retribution of her property? Where can he direct her? To Russian courts? To Ukrainian courts? These countries declined the right for this kind of retribution. Suppose they allowed it. Is it OK to propose someone a property in a country where cases like this take place? Or like this? Suppose Poles are so good that they will not feel any anger against Germans who regained their properties. Will Ukrainians, Belarussians, Lithuanians and Russians be also as good for Poles? What kind of justice can Pawelka offer for my mother's neighbour? Alx-pl 20:01, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

Alx what all of this has to do with Pawalka claims that treaty restoring Poland was injust, Poland is a thief, and its agression should be remembered as one of causes of WW2.--Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Please don't get me wrong when I defend such persons as him or the CDU - although it might surprise some persons here I've actually only rarely agreed with the CDU's concepts in general and never voted for the party. I know that he and his organization react with indifference to the other side, in a similar way to lawyers in a judicial dispute. I know it's like at court or in a war, or to put it less inflammatory, in a 1vs1 video game or in a football match: two winners are rare. As the chef of the Silesian football team something like this shouldn't be new to him - he's biased in favour of a team and thus inevitably against the other. But it's often not hatred towards the other party that makes you support "your" team, you're just well-disposed towards your team, that's all. Quite honestly I don't think this Pawelka succeeded in his cause either. If the WDR report is right in guessing, Pawelka banged his head against a legal brick wall, so to speak. True or not, his attempt alone certainly injured Polish-German relations and, unintentional though it probably was, he opened up old sores connected to WW2. When Pawelka was bad-mouthed in the Anti-Polonism article, I don't think it were anti-German feelings but pro-polonism feelings involved (I don't know whether this is still the case but the anti-americanism article once had a similar problem). And in the anti-polonism article we have this football effect again: one side (to which for example I belong) feels it faces injustice in the form of slander and POV-pushing while the other feels it is okay, whereas when the side I'm in undoes what they consider to be injustice, the other side (in which for example Witkacy and Molobo are) feels it faces injustice in the form of POV-pushing or vandalism. Since Wikipedia is luckily supposed to be a mirror of the truth and not who may live in a house or who should be expelled to the advantage of another, any dispute can be shifted to the talk page, where it should be discussed over what and why people are devided, and what the truth is. I know that in the final analysis it almost amounts to the same thing: one party is benefitted at the expense of the other, yet there's a third, albeit passive, party profitting: the readers who use wikipedia for education - those who immediately accept it as truth (Last year my speech on Australian history was based on wikipedia to 50% and, given that my English teacher was really obsessed with Australia and therefore knew a lot of the truth, I was very glad that the article was close to the truth and 14/15 points as mark demonstrated the gladness of that teacher too). I thank you for helping to find out what's true and what's fiction (for example you found Pawelka's speech), Alx-pl, and of course your rather impartial mediation here. My proposal for a sentence related to Pawelka would something like this be "Sometimes anti-polonistic sentiment is suspected of people who discriminate against Poles - for example Rudi Pawelka, of the Preußische Treuhand, caused a shock in Poland after he and the Preußische Treuhand tried to initiate legal proceedings against the expulsion of Germans after WW2 from area that belonged to Germany even before WW2. By demanding that German exiles should get their property back or money of the same value, he hurt Polish-German relations, opened up old sores caused by atrocities by the Third Reich against Poland and argued with indifference to Poles whose property he wants to be given to the exiles."NightBeAsT

12:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC) The proposed statement doesn't fit what we talk about.What we talk about is Pawelka's attempts to portay Poland as thief, aggressor and treaty creating Poland as injust.--Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

NightBeAsT, you are doing a very good job. I think your previous reply was very much to the point, and in fact gave rise to much deeper summary of the Pawelka case. I think your proposal is very good. Alx-pl D 13:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Dear Molobo, let me cite the definition of anti-Polonism: Anti-Polonism [...] is a term denoting an irrational or malicious hostility toward Poles as a nation or as a cultural community. The case of my mother's neighbour is an illustration of the way Pawelka's action is hostile against Poles. Thus it is definitely to the point. Unfortunately, one cannot exclude that Pawelka is just stupid and that's why the word suspected is used, and of course the text by NightBeAsT should be illustrated by sources which will give the readers a chance to asses their opinion. The propaganda that Pawelka uses in his speach is just and only a tool to achieve his end of property retribution and with this regard it is of minor importance. What's more it is always the case that when one plans an aggression then he wants to portray his opponent in bad light. That's why it can be OK to omit this issue. Of course, if you think it is of importance here, you can add a suitable sentence so that we all could discuss it.

The CDU/CSU and BdV case is of course worth mentioning, but it can be rationally discussed after the formulation for Preußische Treuhand is settled, because its meaning is totally dependant on the PT thing. There is a suitable section below to discuss in. Alx-pl D 20:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I really don't think Pawelka's IQ is of importance here.He clearly blamed Poland for its aggresion prior IIWW, considered treaty which created Poland injust and described Polish uprising against German state as aggression.--Molobo 20:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I feel like you are reading in my mind. But note that he is using a very peculiar language. A language which sounds in ears of PT in one way, in ears of Poles in another way and in ears of Europeans in yet another way. This is the point where his treachery lies. I understand that you want to mention something about Pawelka's statement concerning the guilt. Let us analyse it once more:

• "ungelöste Probleme und Spannungen in Europa waren auch vor 1933 vorhanden" (unsolved problems and tensions in Europe existed before 1933 as well) - and this is perfectly objective statement; after his enumeration of Polish actions before WWII we Poles have no doubt about his intent, but French or English may think he just enumerates some of the problems;
• "Es bedurfte nur eines Diktators Hitler, der diese Situation zur Explosion brachte." (It needed only a dictator like Hitler to get into an explosion) - I think this is uncivilized, but hardly to the point in anti-Polonism.
• When he refers to the Versaille treaty he cites Lloyd George which makes his statemens sound objective in the ears of (simple minded) "Europeans"; Lloyd George is a respectable politician in their minds.
• Then he refers to sufferings of Germans before WWII which are objective, and it sounds really OK in ears of (simple minded) "Europeans", but it is really suspicious in Polish ones, as Poles were also behind the German border and suffered the same or worse.
• "polnische Aggressionen gegen seine Nachbarn: ..." (Polish agressions against their neighbouring countries:...) which are and were indeed agressions in eyes of Russians, Czechs and Germans; again this is perfectly all right and objective in the eyes of a (simple minded) "European" (while in Polish ears the interpretation is that it was just a protection of Polish ethnic citizens, since all the Poles who were left behind the borders suffered anti-Polish oppression, as this was the mood in the times between the great wars).
• To make this passage less suspicious he concludes: "Es geht keineswegs um eine Aufrechnung oder um Relativierung des Handelns des NS-Staates,..." (The aim is not to recalculate or relativize the deeds of the Nazi state,...) which sounds like he is a man of truth and virtue in ears of a (simple minded) "European", but in Polish ears it is simply a lie (see my analysis above).

Summing up, it is nowhere that he states explicitely that Poland was guilty for WWII. You can atribute him objectively at most a statement that Poland actively took part in injustice after the Versaille treaty and that this injustice should be in the center of the discussion about the reasons for WWII. (This of course is immediately recognized by me and other Poles as a reversal of guilt, especially in the context of the aims of Preußische Treuhand.) And (simple minded) "Europeans" may think that he presented facts.

