Misplaced Pages

Talk:Anti-Polish sentiment: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 01:53, 24 January 2006 editSciurinæ (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Rollbackers12,786 edits →Bismarck times: reply← Previous edit Revision as of 15:00, 24 January 2006 edit undoSciurinæ (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Rollbackers12,786 edits →Bismarck times: extendedNext edit →
Line 1,502: Line 1,502:


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. ] 01:53, 24 January 2006 (UTC) 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. ] 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:
#"''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.
#"''In Prussia, and later in Germany, Poles were forbidden to build homes''" sounds like a big deal. Is it verifiable?
#"''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. ] 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 from felonious acts the goal of which was to suppress the ] to physical extermination of the Polish nation.''" and the goal here is undoubtedly Germanisation, ie the spread of German language and culture.
#"''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?
#"''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 from winning over the indigenous population against the state"?
#"''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.
#"''and Polish children were tortured at school for speaking Polish (]).''" very good, really, that's the *unbiased* way ''you'' would summarize .
#"''Poland lost approximately a third of its population"'' Source for "a third"? also reads "ein Fünftel" (= a fifth) and the Polish Pope recalled this fact according to the of the official Auschwitz-Birkenau Museum and Memorial, and so does the Polish centre of international relations.(, see page six)
#"''as in the case of ], 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?




Line 1,508: Line 1,519:
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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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.

Revision as of 15:00, 24 January 2006

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

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

Archived discussion

I moved here the segments of discussion conducted in Polish, to make the page easier to read for users who don't know the language. This might introduce some discontinuities.

removed parts

The following quotes removed as irrelevant.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

  • Russian policy makers have justified Molotov-Ribbentrop pact as well as claimed that Partitions of Poland were just and restored Russian territory


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

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

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

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

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

Second link:

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

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

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

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

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

Moscow, September 28,1939.

For the Government of the German Retch:

J. RIBBENTROP

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

W. MOLOTOV "

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


Anti-Polonism in Germany (Present)

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

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

Please don't play word games. Only highly visible cases are listed here, rather than "every irrelevant individual". No one is going to list here every brawl with Poles in every Beerstube. mikka (t) 00:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
But for me it´s still look like a view directly from a "Beer"stube. Jonny84 12:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

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

The topic is not limited to official issues. Also, your statement is false, unless you prove that the section about german courts is false. mikka (t) 00:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Funny that were is a link in this segment (which maybe should be a source): . And this link tells me a total different story. Funny, or? And if it would be true however, it would not change the fact that it´s only a individual case. Jonny84 12:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Funny ? Yes since if you would read the previous talk you would know we were talking about several cases.The article you source has certain bias I am afraid and takes sides. Molobo

Oh, Dear. And maybe you are also afraid about it that here in our comprehensive-school is teached Polish Language as an after school club every week and every pupil can join it. Also we have every sunday at 11:30 a mass in Polish Language (and on other days,too), we have a Polish Market and our district-paper has also a polish site. And in our centrum we have a polish disco. Horrible, or? I think this certain bias makes you afraid and it will take sides.
And are sure that you read the source? There is no speech about it. Hmmm. Do you understand german? I´m not sure about it. Jonny84 23:16, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

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

{{Sectfact}}{{POV-section}}

Antipolish sentiments persist in Germany.

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

Poland is accused by some groups of having caused World War II. Rudi Pawelka the president of the Preußische Treuhand and the Territorial Association of Silesia in his speech made in Nuremberg blamed the outburst of the war on, in his opinion, acts of aggression committed by Poles during the period 1918-1938.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You are right we should discuss it. But we should discuss them one by one. And you cannot delete them without reaching an agreement. mikka (t) 00:49, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
Dear Mikka, I didn´t delete it. It´s still there, here in this talk-page. I only excluded it temporary. I want see here some examples for a changed form of this segment. And then we could put it (changed) back. Jonny84 12:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
The discussion has already started some time in the past. It is here and has not finished wth conclusion. The issue which was discussed most (Rudi Pawelka) is summarised on this page in the section Talk:Anti-Polonism#Rudi Pawelka - summary. If you have some specific questions concerning the structure of the discussion (which is very complicated and interwoven) I can try to answer them. I can also try to translate some of the Polish sources in case of doubt. Alx-pl D 03:54, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

