Talk:Anti-Polish sentiment/Archive 9

This page 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.

http://www.indiana.edu/~reeiweb/newsletter/current/2000/reeioct00.pdf Indiana University hosted an international conference entitled “Polonophilia and Polonophobia of the Russians” on September 16–17. Sponsored jointly by the Polish Studies Center, the Russian and East European Institute, and the Office of International Programs, the two-day conference brought together some of the most distinguished researchers in the fields of Polish and Russian studies. The conference opened on Saturday, September 16 with welcoming remarks by Bozena Shallcross, Director of the Polish Studies Center, and David L. Ransel, Director of the Russian and East European Institute. The first panel addressed “Poland as a State of Mind.” This set the stage for subsequent panel discussions, which incorporated this theme into the broader framework of Russian acceptance and repulsion of the Polish cultural expression. This first session was moderated by Jeffrey Veidlinger (History) and featured remarks by Megan Dixon (Principia College), Brian Horowitz (University of Nebraska), and Andrzej Walicki (Notre Dame). Dixon presented a reconsideration of Pushkin with respect to the Polish Uprising. Horowitz read his paper “Despair with Poland, Russia, and the Jewish Diaspora: Poland and the Evolution of Lev Levanda’s Russian-Jewish Consciousness.” The renowned scholar Andrzej Walicki addressed the issue of “The Slavophile Thinkers and the Polish Question in 1863.” The floor was then opened for questions and discussion. The second panel, “Writing in Poland,” was moderated by Vadim Liapunov (Slavics), and focused on two writers who responded positively to Polish culture and two who have been classified as polonophobes. Presenters included Jiyong Jeon (Chosun University, Korea), who presented his paper “A.I. Herzen and Poland,” Irena Grudzinska-Gross (New York University), who spoke on “Joseph Brodsky’s Poland,” Judith Kornblatt (University of Wisconsin), who addressed the theme “At Home with Pani Polonophilia and Polonophobia of the Russians by Mark Betka Eliza: Izaak Babel and his Polish Characters,” and Nina Perlina (Slavics), who presented “Dostoevsky’s Polish Fellow Prisoners from The House of the Dead.” Saturday’s last panel focused on “Overlapping Terrains” and was moderated by David L. Ransel (REEI). This panel provided historical context for the occurrence of polonophobia in Russia. Leonid Gorizonotov (Russian Academy of Sciences, Moscow) read a paper that focused on Russian press reactions to Polish socio-cultural expansion in the late 19th century. Barbara Skinner (Georgetown University) discussed Catholicism and the Uniate church as a basis for Russian polonophobia. Matthew Pauly (History) spoke on Soviet nationalities policy in Soviet Ukraine, 1927-1934. The day’s events concluded with a concert of Polish and Russian opera music featuring the soprano soloist Kinga Skretkowicz- Ferguson of the Indiana University School of Music accompanied by Juvenal Correa on piano. Sunday featured the fourth and final panel discussion, “Cultural Reflections and Projections,” moderated by Jerzy Kolodziej (Slavics). This panel focused on the incorporation of Polish cultural expression within the Russian arts as well as the conflicting self-image of Poles and their image in the eyes of Russians. The presenters were Halina Goldberg (University of Alabama), who spoke on “Appropriating Poland: Polish Dance in Russian Music,” David Goldfarb (Barnard College), who read the paper “Polish Self- Fashioning and the Russian Image of the Foppish Pole,” and Robert Przygrodzki (Northern Illinois University), who addressed “Vasili Shuiskii, the Staszic Palace, and Russian Politics in Nineteenth Century Warsaw.” The conference concluded with a plenary session moderated by David L. Ransel in which participants discussed options for the publication of conference papers. All the participants agreed to contribute their efforts to the compilation of an edited volume or special journal issue based on the papers presented at the conference. Mark Betka is a graduate student in the Russian and East European Institute and the School of Public and Environmental Affairs.Irena Grudzinska-Gross and David L. Ransel at the conference --Molobo 13:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, there are some issues with the version of the text you keep reverting to:

1. Times quote. I understand you don't like the quote, but that is not a good reason for removal. There are many reasons to keep it; 1) It is one of only two uses of the term in English newspapers 2) Blumberg is a famous crimonologist, and he has been published in the Yale Law Review and Foreign Affairs 3) The Times of London (not NY) is a well-regarded publication 4) The facts of the use of the comment by Strzembosz are correct (and he reacted similarly to Jan Gross's work before the IPN study) 5) I removed the comment you did not like at the end, and you are welcome to include the apology or other material if you want.
2. Citations in the intro. The citations in the intro are not accurate. The fact that IU's music department used the words "Polophobia and Polophilia" does not mean the term "anti-Polonism" has "been studied in scholarly works" -- especially as the word anti-Polonism does not appear once in the entire overview that you reference. Similarly, the second cite you give is to support that anti-Polonism "has also entered mainstream usage to describe a variety of behaviours and ideologies hostile toward Poles or Poland" but the cited work says nothing of the sort, it just uses the word once, in terms of East Germany.
3. Quotes. You have trimmed quotes and added editoral comments, as in the case of Yitzhak Shamir, why can't the full quote, and the fact that Shamir is a Pole, stand on its own? It is no less offensive for it, and the context is useful, though it does not excuse his words. Similarly, David Lloyd-George did make his comments during the Paris Peace Conference in reaction to questions about German territories -- you removed that. Again, it doesn't excuse Lloyd-George, but the context needs to be included.
4. Jokes. I agree that Polish stereotypes are hurtful, but the Polish cavalry charge myth being "anti-Polonism"? (When I heard it as a kid, I thought it was an example of chivalry against hopeless odds, not an insult thing, but anyway) You are going to need to provide a source for that. Similarly, yes, Polish jokes were common in Nazi Germany, but there was a lot of horrible anti-Polonism there, which can be further expanded on in the article, if you want. But the citation you give actually dismisses the argument that American and Nazi jokes are connected in the very next page.
5. Overall. The problem with this article is that it connects three very different things. The first was the very real anti-Polish feeling of the Nazis that led to the death of 1.9 million non-Jewish Poles under German occupation (and similar feelings, perhaps, among the Soviets). The second are Polish stereotypes, often deployed for humor, that can be hurtful, but are not at the same level as the first. The final one is the use of the term "anti-Polonism" often used by right-wing groups, and often as a deliberate response to charges of anti-Semitism, as in the response to Gross's studies of Jedwabne, etc. The result is an article that is somewhat confused -- trying to label all three things as equally severe, when the first was a real issue that led to genocide, the second an embarassment (though, as the book you cited points out, there are stereotypes of every nationality), and the last is dubious and makes sense mostly in the context of Polish-Jewish relations. It might solve a lot of issues to try to seperate these three concepts.

Anyhow, those are the major issues I have with the reverted version. We really need to address them before restoring it over and over again. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:54, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

1-The quote contains information already found in the article.It presents personal views of a single person whos neutrality can't be assured.As such it only serves to promote his own personal opinion on Poles.Its presence in the article serves only to reinforce stereotyping of Poles as anitsemities.If anything the quote can be given as example of negative antipolonistic stereotypes present in Jewish community.If you want its views to be presented why not make summary of the opinions instead of giving the quote ? It would be a better way then to put a wholy biased and POV quote in the text.A summary of the opinion would be better.

2-"The fact that IU's music department used the words "Polophobia and Polophilia" does not mean the term "anti-Polonism" has "been studied in scholarly works" " Please read the intro Anti-Polonism (alternatively spelled antipolonism; also, Polonophobia)

3-"Similarly, the second cite you give is to support that anti-Polonism "has also entered mainstream usage to describe a variety of behaviours and ideologies hostile toward Poles or Poland" Which is correct as the book and several others use the term.(Hartmanns Schlagwort vom "Ausrotten der Polen" : Antipolonismus und Antikatholizismus)

4. "You have trimmed quotes and added editoral comments, as in the case of Yitzhak Shamir, ?" There is nothing incorrect about the fact that Shamir presents Poles as nation of antisemites. "why can't the full quote, and the fact that Shamir is a Pole, stand on its own?" Yitzhak Shamir isn't a Pole.Its true that he was born in Poland, but this isn't of any importance to the text(he probably had Polish citizenship, but being a citizen of Poland and ethnic Poles are two different things).

5"I agree that Polish stereotypes are hurtful, but the Polish cavalry charge myth being "anti-Polonism"?" Such racist stereotypes were used by Germany to justify their aggresion on Poland and Poles by presenting them as stupid and irresponsible people.

6."though, as the book you cited points out, there are stereotypes of every nationality" The fact that Jews were murdered by Hitler doesn't make murder of Poles irrelevent.

Also Also-I removed the links at the intro since they are not supporting the sentence they were supposed to support(they speak nothing about the use of antipolonism).I added sentence about Jewish people using their ethnic background to escape justice.Right now the sentence at the end presents a one sided view of the subject. Restored passages that weren't disputed by you.--Molobo 13:47, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I removed an unsourced quote.German quote origins are unknown(but use is widespread). --Molobo 14:13, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I added sentence presenting the other side of view. Restored complete information on persecution in Prussia, which is deleted for unknown reasons In Prussia, and later in Germany, Poles were forbidden to build homes, and their properties were targeted for forced buy-outs, financed by the Prussian and German governments. Otto von Bismarck described Poles, as animals (wolves), that "one shoots if one can" and implemented several harsh laws aiming at discrimination of Poles. --Molobo 14:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I will need to address the above when I have a bit more time (though I think we are moving forward) but this sentence: The other side of the dispute is that people comitting atrocities in communist occupied Poland largely escaped punishment, and some responsible for implementing Stalinist regime in communist occupied Poland for example Salomon Morel or Halina Wolińska, have used their Jewish ethnicity to accuse attempts to persecute them of being motivated by antisemitism, is troubling to me. Why on earth is it relevant that two Jews may have used anti-Semitism as an excuse (and, incidentally, I question the accuracy of this phrasing, but that is neither here nor there).

The only rationale for this is that the author is trying to say: "Sure, anti-Polonism is sometimes misused to shut down charges of anti-Semitism, but so is anti-Semitism used to defend against anti-Polonism." This is problematic in a few ways: 1) It is irrelevant to an article on anti-Polonism, the term doesn't come up, and both Morel and Wolinski are Poles, who lived in Poland almost their whole lives, so why is it here are all? 2) This seems to explicitly excuse the misuse of anti-Polonism to cover anti-Semitism ("Look at what the Jews did to the Poles!"), 3) The phrasing seems to imply that all Stalinists were Jews, 4) There is very little equivalence between the private defenses of these two people and the use of anti-Polonism by the right in response to charges of anti-Semitism, or in the context of a Jewish conspiracy, yet this sentence clearly tried to draw it, 5) The sentence starts: "The other side of the dispute" -- what dispute is being addressed, surely not that anti-Semitism has killed millions, as the previous sentence says? What is this "other point of view" Molobo keeps using in his edit summaries? I don't understand the rationale for this sentence, and it really should be cut. --Goodoldpolonius2 09:34, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It is a responce to a problem you created-by adding a one sided sentence, that pushes an opinionated view on the problem. The absolute claim that no Pole was killed as a result of Polish-Jewish antagonism seems radical in view of such events as Naliboki or Koniuch Massacre or many claims that communists of Jewish background abused Poles as a result of such antagonism.

By putting quotes like that you give impression of trying to influence the view of the article, and changing its neutrality, Like I said it would be better if you would do a summary of views presented in the quotes you want to put. However the fact that many people believe Polish-Jewish antagonism caused Polish casualities as well as Jewish will have to be presented anyway-it doesn't matter if you believe it true or not(Personally do you really think that no Pole was ever hurt or killed as a result of this ?). The fact that people of Jewish ethnicity are using their background to escape justice for murdering Poles is undeniable I am afraid(and Anna Applebaum can be hardly accused of antisemitism by writing on this I believe).Such information is needed to counterbalance any POV on alledged Polish antisemitism-as such accusations are misused. Trying to portay Poles as nation of antisemites is certainly a very hostile action towards Poles and Poland. --Molobo 09:46, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

It is irrelevant to an article on anti-Semitism That's the problem you seem to miss-this article isn't about antisemitism, which some editors are trying for it to become. --Molobo 09:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, with regards to your your last comment, you obviously were looking at an old version of the page, it was a typo that I corrected, as I meant anti-Polonism, as you can see.