Let's contemplate a bit this analysis and let's try to find a neutral description of the case. I understand that we aim at adding something to the description by NightBeAsT above. Alx-pl D 22:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

" A language which sounds in ears of PT in one way, in ears of Poles in another way and in ears of Europeans in yet another way. " There are no "Europeans", they are Portugese,Ukrainians, Fins, Lithuanians etc.Wikipiedia aims of objective and neutral portayal of things, not showing every national stereotype as you propose.So from the begining your proposal is flawed.You may start articles Ukrainian-Polish relations,Portugese-Polish relations.Nothing stops you. However your claim is wrong on other grounds more important-Pawelka address this not to mythical Europeans, but to Germans, who know both German history and German propaganda.He basically repeats the same Nazi slogans used to justify aggresion against Poland.I doubt he doesn't know what he is doing-reinforcing Nazi propaganda by claiming it is true.Any mention about Pawelka should mention fact that he simply repeats propaganda invented and used by Nazis.

Note, that this is not a proposal of content, but an analysis that tries to show different points of view. As for Nazi propaganda, please, give suitable citations from Hitler and Pawelka in one place so that everybody (even Mexicans or Canadians who do not care about Poland) could immediately state that it is really the case. And please formulate it so that it is addressed to a potential Mexican or Canadian as you do not need to explain to me what's already obvious. Alx-pl D 06:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Please bring polls that show Canadians and Mexicans are indifferent to Poland. Molobo.

Do you know the history of Canadian border? Do you know the history of Mexican border? Do you know the border states of both USA and Canada? Do you know the border states of USA and Mexico? Do you know the country with which Mexico has ist southern border? What are the Mexican states at the border? Maybe you know all these facts (or at least you can read it in 10 minutes from Wikipedia), but they are not commonly taught in the schools in Poland, in Germany or France either. Can you give a poll that shows that in spite of the fact that these people (I mean at least Poles) are not taught those things they somehow acquired the knowledge? Alx-pl D 13:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I fear such discussion is irelevant to the article.I am still waiting for polls confirming your POV.Please ask me personal questions on my talk page in the future.However I don't think it is that all important compared to Pawelka using Nazi propaganda, so for now we may leave it.--Molobo 17:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Pawelka speech and Hitler ones

As to speeches http://www.hitler.org/speeches/10-06-39.html "Versailles was the cradle of a Polish State which had emerged from the untold sacrifice of blood - not of Polish but of German and Russian blood. Poland, who for centuries past had proved herself incapable of existence, was in 1916 artificially begotten and in 1919 no less artificially born by a German government just as incapable of existence.

In utter disregard of almost 500 years of experience, without consideration for the lesson of historical development during many centuries, without appreciation for ethnographic conditions and with no regard for all economic expediencies, a State was constructed at Versailles which, according to its whole nature, was sooner or later bound to become the cause of a most serious crisis.

A man who, I am sorry to say, now ranks among our fiercest enemies, at that time clearly foresaw all this. I mean Mr. Lloyd George. Like so many others he sounded warning, not only at the time of the creation of that structure but also in the course of its subsequent expansion which had taken place in utter disregard of reason and right.

At that time he expressed apprehension that in that State an accumulation of conditions was being created containing the risk of conflicts which sooner or later might lead to great European complications.

As a matter of fact, conditions surrounding the structure of this new so-called State, as far as its nationalities were concerned, could not be clarified until now. It requires some knowledge of Polish census methods to realize how utterly alien to truth, and therefore irrelevant, statistics on the national composition of that territory were and are.

In 1919 the Poles laid claims to the territory where they pretended to have a majority of 95 per cent - in East Prussia, for instance - whereas a plebiscite later showed the Poles actually had reached a figure of 2 per cent.

In the State finally created, which contained parts of former Russia, Austria, and Germany, non-Polish elements were so brutally ill-treated, suppressed, tyrannized and tortured that any plebiscite depended entirely on the good will of local administrative officials for producing such results as were desired or demanded. " "Unlimited patience and still greater self-restraint were called for because many of the regional Polish administrative officials took the understanding between Germany and Poland to be merely a license for the persecution and annihilation of the Germans in Poland with even less risk. In the few years up to 1922 more than one-and-a-half million Germans had been forced to leave their homes. "

Almost exact copy of Pawelka's speech.Except of course it was made by Hitler.Both even cite Lloyd George... And another : http://www.hitler.org/speeches/09-13-39.html "The fact that a province was torn from the German Reich and that other German territories were given to the Polish State was explained on the grounds of national necessity. Later, plebiscites everywhere showed that no one wished to become a part of the Polish State - that Polish State which arose out of the blood of countless German regiments. It then expanded at the expense of old settlement areas and above all at the expense of intelligence and economic possibility."

"Poland itself was a 'nationalities State.' That very thing had been created here which had been held against the old Austrian State. At the same time Poland was never a democracy. One very thin anemic upper class here ruled not only foreign nationalities but also its so-called own people.

It was a State built on force and governed by the truncheons of the police and the military. The fate of Germans in this State was horrible"

" The world, which immediately sheds tears when Germany expels a Polish Jew who only a few decades ago came to Germany, remained dumb and deaf toward the misery of those who, numbering not thousands but millions, were forced to leave their home country on account of Versailles - that is, if these unfortunates were Germans. What was for us and also for me most depressing was the fact that we had to suffer all this from a State which was far inferior to us; for, after all, Germany is a Great Power, even though madmen believed the vital rights of a great nation could be wiped out by a crazy treaty or by dictation.

Germany was a big power and had to look on while a far inferior people of a far inferior State maltreated these Germans. There were two especially unbearable conditions: First, this city whose German character nobody could deny was not only prevented from returning to the Reich but in addition an attempt was made to Polonize it by all kinds of devices; second, the province [East Prussia] severed from the German Reich had no direct contact with the Reich, but traffic with this province was dependent upon all kinds of chicanery or upon the good will of this Polish State.

No power on earth would have borne this condition as long as Germany. I do not know what England would have said about a similar peace solution at its expense or how America or France would have accepted it. I attempted to find a solution - a tolerable solution - even for this problem. I submitted this attempt to the Polish rulers in the form of verbal proposals. You know these proposals. They were more than moderate.... "

--Molobo 12:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

"Lloyd George is a respectable politician in their minds." However we know that the person is known for his dislike towards Poland.

No doubt about it, but he is still respectable for English, French etc. Alx-pl D 06:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Really ? Show polls that point out that he is respectable to French and English. --Molobo 12:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Well, some things do not need polls, as they are stated in respectable sources, see at the first paragraph in this BBC page. Alx-pl D 13:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

All statements towards specific attitude of any society need confirmation.So far you haven't provided any confirmation of your Point of View towards several societies.The source given doesn't present such data, nor any info on French views.--82.139.13.231 15:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

"Then he refers to sufferings of Germans before WWII which are objective, and it sounds really OK in ears of (simple minded) " What sufferings ? None existed that weren't made by Germans themselfs.Please don't put the myth of reperations here(it wasn't reason for Germany economy failure).Also I don't think losing colonies exploited was suffering.Please also don't use the myth of German population cut off their "home" since none of Polish areas regained by Polish state had German majority.