Please read the article(I suggest digging for nonvandalised version in history) and sources to learn about traditional hostility towards Polish people in Germany.Persecution of Poles has long cultural tradition that wasn't limited to German Reich in XX century. Molobo
Please, go to the history fold pick a version you regard as non-vandalised and show us so that we will have a clear understanding what you mean? Alx-pl D 09:47, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

What remains of Anti-Polonism in Germany section

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

Rudi Pawelka paragraph:

  • "Poland is accused by some groups of having caused World War II." Has never been verified and is as ridiculous as accusing Poland for it would be. The sentence's origin lies in the (false) assumption that Rudi Pawelka did so, and because he is in the Preußische Treuhand and the Territorial Association of Silesia, Molobo alleged that these organizations, too, accuse Poland of having caused World War II. This is as absurd as any sensationalist could put it.
I have been unable to find a reference for this claim. Can someone please provide a link ? My apologies if I missed a link in previous talk. Groeck 20:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I believe it was this relatively short piece of discussion that lead me to the conclusion that Molobo means those two organisations: Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive_4#CDU.2FCSU.
This is simply unsupportable. Groeck 17:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "Rudi Pawelka the president of the Preußische Treuhand and the Territorial Association of Silesia in his speech made in Nuremberg blamed the outburst of the war on, in his opinion, acts of aggression committed by Poles during the period 1918-1938." Rudi Pawelka's speech NEVER did so. It's only Molobo who interpreted it like this. Original research and blown out of all context. See Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive_4#Discussion_on_the_Pawelka.27s_speech.
Proven and sourced.Read previous talk.--Molobo 18:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I seem to be unable to find the sources you refer to. Please provide link for inclusion of reference in main article. My apologies if I missed a link in previous talk. Groeck 20:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Subject to discussion was this speech (in German), held by Rudi Pawelka. The relevant part of the speech discussed a few comments above the Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive_4#Discussion_on_the_WDR_source section. The discussion continues also elsewhere, for example on Alx-pl's talk page (here and one paragraph below). A good summary of the disputed part of Rudi's speech has recently been put by Alx into the article: "Rudi Pawelka the president of the Preußische Treuhand and the Territorial Association of Silesia in his speech made in Nuremberg said that the strained situation before the war was partly due to the acts of aggression committed by Poles during the period 1918-1938." What remains questionable is whether this mention is not a bit blown out of all context.NightBeAsT 14:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
I think it is substantially blown out of context. Overall I would assume that Pawelka does have an anti-Polish sentiment - as one may suspect from someone heading up one of the organizations associated with expellees from the area. However, as de:Vertreibung points out, the influence of those organizations has been diminishing over time. People like Pawelka are often referred to in Germany as "Ewiggestrige" (which translates as "political die-hard"). Such people hardly reflect common opinion in Germany.
As stated above, Pawelka does not blame the outburst of war on Poland; he definitely does not do it in the referenced speech. So the association made in the article is incorrect. Groeck 17:11, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

"German courts and Polish language and culture

  • "German courts have not only forbidden divorced Polish-speaking parents to teach their children Polish"
Actually not. See Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive_4#Teaching_of_Polish
What are you denying ? It was proven and sourced/ Molobo 18:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
So are you calling this (little) discussion proof of your claim? I bet you everyone reading it would call it quite the opposite.NightBeAsT 14:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Proven and sourced.Read previous talk.--Molobo 18:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Tell another one! Where is that discussion? Where is that undeniable source and proof?NightBeAsT 14:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
  • "In addition they have been cases were Polish workers have been ordered by their employers to talk in German during their private time outside of work." Still unsourced, unexplained and illogical. How could an employer do so?
Sourced explained and proven.Read previous talk. --Molobo 18:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Again, I seem to be unable to find the sources you refer to. Please provide link for inclusion of reference in main article. My apologies if I missed a link in previous talk. Groeck 20:20, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
The only thing I can find is that Molobo claimed it in Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive_5#Protection. But where is your proof?