As for your response, this is all

original research, please find some sources for your arguments, I only included sourced quotes, you should feel free to do the same. But there is an underlying problem here: You have stated several times that Jewish Poles are not Poles (For example: "Yitzhak Shamir isn't a Pole.Its true that he was born in Poland...but being a citizen of Poland and ethnic Poles are two different things"). You can't be a Jew and a Pole, I guess. That creates some real problems in the article, as Jewish Poles can be anti-Polish, but Chrisitan Poles can't, no matter how they act. Does that mean any criticism of Poland by a Polish Jew is anti-Polonism? You basically state as much by saying that anyone who says that Poles are anti-Semites is commiting a hostile act. --Goodoldpolonius2

10:01, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The term was used frequently in 19th century Poland to describe the anti-Polish policies of German-Prussian statesman Otto von Bismarck^{[citation needed]}.

from the article as it stood unsupported there for a very long time. Here are the problems about that sentence:

• It is not clear which term was used in 19th century. Was it anti-Polonism, Polonophobia? It seems that rather one of the Polish counterparts. Then the question is which one: antypolonizm, polakożerstwo, polonofobia?
• The sentence in some sense makes the remark concerning the year 1919 superflous repetition of the same information. As the information on the year 1919 is well suported it seems that it's better to retain it instead of the information above.

I suggest to clarify the issues above and then insert the accurate information into the article, possibly ereasing the information on 1919. alx-pl D 09:03, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

While we're at it."In Prussia, and later in Germany, Poles were forbidden to build homes, and their properties were targeted for forced buy-outs, financed by the Prussian and German governments." They were all forbidden to "build homes"? Where did they live? "and their properties were targeted for forced buy-outs, financed by the Prussian and German governments" Was that the law introduced in 1908 which met resistance even with the conservative section of the parliament and came to use only once? "Otto von Bismarck described Poles, as animals (wolves), that "one shoots if one can"" The quote is twice in the text and is expressed like it was a strong argument. He described them once as such. "and implemented several harsh laws aiming at discrimination of Poles." Weasel words concealing what those "harsh laws" were. Did Poles have to wear a star of David or what? Besides, "aimed at discrimination of Poles"? How do you know? "the Polish language was banned from use" Was it completely banned from use? Source? "and Polish children were tortured at school for speaking Polish (Września)." I take it you *summarized* the source you added earlier. Even in one of the first sentences of that said source, there is a different description: "At first the German teachers tried persuasion." You're stating it like if you spoke Polish at school, you'd get immediately tortured. If you keep disobeying, it makes teachers angry and they punish you, whether by force or formal means. At that time, you could expect violence on the part of teachers. Of course a teacher overdid it when he injured a pupil's skin even at that time, but as the source about this 'torture' describes, it was only an extreme value and caused public outrage. Prove this example was common, if you state it like it was in general the case. Besides, 'torture' is clearly another weasel word, commonly understood in other, more violent and aimed contexts. "Poles were also subject to forced deportations" Only those who came from the Russian part of what had been Poland and didn't have German citizenship, but indeed there were a lot of them, over 26 000. "and German government encouraged and financed settlement of ethnic Germans into Polish areas aiming at their Germanisation." I do not believe that this had to do with hostility towards Poles but a view evolved from the American and French Revolution that the state must be carried by the nation. Significant characteristic features of a nation are the same language and culture. It was not only the Polish nation that - to put it into your words - "awoke" in the 19th century but with the foundation of the German Empire the German one, too. Now with the said foundation, sections of the population that had a different language and culture than German was included within the borders of the Empire as well. People also spoke Polish, Danish, French, Lithunian or Sorbian. What happened to these non-German groups in the German Empire? They tried to assimilate them, make what is called "German territory" *really* "German", not out of hostility towards these people. Poles were the majority of these national minorities, around 5.5% of the population, but the tensions can only be understood as those between a non-German minority and the state. The political struggle between the German government and the Danes differs only in that they were a larger section of the population, stood more solid behind one another and knew how to defend themselves economically. The state also tried to get the Danish language, a language other than the German, gone, and were comparably unsuccessful. It is not xenophobia, nor Anti-Polonism, because it is not directed against the people but simply against non-German sub-cultures and languages within the German one. If Poles spoke German and adopted the German culture, your "German authorities" were happy. Prove the hostility and hatred you like to imply in the article. As for the sentences I analysed above, find sources. I do not have the time (or desire) to chat with you. Sciurinæ 13:58, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

I guess the sentence "In Prussia, and later in Germany, Poles were forbidden to build homes, and their properties were targeted for forced buy-outs, financed by the Prussian and German governments." refers to the following facts mentioned in newadvent:

• In 1833 provision was made for the purchase of Polish lands, the money for this purpose being supplied from a special public fund.
• On the motion of Bismarck, the Prussian Diet, in the year 1886, granted the Government one hundred million marks for the purpose of buying up Polish lands and colonizing them with German peasants and labourers.

in the article [1]. alx-pl D 16:11, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

But the text doesn't read or imply that these buy outs were forced, does it? There is an incredible contrast between whether you're forced to sell your home, probably not even allowed to negotiate its price, or whether you sell your property of your own free. Sciurinæ 17:01, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Due to overall failure of the policy, Prussian diet passed a law that enabled forcible expropriation of Polish landowners by the Settlement Commission in 1908. --Molobo 20:03, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I guessed right! You're trying to rip that very law out of context. Anyway, Molobo, the reckless reverting is gradually getting on my nerves. You see, I've some time. Do the two of you want to dance to another step of dispute resolution? If you've any reason honest enough to state, do so now or yield. Sciurinæ 20:06, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for proof. Obviously Molobo feels no need to answer me, as out of the darkness of space a cadet came to his aid. So ... does Molobo and Space Cadet maybe have anything more to add than simply their reverts? I cannot understand how they still manage to get away with it successfully - to keep up lies through mere edit warring. Sciurinæ 00:41, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

You are free Sciurinæ to provide us sources showing that Bismarck loved Polish people, never discriminated them, and Poles weren't persecuted in Germany or Prussia. --Molobo 00:54, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

So you're not going to provide proof of what I marked as disputed or removed, but ask me to provide proof that it wasn't so? How many times have I already told you: innocent until proven guilty. Sciurinæ 00:57, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Proof of what ? Please stop this absurd game.I already presented you dozens of books, and speeches by Bismarck where he openly talks about his desire to exterminate Poles. In all cases you say that the source is "cherripicked" or you ignore it alltogether.In case of direct citations by Bismarck you claim he was thinking something else but you present no sources.Sorry but this is absurd. --Molobo 01:09, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry but you're not being funny. You've given zero proof and you're evading my demand pretty well. Now let's look closely at those versions:

• Why should the adjective 'felonious' be justified in an NPOV-style and what secondary source uses it? Sciurinæ
• Where is the proof of that "Additionally exist persistent German canards, dating back to World War II and meant to illustrate Poles as unintelligent or incompetent."? What sedondary source mentions it? Sciurinæ
• Why should the term "false allegation" need the addition "tale" and "not true" to make clear it is false? Sciurinæ
• "Other forms of hostility toward Poles have included disparaging "Polish jokes", orriginally made in Nazi Germany" There were no Polish jokes before the era of Nazism in Germany? Why is the connection to Nazi German needed and not subtle disapproval(=POV) as any parallel drawn to Nazism can be? Sciurinæ
• "has stirred protest from Polish government[2]." Stirred protest from Polish government sounds notable. However, this idea seems wrong as the number of sources on the Internet are apparently only an old text message and merely two comments. Are there other sources indicating that it is not blown out of all context? Sciurinæ
• "Frederick the Great nourished a particular hatred [...] for Poles" According to whom? In the Axis forum you had two different sources: one that includes Fredick's quotes (but does not say he "nourished a particular hatred"!) and another that described his policies towards Poland. Does any notable secondary source draw a connection between quotes and policies or is it original research again? Sciurinæ

Why did you post the whole source on the talk page although it is ©? You know my stance on those things and if you're not tempting me to delete it only so you can pretend I was deleting your sources, do it yourself - wikipedians are really able click on links themselves. I won't have a look at it until tomorrow. Sciurinæ 01:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Having read the source spammed below, here are the other points. In fact the source could answer one point vaguely. The points above and the following are still in question:

• "This planted the seeds for German ideas of Lebensraum and created stereotypes which Nazism would later exploit" The source added to the sentence doesn't even include the words "stereotype", "Nazism" or "Lebensraum". Wrong source or original research? Sciurinæ 18:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• "Racist texts published in XVIII century were republished by German Reich after it onquered Poland" It's great that you can write '18' in Roman numerals but you would be so much greater if you could verify the sentence.Sciurinæ

It would be great also if you would perhaps read the link attached.

A racist diatribe published in 1793 (Joachim Christoph Friedrich Schulz's Journey of a Livonian from Riga to Warsaw) was republished in 1941 after the Nazis had conquered Poland, reflecting a trend among German scholars from the eighteenth into the twentieth century to perceive, in the difference between Germany and Poland, a boundary between civilization and barbarism, high German Kultur and "primitive Slavdom" (p. 336).Molobo

The disputed sentence is under the headline "Persecution of ethnic Poles (to 1918)", which means before Nazi Germany. "German Reich" also sounds like 'German Empire', as 'Reich' is the German word for 'Empire' and the German Empire existed until 1918. In that context "conquer of Poland" would be explained as the partitions of Poland. So the sentence is misleading, whether intentionally or not. And where does it read "racist texts"? And what makes you think it was a governmental action? The rest of the sentence is copied completely from the stated source, which is certainly not the best way to deal with a copyrighted source but at least you sticked to the source. Sciurinæ 18:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• "In Prussia, and later in Germany, Poles were forbidden to build homes" sounds like a big deal. Is it verifiable?Sciurinæ

Yes, by reading various links provided in the article.Molobo

Such as? Sciurinæ 15:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• "and their properties were targeted for forced buy-outs" That's where your source about Germanisation comes in. It reads: "As soon as 1832 General Grolmann devised a secret plan, envisaging integration (or Germanisation) of the province, including forced buying up of estates, colonisation by German peasants, integration of Jews from Germany, transferring the Polish gentry and civil servants to other German provinces, strict subjection of the church to the state and abolition of the Polish language in schools. The catholic clergy and the gentry were acknowledged as the most dangerous enemies of Germanisation; it was assumed that the peasants could be won over to the policy of the Prussian government. This plan was effected over the next decade with varying determination, hence periods of repression interwoven with periods of liberalisation." Firstly, property is not the same as estate. Property is a thing or things that you own, which logically includes an estate but property is not limited to area in which you live. Secondly you ripped the term out of an enumeration, which means cherrypicking of the most extreme statements out of the context of 'Germanisation' and putting them into another - Anti-Polonism.
  Original research or is there any secondary literature on Anti-Polonism or Anti-Polish sentiment or Polonophobia including it? Thirdly, your sentence makes no mention of the quantity of those 'forced buy-out's suggesting that if you were a Pole at that time, your property was automatically targeted for forced buy-outs. That reminds me of the persistent insistence of yours on the sentence "Polish players face discrimination and insults from Germanic sportstmen as shown by the example of Dietmar Kühbauer who refused to hold an interview with Adam Ledwon, saying he "stinks of Poland"." Finally, since you defined historical Anti-Polonism in the wiki-article to "rang[ing] from felonious acts the goal of which was to suppress the Polish state to physical extermination of the Polish nation." and the goal here is undoubtedly Germanisation, ie the spread of German language and culture.Sciurinæ

And your long speech on what you believe is property makes what point ? Care to give a source denying Poles were forced to sell their land ? Molobo

That your sentence can be challenged in regard to factual accuracy, cherry picking (ie POV) and original reasearch so you might like to read my "long speech". As for your second question, it's still "innocent until proven guilty", eg I do not have to disprove that Marsians exist if you cannot prove they do. Sciurinæ 15:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• "Otto von Bismarck described Poles, as animals (wolves), that "one shoots if one can"" Again you make no mention of how many times Bismarck made that description (because you know there is only one known example dating back to March 1861) and the quote is *summarized* to the offensive part. Why is it twice in the article anyway? Sciurinæ

And ? Molobo

So I can delete that repetition and misquotation? Sciurinæ 15:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• "and implemented several harsh laws aiming at discrimination of Poles." Such as? Why should their aims be the "discrimination of Poles" and not Germanisation or like one of my history book writes, "to prevent [the Polish-Catholic clergy] from winning over the indigenous population against the state"? Sciurinæ