So you admit that there were such sufferings. Note it is not my myth or my interpretation, it is an interpretation of a (simple minded) European. Of course, the majority was Polish (on territories with German population) and it was Polish buissnes to fight for the borders since every Pole outside the borders stood in face of persecution. Alx-pl D 06:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Nope, and don't put your views in my mouth.Those "sufferings" are as real as German "sufferings" at the hands of Jewish conspiracy.Pure paranoia. Again you use the figure of some mythical "European".You mean Russian ? Englishman ? Moldavian ? Romanian ? Perhaps Greek citizen ? --Molobo 12:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

In fact, all of them together. I could have written of course English, Irish, Norse, Swedish, Finnish, Danish, Dutch, Belg, Luxembughian, French, Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, Swiss, German, Austrian, Czech, Slovak, Hungarian, Romanian, Bulgarian, Greek, Serb, Horvat, Slovenian, Bosnian, Albanian, Macedonian, Russian, Ukrainian, Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian instead (I guess I missed some nation, my apologies). Alx-pl D 13:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

It would be advisable for you learn the attiudes of several nations, claiming Russians view and judge history sthe same as Finnish, and French the same as British is ignorant. --82.139.13.231 15:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

"which are and were indeed agressions in eyes of Russians, Czechs and Germans; again this is perfectly all right and objective " The article aims of objective and neutral portayal of reality, not of stereotypes.In all cases we know that Bolsheviks aimed for invasion of Poland, and Czechs took Zaolzie in Polish-Bolsheivk war.There was no aggresion against Germany, unless you count liberation from German pesecution as aggression.

The article does not aim at objective description. There is no such a thing in humanities. This article aims at a neutral description of the problem and this means it has to take into account different points of view in a balanced form. Alx-pl D 06:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

"The article does not aim at objective description. There is no such a thing in humanities" Depends on whom you ask. "This article aims at a neutral description of the problem" So you think that neutral description of pedophila, Holocaust, antisemitism and Nazism,should take into account "different views".--Molobo 12:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I do not undrestand Depends on whom you ask. pedophila, Holocaust, antisemitism and Nazism,should take into account "different views" - yes, provided that there are such important views. In fact, antisemitism contains a sentence like this Poland is actively trying to address concerns about anti-semitism which is clearly out of the POV of those who blame Poland of total anit-semitism. Alx-pl D 13:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Molobo's statements on pushing anti-Polish POV

The antisemitism article doesn't include antisemitic POV on Jews though.When I said that the article will soon include phrases about Polish bandits murdering Germans, you answered that the article should include also that point of view.--Molobo 17:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC) I see no reason why Antipolish view should be presented as one of the opinions.Is antisemitic view presented as one of "opinions".And here are your own words, when I asked .Zapewne niedlugo znajdzie sie w artykule o antypolonizmie zapis iz wywolalo go nieudolnosc Polaków, ich braki cywilizacyjne oraz wzmianki o niewinnie mordowanych Niemcach przez polskich bandytów...--Molobo You answered: Ale oczywiscie artykul koncowy bedzie musial obejmowac tez ich POV, bo taka jest natura NPOV Alx-pl D Now either you consider such views legitamate(which would explain a lot), or you consider citing your own words a personal attack. --Molobo 18:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

You seem to state that to your edits which translate to English as

For the time being I can see that they convince you to your point of view. Soon, the article about antipolonism will probably contain a passage that it is caused by the Polish incompetence, Polish lack of civilisation and about innocent Germans murdered by the Polish bandits...--Molobo 20:50, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I answered in this edit which translates to English as

You are exaggerating. But of course the final article will have to encompass their POV, as this is the nature of NPOV. Alx-pl D 20:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Note that using the phrase You are exaggerating. I distanced myself from your statement. And in my their I referred to Germans which are mentioned both in the last words of your edit and in what's visible on your talk page right before my answer (respective edit - here is a translation of the edit:

So it is worth convincing for instance Germans to the article, since you can hardly regard 60 mln. people as a margin and the problem of anti-Polonism applies to them to much degree.)

It is worth mentioning that on your further interrogation here which translates as follows

I understand that in the article about Nazism or anti-Semitism you will mention opinions of Nazis and ani-Semits to make the articles NPOV?--Molobo 20:56, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I clarified my standpoint in this edit which translates into English as:

I don't care about these articles, if you want you can add something like this. Note however a small difference - Nazism and anti-Semitism are non civilised positions. Yet, being German is a civilised one. This means that Germans must be treated in a civilized way which means one has to discuss with them. Ah, by the way, Pawelka is not civilized - no doubt. Please, look also here. Alx-pl D 21:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Additionally, this explanation stays in conformance with my attitude not to blame and label or to give any epithet to anyone I discuss with. Alx-pl D 22:42, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

You believe antipolonism expressed by Pawelka is civilised ? Do you believe antipolonism in contrast to antisemitism and nazism is justified ?

Molobo

Molobo, Alx-pl is less likely to be anti-polonistic than you are because, unlike you, he doesn't make use of the article to slander people or other countries, undermining the article's credibility. And by giving a positive impression of Poles (and yes, if you were German, Molobo, I'd be embarrassed too by your behaviour) Alx-pl and Micha do their best to show us that not all Poles are like you but fair, honest and in possession of a desire to find the truth. A Pole being anti-polonistic would be like a German being anti-German or a Japanese being anti-Japanese, in other words extremely unlikely. So if Alx says that Pawelka must be treated in a civilised manner and knowing that Alx is not anti-polonistic, there might be something wrong with your assertion that Pawelka is such an Anti-Polonist as you call him to be.NightBeAsT 13:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Or American being antiamerican :) --Molobo 16:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Pawelka speech and Hitler ones contd.

"which sounds like he is a man of truth and virtue in ears of" Actually it sounds like simplistic defence.Comperable to "I don't have anything against Jews but...".

I agree, in ears of a person who knows a good deal of history it is really so. Alx-pl D 06:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

"Summing up, it is nowhere that he states explicitely that Poland was guilty for WWII." Oh its here:"Es ist unredlich, wenn man von dem ungerechten und das Selbstbestimmungsrecht missachtendenden Diktat von Versailles 1919 nicht mehr spricht, das der britische Premierminister Lloyd George als Keim für den nächsten Krieg bezeichnete. Es kann in diesem Zusammenhang nicht verschwiegen werden, welchen Leidensweg die 2,4 Millionen Deutschen in Polen bis 1939 gehen mussten, in der Tschechoslowakei waren es über 3 Millionen, die gegen ihren Willen in den neuen Staat gepresst wurden. Eine große Fluchtwelle und Vertreibungen aus Polen erfasste etwa eine Million Deutsche bis 1939." Quite obvious lie and attempt to show Poland as responsible for war. Your type of analysis is similiar to those encountered in people claiming that Hitler never wanted to kill Jews,instead wanted to deport them, or that he never wanted to wage war.I hope you are not a revisionists despite using similar method.--Molobo 23:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

You misinterpret my words. I think it is quite legitimate to compare arguments of Pawelka to Hitler ones so please do - give an excerpts from Hitler and Pawelka and relate them I do not have an easy access to proper sources to do it myself.

It is an interpretation to state that he blamed Poland for war. Quite obvious in my opinion, but still. I understand that this is an aim in the discussion to asess whether this interpretation is obvious enough to put it to the article. Alx-pl D 06:12, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Good.I quoted above similiar propaganda statements of Hitler.If you wish more examples, I posses a copy of scientific paper published by Wroclaw University describing German propaganda in occupied Poland. And another fine example how Pawelka uses Hitler's words: http://www.hitler.org/speeches/04-01-39.html

"For as long as this dictate of Versailles weighed upon the German people it was actually damned to go to the ground. "

And another: http://www.hitler.org/speeches/12-10-40.html "The establishment of a German community was the first item on the program in 1933. The second item was the elimination of foreign oppression as expressed in the Treaty of Versailles, which also prevented our attaining national unity, forbade large sections of our people to unite, and robbed us of our possessions in the world, our German colonies.