Harald Schmidt Show

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

Florian Illies

  • "Florian Illies,, also cashes in on a clear anti-Polish bias, with jokes on the Polish language and cleaners" Oh yes? Where and when did he say what? And what makes it anti-Polonistic.
  • "Incidentally, Illies actively supported a motion to reanimate name the name of "Preußen" (Prussia) for a new German federal state to be formed by a merger of the capital Berlin with Brandenburg; hostility towards Poland had been one of the political cornerstones of historical Prussia Funny even the stated source puts it differently. See Talk:Anti-Polonism/Archive_4#Florian_Illies
    • Note that I removed this sentence. The conclusions drawn (from support for a proposed name of a combined State in Germany to the attitude of the state which used to bear that name towards Poland to alleged anti-Polish bias) just don't make any sense. You are right, the source only mentions that Illies thought the proposed naming was "a bold idea". Groeck 21:56, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

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

Well we don't know much since the article is vandalised right away after providing sources and facts.Molobo
Uh-huh? So have a look at the version history and tell me what was allegedly vandalised away, which could matter here significantly. Also, please stop generalising from yourself (I mean what's the aim of all these we sentences? You are not the schizophrenic Gollum). In my opinion all these assertions without arguments like links or clear facts make your comments seem 'certain that your beliefs are right and that others should accept them, without paying attention to evidence or other opinions' (quoted the definition of the word 'dogmatic' from an OUP dictionary). I wonder, couldn't you just have a look at your six comments and try to base them on (more) arguments (exempli gratia: (from your first comment) the claims "Yes since if you would read the previous talk you would know we were talking about several cases", "The article you source has certain bias I am afraid and takes sides")? That would certainly make them more convincing or do you think that you don't need to convince anyone?NightBeAsT 19:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)
Hopefully not! The "facts" mentioned in this article are simply wrong. At that point I agree with you, NightBeast. During this discussion I tried to point out, even if Molobo does not want to face the truth, that there are several Poles, me included, who completely disagree with this article. Molobo only gives sources, whose seriosity or/and neutrality are disputed. And he is not the only one. When you look at this discussion you'll realize that the links to the sources often start with www.google.de/... . If I brought sources like that in a text written for University, my Professors would kill me for that. So, if you want to give sources, give us real and neutral ones. I'm pretty sure you can't find any, Molobo. Best Greetings, Micha.

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

Hallo NB/Micha :) If you would read the history of the article you want to delete you will find that It wasn't me who added info on Florian's antipolonism :) As to your rest self repeating allegations, they have been resolved before on talk.--Molobo 19:47, 26 September 2005 (UTC)
Hallo Mo/Micha :) I couldn't care less about who added the claims listed above first and do not hold you responsible for bringing them in first. But what I do hold you responsible for is with reverts re-adding them despite pages of discussion. How much support did those claims have? Huh? You alone. Okay, it's obvious Space Cadet and Witkacy would support you there if you simply tell them to do so. The only paragraph which had support was 'German Polish Friendship', written by Alx-pl. Apart from me, Bayerischermann supported it. Ironically it was the only paragraph deleted by you, because you "question if such thing exists at all." Only Anti-Polonism does exist, right? Of course we have to acknowledge that Molobo's point of view is more important than those of others, do we not? And once no one sees a need to have the last word but just doesn't reply, they have lost the discussion, which is then "resolved", isn't it? Anyway. What I listed above are not "self-repeating allegations" that "have been resolved before on talk", but what remains of the 'Anti-Polonism in Germany today'-section with reasons for their deletion on the basis of previous discussions, and links to the relevant parts of the talk page.NightBeAsT 18:21, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
I agree that these issues are still open. Alx-pl D 19:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)


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

I know you didn't. "Hallo /Micha :)" just a weird form of address I copied from Molobo. Thank you, by the way, for your RfD. Of course it could not manage to delete the page but, what is especially important, it shed light on the page for several users. Hopefully they won't leave.NightBeAsT 14:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

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

In what way does that make me a liar? In what way is that connected to what I've said at all??? You're trying to drift off the topic with allegations and unconnected bitching and as you do, make the talk page nearly unreadable only to tell newcomers here to read the discussion - as if you were right on any claim!NightBeAsT 14:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Your usage of vulagarism leads me to conclude that you are a simple vandal. --Molobo 18:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
What vulgarisms? And why are you stating name calling as your alleged conclusions? And why are you not replying to anything I've posted again? Do you now get why someone could not care less about your "conclusions"?NightBeAsT 14:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
Please, Molobo, avoid calling names and accussing other editors of bad faith. The discussion is already to heated up to increase the tension even more. Treating your fellow users like Nightbeast with respect won't hurt nobody, and may prove useful to reach an agreement as to this article's contents. Remember: No personal attacks and Assume good faith are our policies for a good reason. Cheers, Shauri Yes babe? 20:10, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
So far NB is using vulgarisms. --Molobo 18:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
In what way?NightBeAsT 14:07, 1 October 2005 (UTC)