Because perhaps Polish books don't consider the fact that 62 % of population that was Polish in the region was suddenly forced to become Germans a defence against your imagined Catholic plot against Germany. Molobo

Yes, the fact that the Kulturkampf was directed against Catholicism is just my imagination and with magic I tricked all history books and dictionaries into believing that, and only you know better. Now could you please answer, rather than evade, my two questions? Sciurinæ 15:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• "The Polish language was banned from use" the fact that you do not mention the extent of the ban makes the statement a simple lie: the Polish language was not banned from use in general. Sciurinæ

Be my guest-provide a source showing that my sources are wrong and Polish language wasn't banned from use.Molobo

Easy, if the whole language was forbidden in Prussia and later Germany, there would have to be lots of sources stating that. Can you provide lots of sources (if any) supporting your claim or can it be deleted for lack of verifiability? Sciurinæ 15:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• "and Polish children were tortured at school for speaking Polish (Września)." very good, really, that's the *unbiased* way you would summarize a source. Sciurinæ
• "Poland lost approximately a third of its population" Source for "a third"? [3] also reads "ein Fünftel" (= a fifth) and the Polish Pope recalled this fact according to the site of the official Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum and Memorial, and so does the Polish centre of international relations.([4], see page six) Sciurinæ
• "as in the case of Witold Pilecki, organizer of Auschwitz resistance" Why the sly emphasis on the fact that he was the organizer of the Auschwitz resistance when in reality he was not killed by the Russians for it? Sciurinæ

What is so sly ? Another Polish plot in your opinion ? Molobo

No, rather another Molobo attempt at making the article mislead the reader into thinking that Russians were evil Pole-eaters executing Witold Pilecki because he organized the Auschwitz resistance. Sciurinæ 15:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

• "the Polish language was persecuted in Prussia" Poor Mr Polish-language, just like Polish children who happened to speak Polish at school were thrown into the Iron Maiden, he was mistreated and harassed as well. Putting jokes aside, what does the author want to say? Sources? Sciurinæ

Already provided in the links-perhaps you wish to read one.And I congratulate your fine sense of humor-perhaps you wish to make jokes about mass murder of Jews or executing 100 Poles for a shot German soldiers also ? Molobo

• "and their property often seized by Prussian authorities" how many is 'many'? Sources?Sciurinæ

Regarding this, Space Cadet and Molobo, everybody can revert, but not everybody can provide proof. If you can also do the latter, engage in the discussion please. Wikipedia should be about reason(s), not number of reverts. Sciurinæ 00:32, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

So far you have provided no sources contradicting books, links and research provided. Molobo

You'll get your reply tomorrow. Sciurinæ 01:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.muzarp.poznan.pl/archweb/archweb_eng/Publications/dwarch/index_dwa.html#r1_1 The close of the eighteenth century was a time of progressive loss of independence for Poland. The result of the internal and equally of conditions external to its territory, triply divided between Russia, Austria and Prussia, was an attempt to halt the collapse of the state (fig. 1). Such was the appointment of the Commission of Good Order or the proclamation of one of the first constitutions in the world; the attempt was made too late and was fruitless. Wielkopolska greeted the beginning of the nineteenth century as a part of Prussia. The Prussian state took over the new province severely destroyed by war and disease (in about 1815 the number of inhabitants of the Duchy of Poznań was estimated at barely 776,000). Mainly Catholics lived here, in the majority Poles, but Jews constituted a large minority and with them, most frequently Protestant, Germans (this last group present from the thirteenth century, however had been subject step by step over the years to Polonisation, e.g. the catholic settlers from Bamberg, arriving in the eighteenth century in the area of Poznań). The Prussians built their own feeling of national values and conviction of the civilising mission of the Prussian state. Seeing on the newly taken terrain Polish gentry in oriental style sashes, another language, which at times they referred to as "the rotten local language", another culture and system of values, they looked on the new country practically as nineteenth century Europeans at "wild people from the bush" (Łukasiewicz 1995, p. 44), or as the English at Hindus and Chinese. It was obvious to them that the new country should be civilised and Germanised. Initially Germanisation meant integration regarding law and politics with the remaining parts of Prussia, or Germanisation of the state structure. The Prussian administration, law and legal system were introduced. In truth from the beginning Germans were favoured, but the government allowed, that Poles as jointly subjected "brothers of the Slavonic language" might retain their language and habits. This did not hinder the many Germans coming to the province, in their utter conviction of their own superiority, and so it was obvious to them that soon the Poles would civilise themselves, which for them was synonymous with adopting the German language and culture. From the time of the first partition of Poland came modest numbers of succeeding German settlers, taking up then thinly settled land. By about the mid nineteenth century 40 % of the large estates belonged to Germans (of these 1/3 were royal estates, and the rest were private one, taken as a result of i.e. marriage or taking indebted Polish estates). Whereas German civil servants came to Wielkopolska Province only for a certain time, after which they returned to Germany. On the other hand, the conquered nation, that is the Poles, also did not look with favour on the new government, regarded by them as occupiers. The upper and better-educated layer had a feeling of their own values, long cultural tradition and also valued their own language. Forced to accept foreign citizenship, they did not intend to accept the customs and language of the "Partioners". The lower and less educated classes did not in the beginning have a strong feeling of separate nationality, but they shared the distaste for the Prussians, whose army had behaved badly for a hundred years in the conscious experience of the poor inhabitants of the province. Certainly a cause was that devils represented in pictures of the eighteenth century wore Prussian dress - with wig and plaited pigtail. The nineteenth century rural folk had to accustom themselves by degrees to the fact that also the officials of His Majesty wore such dress. There was also the awareness of religious and linguistic separation (the word German in old Polish means literally dumb). Additionally in the first years after the annexation of the new province, many Germans of a sufficiently suspect reputation became administrators of the new province, who effectively discouraged the new subjects from possible assimilation. The deeds of government and the mutual distaste had the affect that from the beginning possible neighbourliness between both communities and even an improvement of the co-existence was a difficult problem. Even so cooperation between various sections of both communities from time to time improved, also leaders of both nationalities often formed more or less temporary alliances for defence. There were instances equally of Germanisation and Polanisation. In the Napoleonic Wars some German volunteers from Greater Poland fought on the Prussian side, whereas the Poles fought on the side of Napoleon. In the years 1807-1815 Wielkopolska was part of the Duchy of Warsaw formed by the Emperor of the French. At the Congress of Vienna it was again subjected to the rule of the King of Prussia, but it was transformed into a separate Grand Duchy of Poznań, and the king promised the Poles the maintenance of "political existence" within the Prussian administrative organisation, he also promised equal rights for both nationalities. The defeat of the November Uprising, which broke out in 1830 in the Russian Partition, was exploited by the Prussian authorities to abandon the policy of peaceful co-existence. As soon as 1832 General Grolmann devised a secret plan, envisaging integration (or Germanisation) of the province, including forced buying up of estates, colonisation by German peasants, integration of Jews from Germany, transferring the Polish gentry and civil servants to other German provinces, strict subjection of the church to the state and abolition of the Polish language in schools. The catholic clergy and the gentry were acknowledged as the most dangerous enemies of Germanisation; it was assumed that the peasants could be won over to the policy of the Prussian government. This plan was effected over the next decade with varying determination, hence periods of repression interwoven with periods of liberalisation. From the third decade of the nineteenth century, one may observe the first symptoms of the Wielkopolska community organising itself, during which, generally the Germans had less problems with the establishment of organisations of a German character, whilst the Poles in general had to fight hard to establish their own. For the government regarded them, certainly correctly, as a symptom of Polish defence against Germanisation. Finally by about the mid nineteenth century in Wielkopolska the inhabitants were around 70% Poles, 5% Jews and 25% Germans (plus civil servants temporarily in the province). Of the 44 thousand population of the city of Poznań itself, the Poles made up 50%, and the Jews and Germans 25% each (but 75% of the land belonged to the Germans).

2. Wielkopolska Province in the years 1857-1918

2.1. Political conditions of the existence of two archaeologies in the second half of the nineteenth century By the mid nineteenth century it was ever more apparent that the hope for a rapid "self civilisation" of Wielkopolanians by willing Germanisation had been fulfilled to large extent only in relation to the Jewish minority (Grześ, Kozłowski, Kramski 1976). The result of government policy, ever more favouritism of Germans (and the Evangelist persuasion) and discrimination against Poles (and Catholicism), in the mid nineteenth century ever less attempts were made at peaceful coexistence between both nationalities. In exchange the national, religious and cultural separateness of Poles and Germans began to be accented. The Poles succeeded in founding in 1857 the Poznań Society of Friends of Science (Towarzystwo Przyjaciół Nauk Poznańskiego - TPNP) and other cultural institutions such as the theatre in Poznań. One of the landowners of the Wielkopolska Province, the Pole, Edward Raczyński, donated to the city a large library (which however the Prussian authorities succeeded in Germanising). In order to better resist economic pressure Poles organised their own agricultural education, established banks, and societies of an economic nature. This activity was already perceived half way through the sixth decade of the nineteenth century by the provincial government as a threat to the future. From 1858 the Germans took up the idea of the unification of Germany under the Prussian aegis. For Wielkopolska Province it meant an intensification of the policy of Germanisation and increasing the privileges for Germans. The final purpose was the Germanisation of society by the elimination of the Polish language and culture. The Germanisation of elementary schools was begun, though it proceeded with difficulty because of the lack of sufficient numbers of teachers knowing the German language. In 1867 the Grand Duchy of Poznań was incorporated into the North German Union. The victory over France in 1871 caused an increase of nationalism in Germany. From then the Germanising of Greater Poland meant the dislodging and paralysing of the "Polish element" (mainly gentry and clergy as the most aware opponents). Combating opposition against unification, Chancellor Bismark declared the policy known as the Culture Battle. In 1872 schools of a religious persuasion were closed, and the state took up the supervision of education. The estate of the Church was transferred to the supervision of laypersons, monastic orders were dissolved, and the paragraphs of the Prussian constitution assuring the freedom of the Catholic Church were removed. In Wielkopolska the Culture Battle took on a nationalistic and sectarian character. Mainly specially chosen teachers and officials were engaged in Germanisation, there was even a fund for prizes for Germanisation results. When at the end of the 'seventies the Culture Battle action became milder, this did not apply to Wielkopolska. The failure of Germanisation caused the German philosopher E. Hartmann in 1885 to proclaim the slogan - eradication of Slavs on the German territory. The President of the Bydgoszcz Regency, Tiedemann, in 1886 prepared a new Eastern policy programme: Denkschrift betr. einige Massregeln zur Germanisierung der Provinz Posen. During which, he drew attention to the fact that ordinary German inhabitants of the province were unwilling to engage till now in the propagation of Germanness, for they felt uncertain and alien in Greater Poland. The conviction of centuries of settlement in Wielkopolska was to give the German inhabitants self-assurance and convince them of the correctness of elimination of Slavs from the province terrain. In 1886 the Clearance Commission was established to buy up Polish estates. The funds of the Commission were continually increased over the following years, but the final effect was poor. In truth it had succeeded in increasing the overall number of Germans in the province; however the number of Poles as a result of higher natural increase had increased still more, especially on the towns. The price of colonisation was also high; the creation of one German farm cost the government and taxpayers (equally the Polish) 60,000 marks (for comparison a labourer for physical work in Poznań was paid 0.3 marks per hour). In the following years the Polish language was completely abolished in ordinary schools (with the teaching of religion), which provoked strikes by Polish children, quelled by beatings. After a short period of thaw in the years 1890-1894, the government returned to the policies of forced Germanisation. In 1894 on the initiative of German landowners - Hansemann, Kennemann and Tiedemann, the Organisation for the Propagation of Germanness in the Eastern Borders (Verein zur Förderung des Deutschtums in den Ostmarken) was established, called for short Hakata, after the first letters of the surnames of the founders. The organisation demanded the abolition of the use of any Polish at all from schools, the prohibition of the use of Polish at meetings and the closure of Polish newspapers. It joined the struggle for forcing through the proclamation of new laws on evicting Poles and bringing in Germans. In 1904 the settlement law was changed from the aspect of the battle with the greatest threat to German culture - Polish peasants. In 1908 the law of forcible buy out of Polish estates for the needs of German colonisation was announced (it came into force from 1912 to 1914, only 4 estates were expropriated). In order to completely stop the Polish parcelling out of land, from 1914 the government introduced first right of purchase (for the government) and of granting consent for subdivision by local authorities. The policy of discrimination against all classes of Polish society and the Catholic Church caused the acceleration of the process of developing the sense of national awareness among the Polish peasantry, consolidation of all classes of Poles and a growth of anti German bias among them. In the struggle to endure Poles had to learn good organisation and managed to effectively resist Germanisation. The slogan brought forth in the time of the greatest intensification of economic pressure "Your own to your own by your own" not only had an economic note, but also a cultural one. On the other hand, the permanent increase by the government of the privileges of German inhabitants often fuelled a sense of menace for the Poles and the bringing in of anti Polish orientated officials caused a growth of anti Polish feeling among the Germans. In this situation, in spite of periodic attempts at cooperation, also in science, including archaeology, Poznań began to have two faces - Polish and German. --Molobo 01:13, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

http://www.jmc.msu.edu/faculty/show.asp?id=54 Matt Pauly published "Soviet Polonophobia and the Formulation of Nationalities Policy in the Ukrainian SSR, 1927-34." http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/comparative_literature_studies/v038/38.3hokanson.pdf