The second item on the program was, therefore, the struggle against Versailles. No one can say that I express this opinion for the first time today. I expressed it, my fellowcountrymen, in the days following the Great War when, still a soldier, I made my first appearance in the political arena. My first address was a speech against the collapse, against the Treaty of Versailles"

"They wanted to maintain the Dictate of Versailles in which they saw a second peace of Westphalia" The two sound almost the same...

--Molobo 12:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, I'll try to compare directly the words of Hitler and Pawelka in the evening. They seem to have much in common, I agree. Alx-pl D 13:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I have to go to sleep, but I remember about this one. Alx-pl D 22:57, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Comparison Pawelka-Hitler:

• Pawelka distances himself from Hitler and Nazi state at the beginning: Es beschämt mich zutiefst, was ein nationalsozialistischer Staat angerichtet hat. Für ein Kulturvolk, das der Welt so viel gegeben hat, ist dies kaum fassbar.

Es erzürnt mich aber auch, wenn alle Untaten von Deutschen ständig benannt, wenn Aggression und Schuld anderer Länder plötzlich nicht mehr zählen und mit dem Verweis auf 1933 oder 1939 weggewischt werden. Die Geschichte des zweiten Weltkrieges fängt aber nicht 1933 an, - this sentence has got no direct corresponding one, as it is related to the situation after WW2.

ungelöste Probleme und Spannungen in Europa waren auch vor 1933 vorhanden. can be related with Unlimited [German] patience and still greater self-restraint were called for from 10-06-39; although there is no direct reference to tensions in Europe before 1933.

Es bedurfte nur eines Diktators Hitler, der diese Situation zur Explosion brachte. - no comparison possible, as it concernes Hitler himself.

Es ist unredlich, wenn man von dem ungerechten und das Selbstbestimmungsrecht missachtendenden Diktat von Versailles 1919 nicht mehr spricht, das der britische Premierminister Lloyd George als Keim für den nächsten Krieg bezeichnete. - this can be related quite directly to

In utter disregard of almost 500 years of experience, without consideration for the lesson of historical development during many centuries, without appreciation for ethnographic conditions and with no regard for all economic expediencies, a State was constructed at Versailles which, according to its whole nature, was sooner or later bound to become the cause of a most serious crisis.

A man who, I am sorry to say, now ranks among our fiercest enemies, at that time clearly foresaw all this. I mean Mr. Lloyd George. Like so many others he sounded warning, not only at the time of the creation of that structure but also in the course of its subsequent expansion which had taken place in utter disregard of reason and right.

At that time he expressed apprehension that in that State an accumulation of conditions was being created containing the risk of conflicts which sooner or later might lead to great European complications.

from 10-06-39.

Es kann in diesem Zusammenhang nicht verschwiegen werden, welchen Leidensweg die 2,4 Millionen Deutschen in Polen bis 1939 gehen mussten, can be related to the sentence Unlimited patience and still greater self-restraint were called for because many of the regional Polish administrative officials took the understanding between Germany and Poland to be merely a license for the persecution and annihilation of the Germans in Poland with even less risk although the Hitler sentence is more harsh.

in der Tschechoslowakei waren es über 3 Millionen, die gegen ihren Willen in den neuen Staat gepresst wurden. - this concerns Czechoslovakia, and there is no menion of the case in Hitler's speeches presented by Molobo

Eine große Fluchtwelle und Vertreibungen aus Polen erfasste etwa eine Million Deutsche bis 1939. can be related to the sentence In the few years up to 1922 more than one-and-a-half million Germans had been forced to leave their homes. from 10-06-39, but the sentences concern different periods of time.

Wer 1933 anfängt, geht auch hinweg über polnische Aggressionen gegen seine Nachbarn: 1918 / 19 Einfall in Russland und Annexion großer Gebiete, Mai 1921 Überfall auf das deutsche Oberschlesien verbunden mit unsäglichen Grausamkeiten an der deutschen Bevölkerung, - one can try to compare it with

In 1919 the Poles laid claims to the territory where they pretended to have a majority of 95 per cent - in East Prussia, for instance - whereas a plebiscite later showed the Poles actually had reached a figure of 2 per cent.

In the State finally created, which contained parts of former Russia, Austria, and Germany, non-Polish elements were so brutally ill-treated, suppressed, tyrannized and tortured

but the relation is very vague.

Oktober 1938 Einmarsch in das tschechische Olsagebiet und Annexion des Gebiets. - no direct reference.

Es geht keineswegs um eine Aufrechnung oder um Relativierung des Handelns des NS-Staates, es geht um Wahrheit, Menschenrechte und um die Abwehr des Versuchs, Untaten hinter deutschen Untaten zu verstecken. Pawleka again distances himself from the Nazi state and mentions that he wants to obtain the truth; this cannot be directly related to Hitler.

Summing up, Pawelka presents certain pieces of information that are present in the Hitler's speeches and distances himself from Hitler. Alx-pl D 22:19, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Ah certain pieces of information.Why not a more precise word Alx "propaganda". And lets compare our two German leaders Pawelka and Hitler : Adolf Hitler "Versailles was the cradle of a Polish State which had emerged from the untold sacrifice of blood - not of Polish but of German and Russian blood. Poland, who for centuries past had proved herself incapable of existence, was in 1916 artificially begotten and in 1919 no less artificially born by a German government just as incapable of existence." Hitler uses a phrase "Poland, who for centuries past had proved herself incapable of existence" suggesting that Poland can't exist as a country. What does Pawelka use ? "Epigonen des kommunistischen Unrechtsstaates" Hitler-a state incapable of existance. Pawelka-a lawless state Quite similar. Let's see next Hitler:" I mean Mr. Lloyd George. Like so many others he sounded warning, not only at the time of the creation of that structure but also in the course of its subsequent expansion which had taken place in utter disregard of reason and right." Pawelka "Es ist unredlich, wenn man von dem ungerechten und das Selbstbestimmungsrecht missachtendenden Diktat von Versailles 1919 nicht mehr spricht, das der britische Premierminister Lloyd George als Keim für den nächsten Krieg bezeichnete" The same. Let's see next: Hitler

not thousands but millions, were forced to leave their home country on account of Versailles - that is, if these unfortunates were Germans.

Pawelka Es kann in diesem Zusammenhang nicht verschwiegen werden, welchen Leidensweg die 2,4 Millionen Deutschen in Polen bis 1939 gehen mussten, in der Tschechoslowakei waren es über 3 Millionen, die gegen ihren Willen in den neuen Staat gepresst wurden. Pawelka makes more details then Hitler but it is the same statement.

Next: Hitler In the few years up to 1922 more than one-and-a-half million Germans had been forced to leave their homes. (From me-this is a lie.German government encouraged migration of Germans to Weimar Republic) Pawelka Eine große Fluchtwelle und Vertreibungen aus Polen erfasste etwa eine Million Deutsche bis 1939.

The same.