Add info and article

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

The referenced article is from a 1989 professorial dissertation. The cited chapter reviewes conservative novels written in the late 19th and the early 20th century, specifically novels which contributed to and culminated in Nazi ideology. Anti-polish sentiment is mentioned in the review of novels written by Paul Schreckenbach early in the 20th century. One should, however, keep in mind that the review concentrates much more on Scheckenbach's attacks against the catholic church. In respect to Poland, the review concludes: "In der imperialistischen Haltung, besonders gegenüber Polen, verbinden sich preußisch-konservative und völkische Interessen", which I would translate with "His imperialistic attitude, particularly towards Poland, combines Prussian-conservative and nationalist interests". Groeck 17:55, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Somebody vandalised several of my posts

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

POV comment

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

Bad jokes

  • Bad jokes. A good example is the Harald Schmidt show. In reality, bad jokes about one's neighbor are very common in Germany. Neighbor may mean the neighboring state (or country), or even the neighboring city. That does not indicate an Anti-anything prejudice. It is just bad jokes. Also, based on Schmidt's jokes, Germans are also Anti-Catholic, Anti-Japanese, Anti-East-Germans, Anti-Women, Anti-Bavarian (Bavaria is a German state), and so on. Germans must be Anti-Everything, I guess.
    However Germans didn't use such stereotypes to exterminate East Germans, Bavarian or women in specific.Jokes that Harald Schmidt uses are repeat of stereotypes that have led to mass murder of 6 milion Polish citizens and destruction of Poland and the fact that he is awarded for them certainly speaks something about German society if only about the lack of awarness of those German atrocities towards Poland, if not about the lack of will to know about them.--Molobo 12:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    Hmm. First, your statements are POV. If mentioned in the article, sources would have to be provided, and different views would have to be discussed as well. Second, there have been several wars between, for example, Prussia and other German states, so one could use similar arguments there (but it does not make more sense). Third, are you aware of Polish jokes about Germans, and of Polish jokes about Jews and Holocaust victims ? How would you evaluate those in this context ? Groeck 16:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • I am unaware of any racial extermination efforts on part of Poland towards Jews or Germans.Furthermore your comparision with Prussia is flawed because Prussia didn't aim at destroying Germans as cultural group.It did towards Poland.And its stereotyping of Poles led to atrocities in WW1 and WW2 against Polish population. --Molobo 18:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Can you please provide sources for your claims ? Especially the last sentence appears to be somewhat speculative. It would possibly be more accurate to say that propaganda let to both stereotyping and atrocities, though that is my own guess and I do not have any sources. Groeck 21:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Stereotypes of Poles as barbaric people without culture that are inferior to Germans originated in Kingdom of Prussia-this was also talked about in previous talk.As to stereotype of Pole being a criminal used in mass murder see my posts below where I give examples of its usage during German atrocities against Polish people. --Molobo 22:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • In fact one can find examples like this:
    The wife and children of Rupprecht, Crown Prince of Bavaria, members of the Wittelsbach family, were held in the camp from October, 1944 to April, 1945. They were then moved to the Dachau concentration camp.
    which supports the argument by Groeck. Alx-pl D 16:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't mean anything, these are persecuted inviduals not ethnic groups.Germany persecuted Poles as whole group not singled out inviduals.Furthermore Germany classified Poles as subhumans.--Molobo 18:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Wartime propaganda

  • Wartime propaganda. A good example is Gott strafe England - does the existence of this phrase and its use during World War I that mean that Germany is Anti-British ? No, it doesn't. Wartime propaganda is just bad, not more and not less. Again, it does not indicate an Anti-anything prejudice.
    However English weren't classified as subhuman animals to be exterminated as Poles were by Germans.--Molobo 12:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    One should say "by German propaganda" and provide correct context, i.e., who used it, and when it was used. Russians, for example, were also declared "subhuman" by Nazi propaganda. From the references I could find, the term was used by Nazis for Eastern Europeans in general, not (just) for Polish people, and even for sick and handicapped people. Also see Untermensch and the more detailed Misplaced Pages article on German Misplaced Pages . Groeck 16:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    German classification of Poles as subhuman :