Polonophobia, racism and even a lack of rational. thought,

the accused are not given any chance to defend themselve http://muse.jhu.edu/journals/kritika/v005/5.2dolbilov.html Ethnic Polonophobia, while traditional in Russia, http://www.dartmouth.edu/~lhc/events/2004/francophilia-program.html Paradise Lost and Found: Polonophobia and Russophilia on the Paris Stage, 1871-1905 . Ksenya Kiebuzinski, Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute http://www.hungarian-history.hu/lib/woja/woja14.htm A few weeks later, the sympathy of the Slovaks changed into a Polonophobia when the Poles wrested three small Polish speaking districts from Slovakia http://mesharpe.metapress.com/index/4MVYAMLV9YVAEUP9.pdf The Stereotype of the Pole in Imperial Policy Latest Russian historiography on Polonophobia in the Russian Empire http://mesharpe.metapress.com/index/26YMEPKHNFHKLY10.pdf The “Polonophobia” that prevailed dur-. ing and after 1863, he argues, was neither natural nor innate

They are many more examples. It seems then that the claim that the word isn't widely used is POV. --Molobo 09:33, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

How about renaming the article to

It seems a good idea. --Molobo 09:55, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

A question before removing !

Will history and archives be removed ? there is much information here needed, please wait while I copy it !

--Molobo 09:59, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

No I thought we would just move the article together with the talk page and the archives to the new name. A formal vote would be in place before this happens but I'd like to gather some comments before I start it. The rationale behind the move would be to save us the discussions on whether the term is proper or not and at the same time would help focusing the content of the article a bit. --_Lysy^talk 10:26, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

In fact, the vote is not necessary provided that there is a common sense of consensus that this is a good option. In my opinion, the change of the name is well justified, especially in the light of the sources that Molobo presented above. Of course we need some time to get the feeling. alx-pl D 12:17, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

There is one more issue about it. Google gives less hits for polonophobia than for anti-Polonism so the choice is not that obvious. Although, it may be the case that anti-Polonism has a good number of hits due to the fact that it is a name of an entry in Wikipedia. alx-pl D 12:38, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Let's wait a bit and see if anyone rises objections to the rename. I've seen the google results and had the feeling that "anti-polonism" is mostly used in Polish pages (being written or translated by Poles into English), while Polonophobia is more universal. This is just a hunch, only. Nevertheless, we do not have to blindly follow google if there's a consensus that the other name is less controversial and better recognised. --_Lysy^talk 15:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should also announce it on

Wikipedia talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board? alx-pl D

15:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

For a much better handling of the problem, I recommend to have a look at pl:Antypolonizm. The Polish article concisely describes the meaning attributed to the term, its usage by whom and for what purpose, and its rather hypothetical character. In short, it describes correctly anti-Polonism as a concept. The English article, on the other hand, seems unable to make the necessary distinction between concept and object. --Thorsten1 22:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

I support renaming the article, but I oppose Thorstens original research, that would seek to erase mention of persecution of Polish people, by limiting the term to personal phobia's. Clearly that was not the case with material presented. less implausible than postulating the existence of an elaborate inherent doctrine behind phenomena as disparate as those enumerated in the article Another attempt of Thorsten to deny any organsied persecution of Polish people-easly discredited by knowledge about discrimination under German Empire or during World War 2. As far as I know also, Neonazi and Nationalist groups in Germany exist to this day. Why should they have abandoned the traditional racist dislike and hatred towards Poles that characterised those groups in the past ? Seems yet another whitewashing attempt of original research. --Molobo 22:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but your above comment strikes me as somewhat confusing. I'm not sure you even understood what I wanted to say. Nobody disputes that nationalist groups in Germany have a dislike of Poles. Nationalists dislike other nations by definition. But the question is, is the term "anti-Polonism" a generally employed concept to describe and understand this phenomenon, either in or outside Poland? In my opinion, it is not, and if it isn't then Wikipedia should not present it that way - period. I also don't quite get what you mean by "Thorstens original research". Even less do I understand your statement"Another attempt of Thorsten to deny any organsied persecution of Polish people". I think anyone who cares enough to check my contributions can decide if there is any basis for this accusation. --Thorsten1 23:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, it is not Please point to a scholary source confirming that several sources I have pointed to, including scholary books, conference are not correct. --Molobo 01:09, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

You have provided sources that deal with all kinds of hostilities about Poles. You have not provided one source to demonstrate that "anti-Polonism" is employed as a single scientific concept to understand these very different acts of hostility. The overwhelming majority of occurences uses "anti-Polonism" exactly as I described it, i.e. as a political slogan in the Polish-Jewish conflict over the interpretation of history. Occurences where it may be used in a more neutral way are really few and far between. I will stop here, because I am sure that by now even you can understand what I mean - but it's futile to go on explaining if you do not want to understand. --Thorsten1 01:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Please provide a scholary source confirming your POV and contradicting my sources I provided. --Molobo 01:25, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Since you usually prefer Google to the library, why don't you simply conduct a simple search and look at the contexts in which the term occurs? Apart from that, you did not provide any sources that use "anti-Polonism" as a heuristic tool. At most, they mention the word in passing without much reflection. But as I said, discussing with you is futile. --Thorsten1 02:32, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Since you usually prefer Google to the library,Using personal remarks won't serve anything good to the article.Furthermore-please avoid enquiries about my personal life. --Molobo 02:37, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't enquiring. I was stating a fact blatantly obvious from your past edits. Anyway, I think we can finish the discussion - as you said that you "support renaming the article". Or do you oppose renaming as long as people agree with you for the "wrong" reasons? --Thorsten1 03:19, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

I think we can finish the discussion - as you said that you "support renaming the article" I support renaming the article as hostility towards Poles and Poland is more often named Polonophobia, I oppose your wish to delete much information about persecution of Poles and Poland due to that hostility. --Molobo 19:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

In 1904 a law was made forbiding building new buildings or buying land without agreement from local administration. The law was aimed against Poles and its goal was to block them from buying land. Historia 1871-1939. Anna Radziwiłł and Wojciech Roszkowski.

http://www.zeit.de/2004/26/A-PolBoden?page=all Am 28. Juni 1904 beschlossen Nationalliberale und Konservative im Preußischen Herrenhaus mit 207 zu 105 Stimmen eine Novelle zum Ansiedlungsgesetz. Am 10. August trat sie mit der Unterschrift Wilhelms II. in Kraft. Ihre antipolnische Ausrichtung versteckt sich im Paragrafen 13b, wo es gewunden heißt: „Die Ansiedlungsgenehmigung ist im Geltungsgebiete des Gesetzes, betreffend die Beförderung deutscher Ansiedlungen in den Provinzen Westpreußen und Posen, vom 26.April 1886 zu versagen, solange nicht die Bescheinigung des Regierungspräsidenten vorliegt, dass die Ansiedlung mit den Zielen des bezeichneten Gesetzes nicht in Widerspruch steht. Im Alltag bedeutete diese juristisch verschraubte Klausel: Hunderte von Anträgen polnischer Bauwilliger wurden jetzt abgelehnt. In den Akten stand dann vereinfacht: „Weil XY Pole ist.“

All those sources were presented to the user Sciurinæ (who isquestioning the fact of Poles being forbidden from buying land or building homes). Neverthless the user known previously as Nightbeast ignores those sources and continues to vandalise the article, trying to delete or show as dubious all mention of persecution of ethnic groups by Germany. Molobo

I am afraid to say that as usual the sources have been again ignored by Sciurinæ Molobo

As if I had ever made a secret of the fact that my previous nickname was

User:Nightbeast. I will not comment on the rest of your tirade, so let's try to filter out useful information. I guess you think these two sources would dismiss my suspicion about the sentence "In Prussia, and later in Germany, Poles were forbidden to build homes". Well, that suspicion was justified. I've just read this text and of course the two sources of you and I got a whole different picture. Owing to the Ostflucht, the percentage of Germans in the Eastern part of the German Empire was diminishing as opposed to the government's plans so these areas were more and more polonised (to put it in your words) while the government wanted it germanised. So they did have a reason other than just hating Poles, as you would love the text to read. Now your sources are betraying you. It reads "in den Provinzen Westpreußen und Posen" (= the province West Prussia and the Province of Posen), not whole Prussia let alone whole Germany. It doesn't read "in Prussia and later Germany" either. When was that law in force? In 1701 until 1918? No, your sources reads it was imposed on "28. Juni 1904" (June 28, 1904) Molobo, so it could only be in force between 1904 and at most until 1918. Nicknamed 'Obserwator' your view was also challenged in the forum you were later banned from [5] so who's in effect the one ignoring sources? I was right in guessing you committed a propagandistic logic fallacy in the shape of a hasty generalization of the place and time that Poles were forbidden to built houses and a glossing over concerning the reasons for the forbiddance. Sciurinæ

15:42, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

The article needs more sourcing, such as the statements attributed to Frederick the Great. From the dialogue here on talk it looks like strong feelings are at stake. Wikipedia's policies are firm: if something is unverifiable then it needs to go. I'd like to point out that Bismarck's policies were not directed exclusively at Poland. Germany also banned the Danish language when it acquired Schleswig-Holstein. Durova 17:39, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

I have to strongly support the article, and especially the section on Polish jokes. I was shocked to hear the US my first Polish Joke. I couldn't understand why nationals of Copernicus, Chopin, Kosciusko, Pulaski, and Paderewski the general public understood as unintelligent. I was personally asked: Are Polish as stupid as they say they are?

So why would there be so much suggestion in the US that Polish are stupid? I think this article hits the nail on the head. While jokes have always been around about many nations, the plethora of Polish jokes and the depth of their suggestion is outstanding. It makes perfect sens that Nazi Germany would develop and spread them. Why, even in WWII Warsaw Polish were proud to repeat German jokes! The big difference is that the Western world, Great Britain and the US, accepted this propaganda. Why? The answer lies in the political issues of the conclusion of WWII. The British and the American governments betrayed the Polish nation. Much can be said about this fact. To save their faces a pro-Russia propaganda has been introduced and by implication anti-Polish. Even though RAF was thankful to Polish pilots for their service during the Battle for England, the English nation wanted Polish nationals out of their country. The sentiments of British people changed enormously toward the Polish soldiers from viewing them as heroes to viewing them as nuisance.

This is how the jokes found a breeding ground in English speaking world.

I am sorry but that is one silly conspiracy theory. I highly doubt the Nazis were responsible for the spread of Polish Jokes in the United States and the English-speaking world. Such jokes were probably around long before the rise of the Nazis. Maybe you should do some more research on the issue before puttinh forward such a strange idea.