Next: Hitler: The fate of Germans in this State was horrible. Pawelka: Mai 1921 Überfall auf das deutsche Oberschlesien verbunden mit unsäglichen Grausamkeiten an der deutschen Bevölkerung Again both use the same propaganda. Next: Hitler: In the few years up to 1922 more than one-and-a-half million Germans had been forced to leave their homes. They were hunted out, often without being able to take even their most necessary clothing. Pawelka:

Eine große Fluchtwelle und Vertreibungen aus Polen erfasste etwa eine Million Deutsche bis 1939.

The same. --Molobo 22:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Hitler:

For, as soon as Poland felt certain of that guarantee, minorities living in that country had to suffer what amounted to a reign of terror. I do not consider it my task to speak of the lot of the Ukrainians, or White Russian population, whose interests now lie in the hands of Russia. 

Pawelka: Wer 1933 anfängt, geht auch hinweg über polnische Aggressionen gegen seine Nachbarn: 1918 / 19 Einfall in Russland und Annexion großer Gebiete Similar suggestions --Molobo 23:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Neither the choice of words nor the grammar coincides except that they both criticise Poland for the same thing and use rhetoric, like any politician does in a speech. Of course you're trying to compare Pawelka to Hitler although you know very well that your assumption is too far-fetched, thus showing us a similar rhetoric because you cherrypicked Hitler's criticism for only one reason: people disapprove of him like of no other and if you can manage to compare Pawelka to Hitler, you'd have done your own little propaganda. Show me a reliable source that too thinks Pawelka copied Hitler's rhetoric, otherwise I'd call it original research if you try to put the idea into article: that's your own theory.NightBeAsT 13:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't need to compare Pawelka to Hitler.He copied Hitlers arguments himself --Molobo 16:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Pawelka also accuses Poland of guilt over the war

http://www.schlesien-lm.de/Deutschlandtreffen/rede-pawelka-politische-hauptkundgebung.htm "Es erzürnt mich aber auch, wenn alle Untaten von Deutschen ständig benannt, wenn Aggression und Schuld anderer Länder plötzlich nicht mehr zählen" --Molobo 22:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Translated: "It also angers me when all the atrocities of Germans are always named, when aggression and guilt of other countries do not count anymore." So what? The brutal expulsion of Germans after World War II is arguable an atrocity. Does he say Poland is guilty for World War II? No, he said it was the diktator Hitler, who brought the situation in Europe to explosion, not a Miss Poland. Again you're leaping to conclusions.NightBeAsT 23:07, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"The brutal expulsion of Germans after World War II is arguable an atrocity. " Please spare us nationalist revisionism irrelevant to the topic.Population transfer of German and Polish population under Soviet control wasn't an atrocity.

Also Pawelka clearly speaks about Polish guilt: "Wer 1933 anfängt, geht auch hinweg über polnische Aggressionen gegen seine Nachbarn: 1918 / 19 Einfall in Russland und Annexion großer Gebiete, Mai 1921 Überfall auf das deutsche Oberschlesien verbunden mit unsäglichen Grausamkeiten an der deutschen Bevölkerung, Oktober 1938 Einmarsch in das tschechische Olsagebiet und Annexion des Gebiets." In this statement he lies several times, as it was Bolshevik Russia which invaded Poland,Belarus, Balts and Ukraine, and he names Polish uprising in Upper Silesia an attack or invasion, not only that but he accusess Poles of atrocities(like Hitler),he fails to mention that Zaolzie was taken over by Czechs in Polish-Bolshevik war. --Molobo 23:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

No atrocity? Especially not when one or two million Germans "happened" to die? Then it's called a liberation, isn't it? And that's "nationalist revisionism" to say the brutal expulsion of Germans after World War II is not an atrocity? Oh, I too think it was an atrocity and every German government in Germany after World War II thought it was an injustice too. And if you accuse him of lying, you have to prove he was wrong and that he knew he was wrong. So how many new discussions are you going to create for that senseless speech?NightBeAsT 23:33, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

The number of 2 milions Germans "dead" has been largly disputed and is probably just the number of Germans that weren't registared again.Please take this to the topic suitable.So far I haven't seen any evidence of mass murder campaign organised in postwar times against German population.

Molobo.As to the population transfer in Soviet zone of control, Poles were subject to it to and in much worst conditions then Germans. Molobo.

An estimated 2 millions people dead is probably only a mistake in the registry? How naive do you think we are? That's just why I challenge your claims: they're lies in my opinion.NightBeAsT 13:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Well perhaps instead of vandalising pages you should read some books ? How about this one : Rüdiger Overman "Deutsche Militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg" The deaths during flight and expulsion concerned the Germans in the immediate postwar period as much as the fate of the missing soldiers, and similar efforts were made to clarify the fate of the missing civilians or bring families together. A huge scientific project reconstructed the events historiographically, the Federal Statistics Office (Statistisches Bundesamt), the refugees’ associations and the clerical search service did a lot with the financial support of the Federal Government to quantitatively assess the fate of those expelled as accurately as possible. The result can be summarized in the conclusion that about 2 million Germans had been killed during flight and expulsion - not including those from the respective territories who had died during military service.

These casualty figures, however, which for decades have been an integral part of the respective serious literature, are the result not of a counting of death records or similar concrete data, but of a population balance which concluded that the fate of about 2 million inhabitants of the expulsion territories could not be clarified and that it must therefore be assumed that they had lost their lives in the course of these events. In the last years, however, these statements have been increasingly questioned, as the studies about the sum of reported deaths showed that the number of victims can hardly have been higher than 500,000 persons - which is also an unimaginable number of victims, but nevertheless only a quarter of the previous data. In favor of the hitherto assumed numbers it could always be said, however, that the balance didn’t say that the death of these people had been proven, but only that their fate could not be clarified. --Molobo 16:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

He also accuses Polish liberation of atrocities and names it aggression

"Mai 1921 Überfall auf das deutsche Oberschlesien verbunden mit unsäglichen Grausamkeiten an der deutschen Bevölkerung"--Molobo 22:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

"Translation: May 1921 attack on the German Upper-Silesia connected to terrible cruelties for the German population." So in what way does that justify your headlingNightBeAsT 23:18, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

your translation is wrong.unsäglichen doesn't mean terrible, the whole term translates as : inexpressible cruelties.Certainly doesn't suggest any atrocities right ?--Molobo 23:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC) Oh btw, I typed it into internet, it brought a pro-nazi, antipolish book: http://litek.ws/k0nsl/detox/Germany_and_Poland.html --Molobo 23:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

In this piece of his long speech that you took out of its context, he never mentioned any liberation of Poland but just an attack on Germany and I've no idea whether or not he is right, nor whether or not you're right. If he is wrong, post a reliable source which says Pawelka was wrong there, because the respected polish newspaper made no mention of it, so they must have found it irrelevant or right too. I know you like to cherrypick and assume bad faith when it comes to Pawelka, so please find a source which criticises Pawelka there and thus suggests that this part of the speech is relevant and wrong to any extent. Please search for an English or German one or, if you translate it at least this time, a Polish one. I can't imagine that your conspircacy theories are not original research and irrelevant to the article again.NightBeAsT 17:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

He names a Polish uprising an invasion against Germany.Polish papers already said about it. .He named the Polish uprising in Silesia an Polish aggression.