The Polish joke info is wrong - it quotes a book, the Mirth of Nations, which sets up a strawman theory that these jokes originated in Nazi Germany, and then proceeds to prove that this isn't the case (the next paragraph starts "there are serious problems with this argument..."). The article previously simply mentioned the theory, without the fact that it wasn't true! All you need to do is flip forward a couple pages in the Google Books reference to see that this is a case. I have corrected it. --Goodoldpolonius2 16:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorrry dear Goodoldpolonius but the book dealing with German propaganda in Nazi occupied Poland which I have in my possesion and which is a scholary research on all forms of propaganda in Generalna Gubernia says that jokes like this were made by German depertment responsible for propaganda. If you are doubtfull I can give the title of the book tomorrow. --Molobo 18:11, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

All I have to go on is the book you yourself quoted in the article, which actually argued the opposite of the point your quoted it for. It may have been the case that the German government spread Polish jokes, but the book argues pretty convincingly that these jokes did not originate during the Nazi regime, and that they are unrelated to American Polish jokes. The book also argues that it was unlikely that they were used as propaganda. Regardless, you should not delete your own sources when they disagree with you -- the book says these jokes did not originate in Nazi Germany, and your latest edit just deleted the book and reinserted the assertion that they did without any support at all. That doesn't mean that Polish jokes aren't mean, or anti-Polish, or whatever, but you can't just delete evidence you don't like, especially when you were the one who first quoted it, even if incorrectly. It is not how research should be done.--Goodoldpolonius2 18:32, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

but you can't just delete evidence you don't like I will give tomorrowa a source a throughout analysis of German propaganda in occupied Poland that is a scholary work published by one of universities in Poland. --Molobo 18:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Fine, that would be good - but it does not justify removal of sourced material arguing the other point of view, especially when that source was good enough for you when you thought it supported your point, and only erased after it contradicted you. I'll wait until tomorrow, but the language you deleted should be restored, if for no other reason than to address the concerns of the anonymous editor who first posted in this section, drawing a historical connection between American Polish jokes and the Nazis, a connection which the book you cited catagorically denies. --Goodoldpolonius2 18:53, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Actually, in German most ethnic jokes about stupid people are about the East Frisian Islanders. Durova 23:11, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your comments on my comment about Polish jokes in the US. I didn't quote any books.

I think bringing in ideas for discussion which are controversial is not wrong. Polish history has been misrepresented for a long time and ideas have to be explored. My main question is why are Polish jokes so popular in the US? They are more popular then other ethnic jokes. I understand that most countries have jokes about their neighboring nations. But the fact of Polish jokes popularity does make a statement. I think jokes are a subconsious response to a lack of understanding or capacity to comprehend. This is why in Poland a number of jokes has been created about the Holocaust (an unthinkable historical event). If you can't understand why you may as well joke about it to come to terms with a historical event.

Here is another view on the matter: Polish viewed as unintelligent in the US

smachaje 12:08, 17 February 2006 (EST)

Polish jokes have been told in America since the 19th century. And they aren't really Polish jokes per se, as much about jokes about 'stupid immigrants' that were recycled with every new wave of immigrants, to pick on the new kid in town, so to speak. They were around here far earlier than WW 2. These were the same jokes that the Italians and Irish heard, and then were redirected at the new Polish immigrants.

Yes, the stereotype of Polish-Americans is that they are stupid, but then the Irish have the burden of drunkenness, the Jews of cheapness, the Blacks of laziness and a proclivity for criminal behavior, etc. No matter where you are from, or what your ethnic heritage is, there will be jokes, insults and streotypes about you. With the huge influx of Hispanic and Asian immigrants into this country, they are now often the target of these jokes. For instance if you happen to be from India you are immediately assumed to work in a convenience store (e.g. Apu). The fact that Indians living in America often enjoy a much higher economic status and level of education is irrelevant.

I have read somewhere that these ethnic jokes are used as a form of cultural integration by Americans. Much like the new kid at school, you get made fun of before you become accepted. Part of the reason why it may seem like the jokes are more common than about other ethnicities, which I doubt they are, is that a lot of times Americans feel that an appropriate way to acknowledge the fact you are from another country is to insult you with some stereotype about your people. So if you tell someone you are from Poland, a lot of times they will say some stupid comment about it. Of course that often reveals more about the type of person you are dealing with more than anything.

That being said I doubt any of these jokes are really spoken in hatred or meant to incite atrocities or violence. If anything it indicates a form of self consciousness that a lot of native Americans feel about their lack of a definable cultural heritage. Talk to a 3rd or 4th generation American about their ethnic background and you'll rarely get any one group coming it at above 1/4 when they recite their litany of fractions. As soon as you hit the 3rd generation, in which both yourself and your parents were born here, you probably identify yourself more as an American anyway, regardless of where your ancestors came from. Even if you have a Polish last name those jokes just don't bother you as much and you might have no problem repeating them. Repeter 06:41, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not convinced that Polish jokes in North America are a seperate phenomenon from those which have traditionally come out of Germany. Considering that German was almost the national language in the US, it is conceivable that germanic anti-polish sentiment has always been present in North America. Jon Jonasson (talk) 02:39, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

You can create an article about anti-this and anti-that. That's just plain silly. No serious encyclopedia has an article about "anti-polonism". If something happened towards poles, mention it in the article about the respective historic event. Additionally no one outside of poland knows anything that is named "polish defense war". It's the "Polish September Campaign", as the name of the respective Wikipedia article says, too. Volkerfreund 18:26, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course-there never was any prejudice or sentiment or opression of Poles based on their nationality .Especially not from any volk. And of course you could read sources and discussion which names several non-Polish sources using the word anti-polonism when talking about prejudice or opression of Polish people.

--Molobo 18:50, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Google finds only 960 pages containing this made-up term. Most of these pages are copies from the Wikipedia article we talk about or polish pages. It's an irrelevant term, since no one except some crazy poles (uuh, some antipolonism here, or what?) uses it and the article simply doesn't make sense. Volkerfreund 18:55, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Crazy Poles eh our Volkerfreund ? No further comments needed I think. --Molobo 19:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

You could comment on the fact, that Google finds only 960 pages containing this made-up term. But maybe you don't like facts so much. Volkerfreund 19:21, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

960 pages ? Seems then that the term exists. But I see you already started to delete information about German atrocities in other articles.Sorry If I am unconviced as a result of your neutrality. --Molobo 19:23, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Since I'm sure that you know Google like the back of your hand, I expect you enlighten Volkerfreund about his mistake of not having excluded all the hits generated because of Wikipedia. Entering "Anti-Polonism wikipedia", you can see that these hits are approaching 700. On the other hand, are about 300 hits (excluding wikis) a real argument? Then ihgfedcba would be an existent word too. Volkerfreund, it's useless arguing that the word does not exist and worth pointing out only that it's not widespread at all. As for Molobo's implication concerning Volk ... I mean, implying that the guy who has recently described you, Molobo, and other Poles as "gang" could in any way be comparable to the Nazi's calling Poles bandits, or that Volkerfreund, whose nickname most likely has nothing to do with Volk but the fact that on this talk:page, some months ago, a user said his name was Volker (and Volkerfreund = friend of Volker), don't you be too quick in *identifying Nazism*. Sciurinæ 18:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

• neutral, although it is much closer than in August. alx-pl D
  21:00, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

is acceptable for you Molobo? alx-pl D 22:44, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

To be honest the sentence is still vague to me. Before, it didn't include the number of studies, which is clumsy - now it includes one, "various", but how various is "various"? It would be better to find certain numbers as in the previous sentence. Sciurinæ 18:37, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

A well balanced vagueness may be a virtue. Maybe "different" instead of "various"? alx-pl D 20:15, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

'Several different' may be better. To me, 'various' meant something like 'many different', which is too bombastic for the rare amount of the studies. However, the Oxford dictionary refers to it as 'several different', and defines 'several' as 'more than two but not many', which is a fair description for the amount of studies, I think. The web-dictionary of Cambridge (thanks to you I know of it) refers to it as 'many different'[6] and 'several' as 'some; an amount that is not exact but is fewer than many'[7]. So before questioning either definition of 'various', it might be an idea to directly state 'several different', to cut a long story short. Sciurinæ 21:35, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the word studied, as there is no evidence that the phenomenon of anti-Polonism is studied as such (with one exception of the works of Prof. Jerzy Robert Nowak Who is Jerzy Nowak ? As to antipolonism being studied I am saddened by your continued refusal to read the article, links and discussion page Alx-this is very troublesome in discussions with you and makes in fact it quite impossible if you continue this behaviour. Here are several cases of antipolonism being studied (none by the professor you know)

1. Eduard v. Hartmanns Schlagwort vom "Ausrotten der Polen" : Antipolonismus und Antikatholizismus im Kaiserreich / Helmut Neubach.
2. 'Erbfeindschaften': Antipolonismus, Preußen- und Deutschlandhaß, deutsche Ostforschung und polnische Westforschung, [w:] Deutschland und Polen im 20. Jahrhundert, red. U. A. J. Bechner, W. Borodziej, t. Maier, Hannover 2001
3. http://www.indiana.edu/~reeiweb/newsletter/current/2000/reeioct00.pdf

--Molobo 22:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)

Prof. Jerzy Robert Nowak is the author of the text you posted on my talk page one day as this site claims. The sources you provided above indicate that anti-Polonism or Polonophobia were studied by Polish, Russian, German, and American scientists. Although the fact that there was only one conference on the subject makes the argument in favour of the claim a bit weak. Still, this should be mentioned in the article. alx-pl D 23:36, 1 February 2006 (UTC) PS. I am saddened by your continued refusal to read the article, links and discussion page Alx-this is very troublesome in discussions with you and makes in fact it quite impossible if you continue this behaviour. - Note that your remark on Prof. J.R. Nowak suggests that you Molobo have also problems with careful grasping of the whole process (i.e. the discussion on the talk page, the content of the article etc.). I admit that I also am a bit lost in the maze. I am also sorry that it hurts you. alx-pl D 14:50, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

An annonymous contributor gave the following message (in italics) to the section

Hostility toward Poles reached a particular peak during

Auschwitz

(in Poland).<<<<this is a distortion. The Nazis targeted Poles and Jews for different reasons: Poles only in Poland, Jews throughout the German sphere of influence. The killing of Polish Jews had nothing at all to do with "anti-Polonism". The tally of victims in Poland was approximately 3 million Jews - 90% of the Jewish population; 97% of the Jews who remained under Nazi occupation - and (according to current estimates) between 1.5 and 2 million ethnic Poles, or about 7% of the ethnic Polish population. The pre-war population of Poland was about 36 million, consisting of 27 million ethnic Poles, 4 million Ukrainians, 3.3 million Jews, 1 million Germans and 700,000 others (Lithuanians, Belarusians, Czechs, Gypsies etc.). The loss of "one third of the population" would imply that 12 million people were killed, a gross overstatement. Conceivably, total losses might have reached 5 million or 15%. The term "Jewish Pole" is also never used in Polish-Jewish discourse. The normal shorthand is Poles and Jews; more formally, Catholic Poles or ethnic Poles (not quite equivalent, since there were ethnic Poles who were Protestants, atheists, etc. - even a few Muslims) and Polish Jews.>>>>

Any remarks, comments. alx-pl D 12:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC) The term "Jewish Pole" is also never used in Polish-Jewish discourse. The normal shorthand is Poles and Jews Except of course Szymon Datner mentions killings of Polish people that had a Jewish family members back three generations ago as Jew by Germans. --Molobo 22:53, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

The commonly given figures are 6 million dead Jews and 6 million dead Poles, with an intersection of 3 million Polish Jews (which is the commonly used term). These 3 million certainly included some who "had a Jewish family members [...] three generations ago". However, the majority of Jewish citizens in pre-war Poland formed an ethnically distinct group, a significant proportion of which did not speak correct Polish (don't have the exact numbers handy now). That about sums it up. No matter how you look at it, "one third" will be way out of reach. By the way, does anybody find this rhetoric of "we are better because we've had much more deads than you did" as pathetic and disgusting as I do, no matter who it is coming from? Let's try and keep this stuff out of Wikipedia. (I know I'm tilting at windmills...) --Thorsten1 23:57, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

By the way, does anybody find this rhetoric of "we are better because we've had much more deads than you did" as pathetic and disgusting as I do, no matter who it is coming from? If you are addressing my statement, then I am afraid you are reading too much, this was simply a remark that classification of victims of German genocide isn't always so very clear cut, and they were cases where people believing themself Polish were murdered as members of other nationalities.That is all. --Molobo 20:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

If you read at least the things you are verbatim quoting more carefully, you might have noticed that I explicitly said "no matter who it is coming from", read: no matter if that generic argument is coming from a Polish, German, Jewish, Palestinian or any other national POV pusher. But since you ask - yes, I do consider your contribution to Wikipedia in its totality (not the specific edit you mentioned above, which I honestly hadn't even read) as a prime example of the attitude I was alluding to. --Thorsten1 22:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

http://fesportal.fes.de/pls/portal30/docs/FOLDER/IPG/IPG1_2004/ARTKRZEMINSKI.PDF Fun must be. And, as Florian Illies pointed out at the beginning of his book, Harald Schmidt's »Polenwitze« had a discharging function. Poland has never been such a tabu as Jews, but as a victim nation in the WWII and then due to the martial law in 1981, it was subject to certain self-restrictions resulting from »political correctness« or »good manners«. Because the inhibition threshold has never been so high and the old pattern of disdain against the undeveloped nation and »Polish economy« were further virulent, the change from »repressed Solidarity« to »barbarian Polish market« went without problem. And the topos of Polish car thieves may easily give rise to a subliminal and unverbalized association »nation of thieves«: They nicked Silesia, and cars, now they are going to nick German jobs. In EU they just live from the money of net contributors and in Iraq they want, in addition, win things as a »Trojan donkey of America«. They only act up and are not even able to introduce a resonsnable car make to the world market. These moods are perhaps blatantly oversubscribed, but they are by no means projections. The reserve against Polish joining EU, which was immediately indicated by Eurobarometer in Germany, as well as the low position of Poland on the German thermometer of the sympathy signify that in the German society there are still many aversions which are older than the ones resulting from the "population exchange" in 1945. And, what is more important and alarming, people who are self-corrective with respect to this part of German tradition are weaker than those with respect to other historically laden cases like for instance German-French, German-Russian, German-American or German-Israeli relationships. --Molobo 19:40, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Much update needed

I strongly suggest listing current polonophobia or anit-polonism (1990-2005) in separate section. It is very much widespread type of xenophobia eg. in Germany. Order of wiki article suggests it disappeared on 1945...

I also don't understand so long passages about LPR and overuse of polonophobia. It is very much marginal movement. Populist minority exists in any country and in Poland it is not more vocal and overusing it than in other countries.

The Kiev operation was more of an attempt to secure Ukraine's independence against Soviet incursions, among other things. Ksenon 16:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right.

"Independent Poland first of all and then we will see to its size".

Jozef Pilsudski

.

While I agree that there was no intention to absorb the entire Ukraine into Poland at the time, despite the fierce nationalist policies in the interbellum even Galicia and Volhynia were not fully swallowed, Ukraine's independece per se is too a selfless motive for waging a bloody war. The goal for Poland was to contain Russia (and no one can blame it for that BTW). For that it needed to wrestle control of Ukraine out of pro-Russian faction and from Russia itself because Ukraine was not able militarily to do it on its own. How far would it go would have depended on the success. No need to bring here some selfless motives never heard of in international politics. Check the Soviet-Polish war Britannica article.[8] It calls it: "the 1919–20 military conflict between Soviet Russia and Poland, which sought to seize Ukraine." For more, check

talk:Kiev Offensive (1920) --Irpen

20:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You are reading too much of it Irpen. Yes Poland was aiming to take Ukraine meaning geographical territory of it. But together with its Ukrainian allies who sought a seperate state from Soviet Union. --Molobo 21:22, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, Petliuya can be called an ally or am equal parnter of Pilsudski as much as

Osobka-Morawski could be called an equal partner of Stalin. Behind Pilsudski was a real state, a strong army and popular support of his people. Petliura was on the run chased out fromn the country where he came to power through a coup defeating another regime that also came to power through a coup. Not that Peltiura was happy to submit to Poles but he chose a lesser evil of the two for the Ukrainians. --Irpen

21:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

You are now compering Pilsudski to Stalin, which I think speaks much about how POV the entry is if you hold such opinions. --Molobo 21:40, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I am not comparing the hero with a tyrant, no way. Neither I am comparing Petliura, a real patriot no matter what I think of his views on other issues, with

Osobka-Morawski. I am comparing the equality of this so called "partnerships". --Irpen

21:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Not to mention that claims that Poland wanted to "force" Ukraine into Miedzymorze Federation, and install puppet regime are purely your own speculations, heightened by the fact that you use Dmowski as example supporting your thesis-which is plain absurd as he was the one who opposed this idea. --Molobo 21:24, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't use Dmowski to support federation. He was a a fierce polonizer and had nothing to do with a federation idea. He opposed it all right.

Your claims also that there was a intesive persecution and forced conversion of Ukraine by Poles have been discredited in various other articles. It's a shame that you continue to spread this highly POV opinion in various articles. --Molobo 21:26, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Nope. Moreover, every claim I made in my addition is very well referenced. That's why you attempt nothing but remove it all together because you can't challenge the refs I brought up, all to respected sources. --Irpen 21:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Molobo, you are the one that goes around POV-pushing. Check your own contributions, you will find that you do almost nothing on wikipedia except POV push, engage in the related revert wars (for which you've received many blocks), and, despite your extensive experience in the latter, rarely attain (or try to attain) a compromise. Moreover, your User page reeks of severe paranoia and advertises extreme nationalism. It is a shame, because you are potentially a good contributor. Ever thought about giving people the Benefit of the Doubt, limiting your revert warring or trying to reach compromise? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Calgecus I already know from you that Poland was made of mud huts before Germans made it a country[9], why don't you make an article about that so we can discuss it ? --Molobo 21:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, paranoid distortions. I say only what I say, not what you pretend I say. I have already written an article about how Flemings and English made the first towns in Scotland, so you needn't presume I'm a "Polonophobe". - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 21:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Again, paranoid distortions. I say only what I say, not what you pretend I say. Here is what you said : [10] Poland, before it brought in German settlers to urbanize it, could boast little more than a series of fortified cragie lumps with some mud-huts around them. - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 20:31, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Don't misinform. --Molobo 22:36, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

So? How am I "misinforming"? - Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 22:39, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Unconnected statements and allegations which you linked together forming you own opinion. Remember that Wiki is not Original Research. Your POV will be deleted of course. --Molobo 21:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

http://www.aei.org/research/nai/publications/pubID.21920,projectID.11/pub_detail.asp ove and Hate Polish-Russian Relations Marred by Russian Unpredictability and EU and Nato Uncertainty Print Mail

By Irina Kobrinskaya Posted: Thursday, February 3, 2005 ARTICLES Polish News Bulletin Publications Date: January 1, 1900

The following is a summary of an article, featured in Rzeczpospolita, by Irina Kobrinskaya, political researcher at the World Economy and International Relations Institute of the Russian Academy of Sciences. The ironic saying that kurica ne ptica, Polsha ne zagranica ("chicken not bird, Poland no foreign country") conveys the essence of Russia's paternalism towards the Central European countries. No wonder, therefore, that Poland's continuing efforts to boost its international weight have been met in Russia with at least incredulity. The news that Poland would manage a separate zone in Iraq was initially received in Moscow as a joke. The tone of all comments was the same: a small country acting as if it was an international power. Paris, Berlin, Moscow, Washington, and London are discussing the future of the world and the Polish frog puts its leg forward for shoeing. The Russians felt that the Poles were being more royalist than the king, which they thought comical but also highly irritating.

--Molobo 23:35, 14 March 2006 (UTC) Irpen's another lack of historical knowledge: The proverb originated from the Soviet reality Unless Soviets invented time machine and travelled back in time to the XVIII century when it originated I find it hard to believe. --Molobo 23:42, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Enter the proverb in Russian in google and see. This is just ridiculous) I am sorry but I know only German and English, Russian is incomprehensible to me. Anyway even Russian disagree with you it seems, as seen above. I will remove your POV, original research and emotional statements as soon as possible. --Molobo 23:46, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo, thanks for pasting a relatively short piece this time. Now to the issue, if you check the web-search hits, you will see that Poland is much more uncommon in the proverb. The reason was that Poland was not the easiest country to get a travel permit in the USSR. The easiest was to travel to go to

Slanchev Briag, Bulgaria. If you refuse to accept results of the web-pages in Russian, please start from stopping to use Polish language sources. --Irpen

23:49, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall telling anybody to use Polish on internet like you are insisting on others in relations to Russian in your comment "Enter the proverb in Russian in google and sees". Perhaps it will surprise you but not everybody knows that particular language. --Molobo 23:56, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I entered the proverb in Russian myself and results are there. Please stop this silly discussion. If you don't know Russian, how can you know Russian proverbs. The POV writing you used is disproved simply by the web-search. Poland is not the most common word in this proverb. --Irpen 00:05, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If you don't know Russian, how can you know Russian proverbs.Huh ? The proverb is widely known in Poland as an example of imperialistic attitude towards Poland. There is no need for knowledge of Russian language to know what it means, as it is frequently translated(myself I was born in times when forced learning of Russian language in Poland during Soviet occupation was slowly abandonded and could learn fortunetly English and German instead). Poland is not the most common word in this proverb. I am only interested what it means towards Poland, as towards other countries it could have different meaning as seen by above statement by non-Polish author. --Molobo 00:11, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Explanation of the particular proverb being tagged

Since Molobo persist with his "the Earth rotates around Poland" approach suggesting that the proverb specifically applying to Poland has somehow a unique meaning than to any other country, I just marked this nonsense as disputed in the article and copied the earlier explanation he removed below. --Irpen 02:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Some Polish authors being ignorant in colloqial

Soviet block being a notable exception. Travel permits to Bulgaria were the easiest to obtain, therefore Bulgaria was most commonly joked about in the proverb (See comparison for Bulgaria vs Poland

usage giving 1218 vs 638 hits, respectively)

Irpen this isn't about the saying in relation to Mongolia or Bulgaria but Poland, with whom Russia has centuries of past conflict and which hindered many grand state ambitions of Russia. It's understandable that Russian sayings in relation to Poland are often filled with negative stereotypes. I really don't care what Russians said about Bulgaria, what I care is what they said in relation to Poland(and please spare the Soviet Union wasn't Russia argument) --Molobo 02:59, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Here is a article using the sentence from the website representing the current regime in Russia: http://www.inosmi.ru/translation/223270.html I runed it over by Babelfish and the meaning is as I said in regards to Poland. --Molobo 03:08, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Molobo. First of all thank you for not pasting the entire article here. I read it. Firstly, the proverb is nowhere in the text. Only in the article's summary. That it neither the journalist nor the person he interviews mention it. Secondly, this is a discussion between two Poles. So, if you are saying that the prevailing view in Poland about this proverb is the nonsense you wrote, their sticking to it would not have proven anything. The true meaning of the proverb is shown by the web-search which produces less hits for Poland than for other countries. Non-abroad is simply something where it was easy for Soviets to get, because to get to a true "abroad" was impossible. Be it Bulgaria, Mongolia, Poland or East Germany, the proverb was a sarcasm about the Soviet travel restrictions and not about this or that country. I will not be responding anymore to this rant of yours and will leave it to others to judge. You refused to keep my explanation in the article and replaced it with your polonocentric views. Very well, the explanation will then be at talk and your ignorant explanation in the article will be marked. This is not something I am terribly concerned about to spend more time to restore the correct info. I view this as a fringe article and just stopped by to make some obvious correction. Please stay on topic and don't overload the page with another bunch of outbursts such as your pride that you "fortunately don't know Russian". I wish I knew Polish to enjoy poetry of Mickiewicz in original, because I very much liked it in the Ukrainian translation. But it would also allow me to comment more of the nonsense prop stuff you use as your sources. That is if I had nothing better to do. --Irpen 04:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

The true meaning of the proverb is shown by the web-search which produces less hits for Poland than for other countries. But I am interested only in its meanng towards Poland. If you want to article about what it means to other countries by my guest. --Molobo 13:09, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Btw I wonder how it was it possible to be under Soviet occupation and Polish control at the same time. I also wonder why you erase the description Soviet agression since it is used on Septembe Campaign article. Hopefully you don't intend to inform us that it was liberation of proletariat masses from capitalist bourgeoisie represented by reactionary Polish elements... --Molobo 03:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, Irpen suggested that he accepts the usage of the term "liberation" in all contexts, even if it is highly POVed. So why not, the USSR had a great tradition of liberating everyone from everything, let's reflect that in this article as well. Halibutt 08:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Biased. Petlura wasn't a Polish puppet and deserves to be mentioned by name. Xx236 12:47, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

During the Silesian Uprising, it was the fault of the Polish, that they occurred. Polish clergymen and politicians agitated against Germany, while 91 % of Upper Silesia's population had voted in a democratic referendum to remain within the German Empire, among them 30 % Polish or Slavic Upper Silesians. It is ridiculous to claim there were outburst of Anti-polonism then. The pro-German Freikorps also recruted a lot of pro-German Slavic Silesian volunteers. Don't twist historical facts.82.72.148.85 13:39, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

do you have any sources that can back up those numbers? It is always great to provide cold hard undisputable numbers and facts like that, but can you show us where you got them?