Yes and Scheidemann, that Social democrat who made Germany a Republic and hated the treaty of Versailles to the extent that he threw his political career out of the window with anger, is by far the worst of them all. A history book says his words even mirrored the mood of Germany. All German parties were against the treaty. And let's not forget the "Nazi" Henry Kissinger, who dismissed the treaty as "a brittle compromise agreement between American utopism and European paranoia" and let's not forget the USA, which disillusioned by the fact that it ignored almost all of Wilson's 14 points, didn't even join the League of Nations in protest. The British parlamentarian Philip Snowden called the treaty at that time a "deathblow to all those who had hope the treaty is going to give us more peace. It's not a peace treaty but a declaration of another war." And a caricature was created in Britain (before Hitler came to power) with a man with a spiked helmet crawling out of a rolled-up document which read "Treaty of Versailles" and this man was titled "Hitler party". And yes, according to its definition (see de:Diktat ), it was a diktat. What does the Duden say? "Versailler Vertrag: [...] Reverting the treaty of Versailles, which was overwhelmingly seen by the German population as injust diktat by the victors and blamed Germany completely for WW1, had been the main aim of the German foreign politics since 1919." Even my former history teacher called the treaty of Versailles a diktat. Just read de:Diktat It was a treaty which "exceeded the worst fears", which was a "Diktatfriede" ("Diktatepeace") for Germany and a "Siegfriede" ("Vicorypeace") for France, the German signatories were insulted as "Novemberverbrecher" ("Novembercriminals") or "Erfüllungspolitker" ("Fulfillment-politicians"), it caused an "Anti-Versailles-trauma" or "Anti-Versailles-complex", it meant "humiliation, disgrace, discrimination, fraud, powerlessness, Diktate, an attack at honour and a reduction of self-determination" to Germans which then wanted "revenge, rage and its revision". My history book writes "Schmach- und Diktatfrieden" ("disgrace and diktatepeace") and "Schanddiktat von Versailles" (disgrace-diktat of Versailles) became effective slogans in Germany. Searching for "Versaillerdiktat" with Google leads to 3 hits, "Versaillesdiktat": 14, "Diktatfriede": 99, ""Diktat of Versailles"": 104, "Schanddiktat": 304, ""Versailler diktat"": 605, "Diktatfrieden": 658, ""Diktat von Versailles"": 701 (that's what Pawelka said), ""Diktat Versailles"": 6.430, ""Versailles diktat"": 8.430, (altogether, without inverted commas) "Versailles Diktat": 13.100 and how many hits are connected to the "Versailler Vertrag" in the German language in general: 47.700 --> of all the 47.700 hits, you can find 13.100 mentions of "Diktat". Why's that? Maybe the Duden's 'Lexikon der Allgemeinbildung' (= encyclopedia of general knowledge) can help: "Versailler Vertrag: [...] Reverting the treaty of Versailles, which was overwhelmingly seen by the German population as an injust diktat by the victors and blamed Germany completely for WW1, had been the main aim of the German foreign politics since 1919." No matter how you see it: from the definition of the word Pawelka was right (check a dictionary) and just because he used a word that even Hitler once said as well as millions of Germans, it doesn't make him a Nazi, I'm afraid, or else anyone who speaks German is a Nazi because Hitler wrote and spoke a lot in German. And stop snatching parts of my speech out of the context, molobo. As well as distracting from the main message and making us lose the overview of the discussion, they are going nowhere. Maybe that's your intention: you've managed to make the entire talk page unreadable.NightBeAsT 01:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Good we shall mention that some history books continue to present nationalist worldview in Germany and consider the treaty that created Poland a humiliation to German state.

--Molobo 23:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Which history books? Any names? Any reliable sources supporting your allegations? Anything not original reasearch based on self-righteous conclusion-jumping? Have you actually ever read ANY German history book at all???NightBeAsT 00:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

NB-you brought up the books, I hoped you remembered the titles of books that describe the loss of German conquest from other nations as "humilitation for Germany"?

No, actually I never said any German history book describe the loss of German conquest from other nations as "humiliations for Germany". It's interesting to know that you partially read what I write, yet you're still jumping to self-righteous conclusions and misread.NightBeAsT 13:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

"Pawelka was right"

Thanks for showing your true colours.I however do not consider naming uprising of Polish population in Silesia an attack from Poland, nor do I consider right accusing Poles of conducting atrocities in line of Hitler's propaganda "right". --Molobo 23:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

So he was wrong? Was it not a "Diktat" according to the definition of the word? Please that jumping to conclusions. As for the rest, I didn't really get what you mean. I don't suppose you could fill me in there, could you?NightBeAsT 17:13, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

"'Pawelka was right' Thanks for showing your true colours"? Why are you misqoting me? I said "from the definition of the word Pawelka was right", which doesn't suggest that I'd think he's right in general. Please keep these self-righteous hasty conclusions for yourself.NightBeAsT 00:45, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Good then.It's nice if you disaggree with antipolonistic statements of Pawelka.I see no reason then not to include what was included before about his speech. Molobo.

Yes, I disagree with anti-polonistic statements but I've yet to see any. And I see a reason not to libel people and that's "what was included before about his speech".NightBeAsT 13:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

A discussion about sources

FYI, here is an article in Die Welt about Pawelka's speach in Nuermberg. Yet another text on Pawelka from Welt am Sonntag Alx-pl D 08:50, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Two more [7] [8] documentation pieces from Deutche Welle. Alx-pl D 10:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

One more from Bundeszentrale fuer politische Bildung Alx-pl D 11:25, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

One more source - www.inforiot.de. Alx-pl D 12:51, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks, Alx, we should add to the article that the German press didn't mention Pawelka's copying of Nazi propaganda and accusing Poland of aggression, thus hiding those facts.--Molobo 12:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

We should also add that the press misinforms the German society, by hiding the fact that nationalisation wasn't aimed at Germans but at all citizens.I wonder why the manipulation ? --82.139.13.231 15:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

In fact, the source that was given by SylwiaS was not PAP. It was a piece of news prepared by Wirtualna Polska. The note from PAP is here and it does not say anything about guilt for war. Alx-pl D 17:21, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

GW article does. --Molobo 18:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

I mentioned the GW article in my proposal above #Proposal with stress on Preußische Treuhand and retribution Alx-pl D 21:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

This source states about Pawelka that:

Rudi Pawelka, przewodniczacy zarzadu „Powiernictwa Pruskiego“, dopiero po oddzwieku w polskich mediach, stal sie w Niemczech znany w szerszych kregach.

which can be translated as:

Rudi Pawelka, the head of Preußische Treuhand, has become known to wider audience only after the response in Polish media.