--Jadger 20:29, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

82.72.148.85 - would you please register and present your opinions under one name? Both Alfons Zgrzebniok and Wojciech Korfanty were Silesians. The destruction of the Polish Library in Breslau was an outburst of Anti-polonism, because the majority of Breslau Poles didn't commit any crime. Xx236 12:16, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Please add instances of Polish anti-Ukrainian sentiment to the relevant article. Ive noticed that users Irpen and Ghirla like to spam Poland-related articles (esp. high-traffic ones) with healthy doses of anti-Polish POV, perhaps forgeting that there are articles that specifically deal with the subject matter?

I'm sure they would add the info there as well if only you were a tad more specific. Any links in particular? After all anti-Polish POV is what wiki needs... //Halibutt 03:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Also links and diffs with examples of myself "spamming PL-related articles with healthy doses of anti-Polish POV" would be helpful so that I know what exactly annoys you so much. --Irpen 04:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Warsaw Uprising 1794 anyone? :E //Halibutt

Low traffic article and not a spam but referenced and relevant info was added to an article that "specifically deal with the subject matter". Try another short. --Irpen 07:25, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, right. Relevant info - with invented dates, non-existent churches, allegations of Russian soldiers without arms - in a city they occupy... But if you don't like the example then how about the "destruction of Kiev by the angry Poles" thingie added to at least four different articles? //Halibutt 14:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Halibutt, what narrower article would have been more relevant for the info on Warsaw uprising? Now, to Kiev destruction if you want to pursue this, links and diffs pls to "at least four different articles" about "destruction of Kiev by angry Poles". --Irpen 06:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Here you go:

1. Kiev Offensive (this and other diffs around that date)
2. Polish-Soviet War (where you insisted on keeping the info even though at least four other people suggested it's too non-notable to be mentioned there at all)
3. There's also
   History of Kiev
   , but its edit history is too long to browse.
4. ... not to mention the article on
   Bridges in Kiev
   itself.

Does it make four? Or perhaps some other example needed? //Halibutt 01:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

And some Jews survived in Germany during the Holocaust, so the German anti-semitism of that era is really an exaggeration, too :> There are exceptions and there are rules, Zbihniew. But perhaps you can find some academic citations to back up your POV?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 19:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it is true that many Poles made their careers in Russia. Until the advent of harsh anti-Polish laws in the later part of 19th century they even formed a large part of that country's local administration, business and so on. However, this was mostly true to the period before the short romance Alexander had with liberalism came to an end. Also, Alexander graciously agreed to allow the Polish authorities (in the period when the Congress Kingdom still had much autonomy) to open an university in Warsaw (the Vilnian academy was much, much older). His son closed it down after 15 years, however. //Halibutt 20:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I am surprised by the virulent opposition to this article, and also to a similar article "Francophobia" I don't see any significant difference between these two articles and the article "Anti-semitism" Why is there no banner This article may not be compliant with the content policies of Wikipedia. on the "Anti-semitism" article?

Syrenab 00:05, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Some of the concerns of misuse seem valid to me as the article mentions it has been misused and the category had too many names of people who were just Communist Polish Jews. Skimming the current article I don't think it's misusing the notion that badly. However another strain of editors seem to insist that no such thing as anti-Polish sentiment exists for reasons I find baffling. Although the article Anti-Catholicism once had similar, and I think possibly related, problems. I think initially it was felt that it shouldn't even be an article because it would be misused, it was not a notable topic, or because Anti-Catholicism is sensible. I get the sad sense a few objections here are similar.--T. Anthony 12:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't think anyone ever said anti-Polish sentiment didn't exist, such an assertion would clearly be spurious...what people have said is that "antipolonism" isn't an English word, especially not one that the average English-speaker would recognize or even understand. A few (less than 10) occurences of the word were used at the time to "establish" (quite poorly, IMHO) that the word does indeed exist. "Polonophobia" falls into the same class. The primary cause for opposition to the article is the way in which it (much less noticeable now, but still evident) confuses antisemitism against Polish Jews with "antipolonism", and the extent to which every perceived historical slight is cast as rampant hatred of Polacks...a sentiment I at one point, attributed to a culture of victimhood having been instilled in the Polish psyche by the government's curriculum during the Cold War years. I don't know, as I said at the time, whether or not this is the source of what many editors perceive as a pathological attachment to "Polish Victimism", but a lot of opposition comes from the fact that, at least as far as many editors are able to glean from the sources, "antipolonism" as a definable concept especially, exists only in the minds of Poles. Tomer^talk 05:21, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to our recent debates at

The cartoon insulting Poles in the recent issue of the New Yorker needs to be mentioned in the article--Woogie10w 11:13, 23 February 2007 (UTC)'Polish joke' leads to anger vs. magazine

I was surprised not to find any info in the article concerning the very common feeling of inferiority and/or shame some Poles have (for being Poles, I guess) especially when visiting other countries. I would think this is related (since it's probably a consequence) of anti-Polish discourse. 201.25.232.61 02:58, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Rodolfo

Good point. logologist|Talk 07:18, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

This is the first I've heard of this "very common" phenomenon. Appleseed (Talk) 17:06, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Not unique, there are self hating whites and blacks, and antisemitic jews. Jon Jonasson (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

If the article should inform about terror, the name of it cannot be sentiment.Xx236 16:25, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Why not "

anti-Semitism"), it should be good enough for Poles. Nihil novi

20:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Check article's history: it was previously named 'anti-Polonism', moved to 'Polonohobia', and later to 'anti-Polish sentiment'.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  20:49, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Doubtless the work of

anti-Polonists ("anti-Polish-sentimentalists"?). Nihil novi

21:02, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Seconded. Wikipedia is full of those. Look over your shoulder... --Irpen 21:31, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

According to © 2007

As I don't see a WP:RM in the archives, there is not much stopping any editor from renaming the article.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  23:15, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Tried. "The page could not be moved..." Nihil novi 23:34, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

List the proposal at

WP:RM and follow their procedures, this can be seen as a controversial move, please.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk} 

00:17, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

• Anti-Polonism —(Discuss)— This is the appropriate English name. —Nihil novi
  23:58, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Wouldn't that be the correct quote? it rhymes better, and yields more google hits (411 vs. 108 when searching 'Seiten auf Deutsch') Yaan 15:00, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

I think so to. By the way this is one of the best articles I have read in wiki

Is simply not connected to the article, not one of the sentences speaks about antipolonism. What exactly is it doing here ? Also its completely too large, and full of one sided and non-neutral claims. For example joint Polish-Ukrainian action is defined as "Polish invasion". --Molobo (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

• Concur. The runaway insert about Ukraine (now removed) without a single source was totally off topic. I suggest finding a better place for it as per
  WP:HATE and WP:Civility, if his attitude remains. --Poeticbent talk
  19:37, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

While the text was obviously non-neutral and more of a 'rant' than encyclopedic text, we should certainly describe growing tension between Poles and Ukrainians in the interwar period, and how it led to the growth of 'anti-Polish sentiments' among the Ukrainians.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 02:17, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

Discrimination of immigrants from Poland in the US is completly missing! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.204.109 (talk) 16:19, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

• Historical or contemporary? Jon Jonasson (talk) 04:47, 28 February 2008 (UTC)

This article seems (my POV) a little bit centered about the Germans only... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.208.244 (talk) 17:28, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

Nonsense, the Russians are noted as being hostile to Poles as well. Jon Jonasson (talk) 18:02, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

99% of article is only about Germans —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.239.206 (talk) 13:48, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The Soviets didn't execute the officers because the officers were of Polish nationality; the AK shot RKKA troops "in the back"; etc etc. Basically, while the corpses of victims, even innocent ones, look the same, those actions have no place in this article. There is no reason to conclude that anti-Polish sentiment was a detrimental factor in Soviet repressions. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk) 18:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I would say you are wrong. Stalin and other leaders of the SU remembered too well their humiliating defeat in 1920 and they took revenge as soon as the opportunity came. Note that despite barbarity of the Eastern Front in WW2, 90% of Wehrmacht officers captured after Battle of Stalingrad survived Soviet captivity. Polish officers captured by the Soviets in 1939 were not that lucky. Tymek (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The crimes commited by Stalin's regime to ethnic Poles were, of course, real - however, I see no grounds to shove them into the article about discrimination based on ethnicity. They belong to

Soviet repressions of Polish citizens (1939-1946). Your argument about different fates of German and Polish officers can easily be balanced out by the fact that the Soviet Union didn't have any German units, nor has the Soviet government allowed Germans to serve - unlike the Poles. Basically, I repeat again, there is no reason to conclude that anti-Polish sentiment was a detrimental factor in Soviet repressions, and thus, such repressions don't belong in this article. Not everyone who kills a jew is an anti-semite. With respect, Ko Soi IX (talk

) 12:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Can we get better refs than blogs and other dubous sites? Hitler's quote is referenced to a blog. He might have said that and this is in line with his other statement but AFAIK, the authenticity of the Armenian quote is not universally agreed upon. In any case, quotes should be referenced and blogs are not acceptable references. --Irpen 05:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Re Molotov's quote, his statement refers to a particular political entity, the dictator-ruled Poland who Soviets perceived a threat, justifiably or not. This was not a statement about Poles in general and the subject of the article, according to its lead, is the xenophobic attitude to Poles in General. Criticizing Nazi Germany does not translate into anti-German attitude. There was also a lot of public statements against

This whole section is

original research. Boodlesthecat ^Meow?

06:05, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Boodles, could you specify? Perhaps antisemitism is also original research? Tymek (talk) 17:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

To compile an arbitrary list of anti-Polish quotes (out of the countless number of such quotes that must exist) is original research. These quotes are not sourced to a reliable source (ideally a secondary source) which would, ideally say something to the effect "The following quotes are some examples of anti-Polish sentiment," referenced to a reliable source (book, journal article etc) about, for example, the history of anti-Polonism. Instead, it seems this list was gathered by trolling the internet for arbitrary quotes. That is

original research. Boodlesthecat ^Meow?

18:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Correct, but this is how the entire article came about... --Thorsten1 (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a single reliable source anywhere on this subject? The article is just a patchwork of arbitrary quotes and examples of the sort that can be compiled for any nationality; no logical coherency whatsoever, and hardly encyclopedic. Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 21:50, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

All quotes should be moved to WikiQuote. Wikipedia has no room for quotes sections.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 19:24, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Piotrus, who made this edit yesterday, may I ask? --Irpen 01:55, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Adding references is always useful. Now they can be moved to WikiQuote with the new refs.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk} 02:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you kidding? One references to a quote whose authenticity is not even certain is sited to a blog. The other (Shamir) is cited to a partisan pro-Arab Institution (I wonder have you seen their other publications, their views about Israel is rather striking). And you call this "useful references"? I call this sloppy googling. Anyway, i am removing this section now. --Irpen 02:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Added the removed section below:

Anti-Polish quotes

• "I have issued the command – and I´ll have anybody who utters but one word of criticism executed by a firing squad – that our war aim does not consist in reaching certain lines, but in the physical destruction of the enemy. Accordingly, I have placed my Totenkopf Units in readiness – for the present only in the East – with orders to them to send to death, mercilessly and without compassion, men, women, and children of Polish race and language. Only thus shall we gain the living space (Lebensraum) which we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?", Adolf Hitler ^[1]
• "All Poles will disappear from the world.... It is essential that the great German people should consider it as its major task to destroy all Poles.", Heinrich Himmler, ^[2]
• "Cattle in human form.",
  Johann Georg Forster^[3]
• "Every Pole sucks anti-Semitism with his mother´s milk", Yitzhak Shamir ^[4]
• "the monstrous bastard of the Treaty of Versailles",^{[dubious – discuss]} Vyacheslav Molotov. [16] [17] [18]

Please make sure the references are improved (see above) before transwikiing this anywhere. --Irpen 02:44, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I disagree with this belonging to an article:

Soldiers of Poland's Home Army (Armia Krajowa) and returned veterans of the Polish Armed Forces that had served with the Western Allies were persecuted (see: Cursed soldiers), sometimes imprisoned and often executed following staged trials (as in the cases of Witold Pilecki, the organizer of Auschwitz resistance and Lukasz Cieplinski, hero of the anti-nazi resistance).

Clearly the communist regime was after its political opposition, not after "Poles". The Communist state dealing with the armed anti-Communist resistance, eg. cursed soldiers, is largely similar with how interwar Poland dealt with the militant Ukrainian Nationalist underground (OUN). Every deals with those who challenge it in the form of the armed resistance with little mercy. While I personally sympathize with the terrible fate of the cursed soldiers ascribing this to anti-Polonism just makes no sense. --Irpen 03:21, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

The main political opposition was the Polish government-in-exile and Polish underground. I don't know any Jewish or Belarusian opposition at that time.

Your analogy with the pre-war government is obviously false. Xx236 (talk) 11:20, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Obviously false statement, a number of the victims were shot by soldiers or MO-officers.Xx236 (talk) 10:29, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

These were the times when the amplification of anti-polonism took place. Roosevelt and Churchill wanted to please Stalin, as they needed him in the war against the Germany and didn't want to encourage him to sign another pact with Hitler, so they supported, directly or indirectly, the negative publicity on polish goverment, polish national interests, Poles and Poland.

I have added some material which I think is what you are asking to be added. The material is mostly about attitudes in the UK (where I live) to Poles during the war. Let me know what you think? Jniech (talk) 19:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

This article appears to start with the end of the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth. E.g. should there not be material from earlier such as the Teutonic Knights and their campaign to justify their actions against Poland? Jniech (talk) 19:30, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Dear Boodlesthecat: We have disagree before hence this appeal to you before I explain my position to accept this is a good faith challenge and hopefully avoid a disagreement based on ethnic Pole vs. Jewish position.

A quick reread of ‘’The Neighbours respond’’ does not support your change. Please give page numbers.

The work of Michał Cichy does not appear to reference 40 Jews being killed. Further page 16 of my copy does support that some (3 in total) historians support the overall views you express but you fail to point out a majority disagree with this point of view.

Please reword or explain else I will undo your current change tomorrow (UK time at 8pm). Jniech (talk) 20:15, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I changed "40" to "scores of Jews" per the source cited. What else specifically are you objecting to? What is your source for "a majority" disagree specifically with Cichy?

PS: Please

assume good faith and not a priori turn this into "a disagreement based on ethnic Pole vs. Jewish position." I provided clear sources for my edits andf corrected some obvious errors and distortions; it is bad faith on your part to automatically start characterizing this as "a disagreement based on ethnic Pole vs. Jewish position." My edits are based on what the sources say, and I resent that assumption. Boodlesthecat ^Meow?

20:31, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Page 16 states “a majority of discussants (including Tomasz Strzembosz, who played a large role in the discussion of neighbours) refused to accept them.” You reference Tomasz Strzembosz hence I assume you have read it but currently you state “but his article elicited some protests within Poland” which I feel does not express the word “majority”. Please ASAP change to express this as I still feel the current version does not support fully the source. Jniech (talk) 20:48, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but chance was meant to be change “Thank you for recent change”. Jniech (talk) 21:10, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

I am sorry if you feel my response implied bad faith by you. I was doing my best to seek agreement between us. Please, PLEASE, respond in good faith and you will find a willing listen. Jniech (talk) 21:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

The title and subject of this article is Anti-Polish sentiment. How does the "majority" of those in the discussion illustrate Anti-Polish sentiment? Do those respondents say that it is Anti-Polish sentiment? And even if they do, why does a debate amongst Poles about an article constitute an instance of Anti-Polish sentiment, rather than a debate about an article? Does the fact that a bunch of people considered Sean Penn anti-American for traveling to Iraq mean that it actually constituted an example of anti-Americanism? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 05:16, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

The article currently reads like historians supported the attack against the Home army but that not completely true i.e. you currently fail to mention those who disagreed. Further I am not sure the sentence “Cichy’s assertions, it was argued were merely a repetition of discredited Stalinist propaganda against the Home army” which is also on page 16 of the source is reflected in the current version Jniech (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

How is criticism of the Home Army Anti-Polish sentiment? I assume that in a democracy it is possible to write critical articles about historical subjects without it being Anti-Polish sentiment? Where is the evidence that any of this constituted Anti-Polish sentiment? Boodlesthecat ^Meow? 06:30, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

In the current version the wording for 3 historians is “confirmed by a number of Polish historians” but the majority is described as “some protests within Poland”. As a result it appears two sides are close in numbers.

Why not change it to say “confirmed by three Polish historians” and “but his article elicited protests by the majority within Poland” to reflect the source? Jniech (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:33, 19 November 2008 (UTC).

Not only are ethnic jokes and anti-Poland propaganda offended or insulted Polish people, what about portrayals and stereotypes of Poland and Polish people? In such stereotypes, the Poles were deemed as "dull, strange, aloof, backward and docile", and comical depictions of "old Polish men" are blue-collar and underpaid plumbers, bricklayers and chimney sweeps is popular throughout Western Europe and in pre-WWII America. Stereotypes of an ethnic group does lead to discrimination and in some cases by extremists, hatred comes out of negative portrayals of a certain ethnic minority group.+ 71.102.2.206 (talk) 23:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

"For example, in 2003, a Polish tourist couple was attacked and stabbed with a knife in Palm Springs, California by two teen supremacists ..." Obviously we don't mean to say that the tourists were attacked by two people who believe in the Supremacy of Teenagers. What type of "Supremacists" were they attacked by? White Supremacists / Neo-Nazis, or is the term "Supremacists" being used to describe extreme anti-immigrant American Nationalists, or....?

Radek, regarding this edit: What exactly does this book say on page 71? I'm asking because Google Books won't display the text, so I assume you have a paper copy? Could you perhaps quote verbatim which statement in the book supports the indirect-speech statement I removed from the article? Thank you from the mountain ;). --Thorsten1 (talk) 01:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, no paper copy. But, if you go to amazon the book is actually searchable and you can find the relevant text on page 71. The only substantial diff between actual text and as quoted in the article - the thing was reworded to avoid copy vio - is omission of the fact that the historical societies which awarded the prizes were funded by "groups with conservative political views". I'm not gonna type the whole thing in since it can be easily looked up at amazon.

talk

) 09:29, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks! However, I'm still not quite convinced. All Amazon is allowed to give away is the following: "... Hoggan had been made the recipient, by German societies financed by groups with conservative political views, of awards bearing the names..." [19]. Fortunately, though, Google Books has the rest of the sentence: "... of Germany's most famous historian, Leopold von Ranke, and one of its most courageous humanists, Ulrich von Hutten." [20] I'm not sure how this justifies the wording "two of Germany’s leading historical societies". Hope you can comment to help me understand this better? --Thorsten1 (talk) 09:54, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Radek, you've been silent about this for a month now, but we need to get this sorted out, so let's recapitulate what we have here. The book says that "Hoggan had been made the recipient, by German societies financed by groups with conservative political views, of awards bearing the names of Germany's most famous historian, Leopold von Ranke, and one of its most courageous humanists, Ulrich von Hutten." Again, can you elaborate on how this supports the statement that "two of Germany’s leading historical societies awarded Hoggan [...] prizes for outstanding scholarship", which you defended as "true" ([21])? Do you feel that the fact that an award conferred by a society is named after someone famous makes the society itself famous, or "leading"? If so, I'll have to disillusion you. First off, unlike the U.S.A., Germany never had a strong tradition of local "historical societies". Even less are there any "historical societies" on the national level, as the statement "two of Germany's leading historical societies" misleadingly implies. Further, in Germany, as in most other countries, people can name their societies or awards after whatever and whoever they please. There is no authority restricting the names of famous people for the use by prestigious institutions, so the fact that the said societies named their awards after Leopold von Ranke and Ulrich von Hutten doesn't justify calling them "famous", "historical", "courageous", "humanist", or "leading".

To further put the statement in perspective, let's have a look at what the German public had to say about Hoggan at the time, according to the cover story of

Tagesspiegel protested that the awards Hoggan received were no "gifts of the German people"; the conservative daily Die Welt called Hoggan's book "snake oil" (Rattenfängerei, literally "rat-catching", a term even less favorable towards its readership than its author). The article lists many more examples of the general disapproval Hoggan met with among scholars, politicians and journalists. In sum, saying that "two of Germany’s leading historical societies awarded Hoggan the Ulrich von Hutten and Leopold von Ranke prizes for outstanding scholarship", thus implying that he had any mainstream success, is grossly misleading and smearing the image of Germany. Unless you can provide some plausible arguments why your wording should remain in the article despite the above, I'm going to revert it in the next few days. --Thorsten1 (talk

) 16:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oy, I thought I already replied to this but with being busy with other stuff, it must've slipped my mind. Anyway - I'm fine with removing "leading" from the sentence. The source does say "conservative" however. I also think it would be fine if you added text to the effect that other organizations and scholars criticized Hoggan at the time.

talk

) 18:02, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

We don't have to follow the source slavishly - "conservative" is much too broad and, in this case, weak. As Germany is currently being governed by a conservative party, this would still imply that these people were part of mainstream German politics or academia. Also, the quoted historians like Rothfels, Schramm, and Erdmann are die-hard conservatives, even by the standards of cold-war West Germany, let alone by today's standards. Die Welt belongs to the highly conservative publisher Axel Springer. The Spiegel article contains a lot more examples of Hoggan's uncompromising rejection by conservatives. So, "conservative" is really out of the question - unless, of course, you think that the Institute for Historical Review is sufficiently characterized as "conservative". --Thorsten1 (talk) 19:15, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Thorsten, I'm fine with your wording. But that wasn't "my" text, it was text that was already in the article. And I was just following what the source I had said - "conservative". I could be hard nosed about this and insist on "we must stick with what the source says" but I agree that it in some instances it is important not to follow the sources too "slavishly". So your wording is fine.

talk

) 19:30, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Good that we finally agree. As for the text, I know it wasn't originally yours, but you defended a wording that was definitely not backed by the source (except the single word "conservative"), so you kind of adopted it. But never mind that now. "I could be hard nosed about this and insist on "we must stick with what the source says" - actually, you could try that, but if the wording of a source is evidently inaccurate, we may not and, in the interest of Wikipedia, musn't follow it. In the meantime, I've had a look at the paragraph in question, and Craig actually makes it perfectly clear in context that these people were are, in fact, fringe right-wingers, even though he understates their politics as "conservative" in the sentence in question. So while you might insist that we quote the word "conservative" and reference it to Craig, what would that be good for - if not creating a wrong image, one that isn't supported by Craig's full text itself? --Thorsten1 (talk) 20:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I noticed that the new article was created via cut and paste called Polish joke (since expanded to its great benefit of course), but the subsequent section was removed from this article. I’m afraid, that’s not the way things work with regard to relevant content. The section about Polish jokes in this article is needed for the understanding of the issues involved and the proper balance. I reinstated the information, and would like to encourage the creator of the new article to please work on in until it reaches an independent status. There’s plenty of information available online to develop the Polish joke article further, however, the information contained in this article must remain here, where it belongs. --Poeticbent talk 14:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

On the same topic I've removed the "Comedy" template from the top of this page. Yeah, there's such a thing as Polish jokes but there's also ____-jokes (insert a random ethnic group) and I don't see the same template on those pages.

This is one of many articles that has been written by people who want to propagate their primitive stereotypes. It really appears to me as if they want to provoke anti-Polish sentiments! The article bristles with self-righteousness and an annoying tone of chauvinism (typically anti-Russian and anti-German).

Frederick the Great (to provide just one example) never had feelings of hatred against Poland, read his political testament and what he wrote about Poland. His remarks were certainly not only complimentary but likewise were his remarks on Germany, on France, on Spain etc. It is absolutely not true that Polish language was persecuted under Frederick the Great! Anyone who claims this does not know history. German as the only teaching language in school was introduced in Prussia in 1871. Before that the language of the majority in the district determined which language to use in school. So, if the majority was Polish, even the German pupils were taught in Polish language! This article is really annoying in it's penetrant nationalistic propaganda-like tone. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.108.143 (talk) 01:08, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a lie. There are a lot of documents written by Frederick the Great showing that he despised Poland. Szopen (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

16% of Poles "personally felt accidents of antipolonism", 46% is convinced antipolonism exists.

http://wiadomosci.gazeta.pl/Wiadomosci/1,80269,6861963,Rodacy_narazeni_na_antypolonizm.html

Szopen (talk) 07:30, 27 July 2009 (UTC)