Alx-pl D 20:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC) See Rzeczpospolita article showing wide acceptence of Pawelka in German politics. Molobo

See [9] if you think Pawelka would be widely accepted. Even the CDU disapproves of his actions.NightBeAsT 13:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

CDU/CSU

Which leading CDU and CSU members are meeting with who and when and why is it anti-polonese and what are you talking about? I do not speak polish - I cannot read this source nor does it sound credibly anti-polonistic.NightBeAsT Stroiber, Merkel are regular guests to meetings of such organisations.:A source was given.Molobo.

of which organizations? And what justifies the accusations that they are anti-polonistic?NightBeAsT 17:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Molobo means Federation of Expellees and de:Preußische Treuhand, I guess. Alx-pl 18:11, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

So the CDU/CSU statement can be deleted. The CDU/CSU (unless you could provide evidence) is not anti-polonistic and the claim that these organizations are anti-polonistic are just based on a prejudice.NightBeAsT 18:56, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

No it can't be deleted because Stroiber and Merkel DO visit and DO support organisations like Preußische Treuhand.Certainly any organisation that falsly accuses Poles of commiting injustice, aggresion that led to WW2, and claims that Poland isn't a state tof law isn't polish friendly...Molobo

Does it make Stoiber and Merkel anti-polonistic in your opinion or does it show an anti-polonistic attitude that already existed? Neither speculation must go into the article as "facts", not least because the anti-polonism of these organizations is your opinion anyway. And this opinion must be marked as opinion, not "fact". NightBeAsT 14:47, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Who says Stobier or Merkel are antipolonistic(I never looked in Stoiber though, for my own and his good ;P )in the article ? It only states that serious politicians aren't ashamed to support organisations claiming Polish responsibility for WW2 for example, and who insult Polish state--Molobo 22:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't say Stoiber (your hate of him must have taken control of your spelling of the name) and Merkel are anti-polonistic directly but it suggests so. Putting that "fact" about the visits (which I would also demand a source for if the statement, even if this was true, was not so utterly redundant) intentionally into the section of anti-polonism in Germany suggests that you suspect them of being anti-polonistic. And since these organizations are not necessarily anti-polonistic but only in your opinion, the sentence can be immediately deleted.NightBeAsT 23:02, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

No it only means that antipolish organisations are visited by leading politicians in Germany.Of course I am sorry for my nationalistic belief that accusing Poland of WW2 or making mass murder in any way is antipolish :)

--Molobo 20:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

It's merely your illusion that the President of Preußische Treuhand has accused Poland of WW2, it merely your interpretation that this would be anti-polonistic and then it's close to being absolutely irrelevant whether or not Merkel or Stoiber were reported of having visited the organizations. Politically these two politicians belong to the current opposition. Schröder, the political leader of Germany, has expressed disapproval of the organization. Since the organizations are political and have caused much debate and are lead by a CDU politician, yes, why shouldn't the leaders of the CDU, Merkel and Stoiber, not have a look at them? They've surely visited dozends of other organizations even if they have agreed with them, and they've certainly done many things they would later regret, like Stoiber's recent embarrassing statement against East Germans. NightBeAsT

23:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC) No, it is simply the meaning of his words which are a repeat of Nazi propaganda.It's a shame german politicians accept people acting this way. --82.139.13.231 15:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Teaching of Polish

"German courts have not only forbidden divorced Polish-speaking parents to teach their children Polish" ... HUH?!? Are you really, really sure you are talking of Germany???NightBeAsT

Yes, quite certain.Molobo

Which German courts? Source?[10] states that according to a contract from 1991 also forces Germany to protect the linguistical identity of Poles in Germany.NightBeAsT 17:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

The mentioned article is about a Pole with a German wife living in Germany. The man became violent against the family during the divorce, that’s why he is only aloud to see the children once in a month under the protection of an government institution in Hamburg. This institution says, that he has to talk to the children in German, otherwise they couldn’t understand what they are talking about. The Polish newspaper “Wrpost” brought that story on page one with the headline “Polnisch Verboten”. The story (as always in the newspaper “Wrpost”) was full of Anti- German stereotypes without any information about the background of the story. That’s reason why Poles don’t know about the violence of the Husband against his wife and his children. They even don’t know about the need of this treatment. You can see, that the source being used doesn’t show any evidence for Anti- Polonism. Its completely made up as the other sources. Volker

Wrong.The article is from Newsweek not from Wprost, and deals with several examples of such situation.Molobo

Sorry? Please explain.NightBeAsT 17:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

So molobo, bring me the Newsweek magazine article, and I stop disputing on that for ever, cause this isnt a Polish source! Where is the source??? Volker The article is already in the article.Molobo

Entering "Rudi Pawelka" newsweek in google shows another "newsweek" [11]... in another language ... "Newsweek Polska".NightBeAsT 01:44, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Try to read what you are responding to.The article is about German courts persecution of polish language and cultural identity.Not Rudi.

Molobo

Stop playing these games. Are you talking of this [12]?NightBeAsT 14:52, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

What games? Please read article before commenting.It will spare us time...--Molobo 22:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

It will spare us time?? How hypocritical can you be? The source is written in polish and you know very well that not all (including me) can understand polish here. If you had wanted to save time, you would have posted the source and subsequently translated parts. This is the english wikipedia.NightBeAsT 23:12, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Sure we can translate examples of it in the article If that is your wish :)--Molobo 20:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

No, but you can translate examples here and then discuss what effect they should have on the article. NightBeAsT 01:27, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Can you give me an access to the Newsweek article? I can translate it for ourselves. Alx-pl 15:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

German courts and Polish culture

"but also voiced objections to raising them in Polish culture, claiming that to do so would be harmful to their development" sounds unrealistic. Source?NightBeAsT

German media's portrayal of Poland

"German media frequently portray Poland as an underdeveloped country where criminality is the principal occupation of the populace" how long did you take to make it up? It's slander.NightBeAsT

Origin of what is translated as "Today stolen, tomorrow in Poland"

The German press has coined a derogatory saying, "Heute gestohlen, morgen in Polen" ("Stolen today, tomorrow in Poland")" That doesn't sound journalistic at all. Source?NightBeAsT:Neverthless it was on a sticker given with a youth magizne in Germany.

So you just invented the "fact" that the German press has coined it?NightBeAsT 17:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Yawn.Yes I invented the term and made a couple of thousands of posts in internet with the term.Usind dfferent IP of course all the time.--Molobo 22:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Further hypocrisy or just pathetic irony based on misunderstanding? I was speaking of the "fact" that the German press has coined the saying. The existence of the term on the internet (1.250 hits for it using google by the way) does not mirror anything more than its existence on the internet, not its journalistic origin. So, yes, if you added that "fact", you invented it. NightBeAsT 23:26, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Not really, you will have to look for it but there was a scandal with the sticker in a youth magaisne with this saying.

Molobo

I will have to look for it? Am I to disprove you or are you to prove your claims. Do you have to disprove libel or is the other party to prove it? "Not guilty until proven guilty" How about we change the article on God to "God exists!" stating, "You will have to look for it but there was a scandal with a Jesus in a religious magazine with this saying".NightBeAsT 13:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

According to this website [13], Harald Schmidt, the same person mentioned in the next paragraph of the sentence in question, is the person who used it: As a joke. That's the only source I found so far, and I know it's not reallly a reliable source either. Bayerischermann 04:14, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Additional pages that mention it include [14] and [15]. The last one lists another degradatory joke: "Make your vacation in Poland, your car is already there!" Bottom line is that it appears that there are several degradatory jokes about Polish people in circulating around in Germany, but not really "coined terms". Bayerischermann 04:19, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Harald Schmidt

"The highlights of this extremely popular program are insulting "jokes" about Poles, Polish culture and Poland" Firstly his job is to make fun. Secondly, his jokes and sarcasm are about almost everything. How high is the percentage of them connected to Poland? Thirdly, why should jokes connected to Poland be the highlight of the show?NightBeAsT

Another website also mentioned that he jokes about Italians all being in the Mafia... It sounds like he's just trying to be funny. However, it's important to note here that the German police website even goes as far to warn that telling "xenophobic jokes" is a warning sign of "right-wing extremism" [16]. Bayerischermann 04:28, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Florian Illies

"also cashes in on a clear anti-Polish bias, with jokes on the Polish language and cleaners (see below)" where is this below, where is the source? Also, the conspiracy theory is ridiculous: not only does Prussia stand for so many other things but also the given source of Perlentaucher quoted him as only calling the idea a "courageous" one. I want the sentence "actively supported a motion to reanimate name the name of "Preußen" (Prussia) for a new German federal state" verified.NightBeAsT 18:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

German left-wing media "anti-Polish"?

"German left-wing media show an anti-Polish bias" source? Is that critical, not necessarily anti-polonistic remark, in taz supposed to justify that bias throughout the left-wing media?NightBeAsT

It seems to make sense to me that some of the anti-war crowd in Germany would perhaps hold a grude against Poland for joining the US in Iraq. Bayerischermann 04:31, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

You don't get it. Anything that could remotely be construed as critical is considered to be said due to an anti-Polish bias. The normal rules of argument and reason don't apply here. --Moritz 14:55, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I do now. I agree with you. It's not really anti-Polish, it's anti-war, for the most part. 'However', that comment in taz is anti-Polish. That deserves to be mentioned, but not in the way it currently is (adjust it so that it doesn't say that all the left-wing media is anti-Polish). Bayerischermann 21:12, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

France increasingly "anti-Polish"?

"Antipolish sentiment has grown in that country" Sounds like it was based on a statistic ... but is unfortunately made up.. Source? NightBeAsT 16:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Martin Schulz's remark

"Another example of antipolonism sentiments are comments from Martin Schulz a member of European Parliament who demanded to silence polish representatives calling them "hooligans" (during the WWII the term "polnische Banditen" was commonly used by German propaganda) during European Parliament session on 27.10.2004." Isn't it more "anti-noise" than "anti-polonistic"? A hooligan is a rowdy not a "polish bandit". Being annoyed by a racket and silencing by insulting the loud persons as rowdies is not necessarily an "irrational or malicious hostility toward Poles". I also want a reliable source - for example this of the BBC, a source which states that "Socialist group leader Martin Schulz accused him (Robert Kilroy-Silk, a British politician) of being a hooligan and of "behaving like a spoilt child"." How anti-polonistic of him to insult a loud person born in Birmingham!NightBeAsT 20:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Actually I can confirm it, I saw it during live transmission of the debate.--Molobo 22:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Another invention of yours? I want a reliable source. No reliable source, no verification and ... no kidding ... no inclusion of this "fact". NightBeAsT 23:35, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

"Z tej okazji szef socjalistów, Niemiec Martin Schulz, uznal za stosowne okreslic nas (bardzo parlamentarnie) jako chuliganów." http://www.wszechpolacy.pl/t.php?id=729 --Molobo 21:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)

Please don't speak Polish here or translate what you have said. NightBeAsT 01:22, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

He was citing his source, a Polish news organization. It says something about the German Socialist member-of-parliament Martin Schulz who said "hooligan." (Interestingly, some youthful Polish soccer fans apparently wear the hooligan label proudly[17], a phenomenon not-unheard of in other European countries, I understand). Anyway, Molobo, there is nothing wrong with Polish sources - but please translate for us. And please keep context in mind. Translate more of his remarks, if you can. When he said that, what else was he saying? Where did he say it? Did he explain why he said it? Did Polish teenagers flip his car over at a soccer game, or was he upset about a trade pact or something? That can make a big difference.

President Chirac's remark

Statements of Chirach and phenomen of "Polish plumber"

No personal speculations about the amount of anti-polonism (WP:NOR), especially not by those of you who are under the illusion that criticising Poland, like Jacques Chirac once did, is the same as being anti-polonism. NightBeAsT 17:41, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

There have been a lot of recent incidents for which Chirac has been criticized for insensitivity or worse, like the comments about British and Finish food, etc. He seems to have a very serious case of "foot-in-mouth diseas" not solely related to Polish issues. --Jpbrenna 21:37, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

However Chirac doesn't write in French newspapers about the "Polish plumber" stealing french jobs, nor about Poland being "Troyan Donkey".

If you have no credible source for example in the form of a survey, you have no right in Wikipedia to allege an increase of anti-polonism.NightBeAsT 15:00, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Yawn again: http://fray.slate.msn.com/id/2121461/entry/2121463/ In France, the "Polish plumber" became a catchphrase for the fears behind the "no" vote. He and his Slavic brethren are expected to march west, working more for less and snatching French jobs. --Molobo 22:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Great, that justifies the existence of polish plumber in the article, which was never disputed or denied here. That's proof of neither a growing anti-polonism in France (but merely a speculation) nor makes Chirac an anti-pole. Like I said, no personal speculations about the amount of anti-polonism (WP:NOR), especially not by those of you who are under the illusion that criticising Poland, like Jacques Chirac once did, is the same as being anti-polonism.NightBeAsT 01:20, 18 August 2005 (UTC)

Sounds bizarre to me. The Polish are being characterized as dedicated hard workers, willing to do whatever it takes to support themselves and their families, and this is characterized as "anti-Polonist"? The only thing I take away from this "horrific accusation" is that the French are admitting that they're lazy whiners! Tomer ^TALK 03:15, August 18, 2005 (UTC)

Poles are described as cheap loweducated people, who steal jobs and get money from France.Of course using your logic we must conclude that German Reich admired Jews for their hight intelligence since it was conviced they were capable of controling the world. --Molobo 20:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The fear of cheap labour from East Europe which comes to Western Europe is not completely without reasons. In East Europe people work for less money than in France for example people would do and so some Eastern Europeans come to France to earn more money for the same work, but still less than a Frenchman would demand. And if an employer sees an employee who wants less money than another, which employee do you think will get the job? The French? If you insist on defining Anti-Polonism as an irrational fear, it's opinionated to state the fear as example of Anti-Polonism because irrational says the fear is not based on reasons, which may be your POV.NightBeAsT 20:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The definition also mentions malicious. Alx-pl D 21:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

... which is probably the most opinionated word possible. This word has no objective meaning at all. Why don't you just write "diabolical"?NightBeAsT 11:53, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

German Polish Friendship

First of all remove the bombastic title "German Polish Friendship".A more fitting name should be "attempts to change traditional German antipolonism". Secondly no need to treat Pawelka's attacks on Poland and accusations that it was Polish aggression that led to WW2 lightly, the same propaganda was used by Nazis.Molobo

No, molobo, that title and interpretation is all the more biased. There's no need to treat it lightly, but there is a need to treat it in a neutral way.NightBeAsT 16:01, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

The article is about antipolonism.If somebody wants to write an article about attempts to change German attituded towards Poles, be my guest.We can link it to the main article.I already have good deal of nice sources and facts about the process.

Molobo.

Molobo, that's a clear violation of the NPOV policy. Like a radical cleric you're trying to give the most dishonest negative impression of Germany picturing it as an overwhelmingly anti-polonistic country and when someone attempts at depicting the truth, you're crying about putting that more neutral point of view into another article. All you're doing here is undermining your credibility.NightBeAsT 13:58, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Agreed. Germany and Poland are militarily and economically allied, so it wouldn't make much sense that Germany would be mostly anti-Polish, which is what the suggested change implies. Bayerischermann 04:36, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

German economy actually is often argued to be harmfull to overall economic policies of Poland.For example Germany wanted Poland to raise taxes to protect German economy.As to military allied, that means nothing, since Greece and Turkey were in NATO together as well.Like said if you want to write an article about eradicating traditional antipolish sentiment in Germany be my guest.--Molobo 16:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

anti-Polonism in Russia

Please provide sources for the content. Alx-pl D 21:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)