http://www.dac.neu.edu/holocaust/Hitlers_Plans.htm + - The Sub-human (RuSHA, 1942) + - "The category of sub-human (Untermensch) included Slavic peoples (Poles, Russians, Serbs, etc.) Gypsies and Jews. TOP + - "To avoid mistakes which might subsequently occur in the selection of subjects suitable for 'Germanization,' the RuSHA in 1942 distributed a pamphlet, The Sub-Human, to those responsible for that selection. 3,860,995 copies were printed in German alone and it was translated into Greek, French, Dutch, Danish, Bulgarian, Hungarian and Czech and seven other languages. It stated: + - The sub-human, that biologically seemingly complete similar creation of nature with hands, feet and a kind of brain, with eyes and a mouth, is nevertheless a completely different, dreadful creature. He is only a rough copy of a human being, with human-like facial traits but nonetheless morally and mentally lower than any animal. Within this creature there is a fearful chaos of wild, uninhibited passions, nameless destructiveness, the most primitive desires, the nakedest vulgarity. Sub-human, otherwise nothing. For all that bear a human face are not equal. Woe to him who forgets it." 1 The Nazis acknowledged that among the sub-humans, (especially among their leaders) there were those few who had obvious traces of Aryan-Nordic ancestry; however, it was decided that most of these people would have to be destroyed in order to leave the inferior races without leadership. It was possible that some of these superior people could be "germanized" -- but if not, one should at least preserve the good blood in their children. By this logic, many thousands of Polish children were subjected to a racial test. Those who had what Nazis defined as "Aryan" characteristics -- such as blue eyes, blond hair, a properly proportioned head, good behavior and above average intelligence -- were kidnapped from their parents and shipped to Germany for ultimate adoption by appropriate German families. " +

Furthermore I have nothing against adding in Russophobia article that Russians were perceived by German state as subhumans. --Molobo 18:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

That Poles were considered subhumans by German state in WW2 .That is right. --Molobo 00:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Right-wing and other fringe group propaganda

  • Right-wing and other fringe group propaganda. Same thing here. Sure, it is bad, but it does not reflect the opinion or attitude of the population in general, only of a few. Plus, such groups are probably Anti-foreigner all over the world, so what is the point ?. Doesn't matter, since antisemitism for example isn't reflected by all of society but elements of it expressing such views are noted.
    So we can add info that People expressing antipolish views sucha as Rudi Pawelka still exist in Germany unopposed. --Molobo 12:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    Yeah, Molobo, let´s start a very important list for Misplaced Pages and of course for the whole World. Let's start the List of german people contra Poland (also called: Antipolish Germans) Jonny84 19:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
It seems you are more concerned with preserving a good name of Germany then providing information.Likewise antisemitic groups that would be listed in antisemitism don't mean the whole society is antisemitic but that such people exist.The same with relation towards Poland-although I have yet to see polls on German general attitude to Poles. --Molobo 18:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
See . Unfortunately, it is in German; maybe someone can dig up an English version. Groeck 21:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
  • One could add such information, as long as the opposite view would be represented equally, which is not the case. An NPOV article about antisemitic views would also have to include the opposite view and explain the context. As for Rudi Pawelka's views being unopposed (if that is what you meant), that is obviously POV. A brief internet search indicates a substantial amount of criticism, including criticism by the German government. Groeck 16:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Michal Czaplicki from the Institute which made the study summed up the findings : http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/wiadomosc.html?wid=4810708&katn=Polska&widn=%22Polska+krajem+biedy+i+z%B3odziei+samochod%F3w%22&kat=1342&ticaid=1468&_ticrsn=3 "Niemcy postrzegają Polskę bardziej negatywnie, przede wszystkim jako kraj złodziei i kraj, który jest inny" "Germans view Poland more negative-most of all as country of thieves, and country that is different." As you can see the stereotype of Poles being criminals that existed during German atrocities in Poland still exist in Germany. --Molobo 22:32, 29 September 2005 (UTC) Some specific concerns:

Concerns around Rudi Pawelka section

  • Rudi Pawelka. The article itself admits that the statements made do not reflect common opinion, so what is the point ?
    He doesn't have to reflect common opinion to be added to the article.However I don't know common opinion on such topics in Germany. Can you provide polls. --Molobo 12:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    I could, but what is the point ? The reference about Rudi Pawelka is obvious POV, which is admitted in the article. It seeems to me that it would be necessary to establish that such statements reflect common opinion, not the opposite. Groeck 16:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    The point is to see attitude to see if your claims are true.
    I am not sure if I have made any claims here. As far as I can see, unsupported claims are made in the article, and I have been asking for references. Groeck 21:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    Your claim that the public doesn't share his views.Can I see a poll on that ? --Molobo 21:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    Please note that I did not claim anything; I cited the article. I can not find any polls indicating that the public would share Pawelska's opinion. All I found was a substantial amount of criticism of his statements, as I think I mentioned before. Groeck 22:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
    The Pawelka opinion should be contrasted in the article with the statement
    "We Germans know full well who started the war and who were its first victims," Schröder said acknowledging the Nazi atrocities in Poland and added that because of German's blame there was no longer room left for discussing restitution claims which "turn history on its head."
    Otherwise the anti-Polonism article makes an impression that the statement by Pawelka is a commonly shared opinion. The fact that the article makes such an impression makes it POV-ish. Or maybe Molobo you have a polls of German opinion that they share Pawelka's view to considerable extent? If you have, don't hesitate to show us them and it immediatley make the issue fixed. Alx-pl D 03:30, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I already provided information on polls in regards to German societies attitude towards Polish people.Please read talk carefully in the future Alx: "In the opinion polls about various nationalities, Poles rank lower than Turks or Russians, and 87 percent of young Germans regard them as "worse than themselves."(17) In popular TV programs, Poles are presented the way blacks were presented in the American press half a century ago." From article sourced above-I thought you read it since you decided to delete it. Molobo

Dear Molobo, no one questions the fact that there is an anti-Polish sentiment among Germans. Every poll I know indicates that. You cite one of the polls. However it is not what I asked for. I asked you about polls that indicate that the statement by Pawelka is a commonly shared opinion and the statement reads as
Rudi Pawelka the president of the Preußische Treuhand and the Territorial Association of Silesia in his speech made in Nuremberg said that the strained situation before the war was partly due to the acts of aggression committed by Poles during the period 1918-1938.
which is a different statement than the one about which the poll you mentioned was. I want you to show us a poll that clearly indicates that this sentence is supported (or the original sentence which you introduced to the article) by a considerable procent of German population. If you can show the poll then you can put the information about the poll into the article and I will not promote the information about Schroeder opinion. Otherwise, I think the Schroeder opinion is really necessary to document the extent of the anti-Polish views represented by Pawelka. I really want you to be to the point as much as you want others to be to the point. Alx-pl D 09:34, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Concerns around German courts and Polish language and culture

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

|Molobo]] 12:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

  • The article claims it to be a court order, which is wrong. I referred to this incident since it is mentioned in the article. I researched it because it interested me, and as an example. Previous talk is irrelevant as 1) only incidents mentioned in the article are relevant for the reader, and 2) concerns have obviously not been addressed. Groeck 16:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Previous talk is important becouse it solves a lot of the issues you are complaining.The current version of the article is heavily vandalised to the point that it shouldn't be referenced in the talk.
Yet, the specific reference (regarding court order) was added as-is by an anonymous user on July 13. Groeck 21:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Concerns around German media's portrayal of Poland

  • German media's portrayal of Poland - see above comments about Harald Schmidt. If statements made by Harald Schmidt reflect an Anti-Anything attidude of Germans, Germans must be Anti-Everything, including Anti-German. The conclusions made do not make any sense.
    It makes if you know such stereotypes led to mass murder of Poles by Germans in the past. --Molobo 12:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
    Same as above - this is your personal POV. Groeck 16:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
I don't think it is POV that Germany mass murdered Poles often using terms like "Poles are thieves" "Poles don't have a culture" -sterotypes that Schimdt uses to make his jokes etc.
Can you provide sources for your claim that Germany mass murdered Poles often using terms like "Poles are thieves" "Poles don't have a culture" ? Also, it would be help to have a reference to the claim about Schmidt using the specific stereotypes as mentioned above to make his jokes. Groeck 21:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
http://www.rzeczpospolita.pl/specjal_040904/specjal_a_11.html

"Uważajcie. Tu siedzą polnische banditen! - ostrzega Niemiec. - No to im pokażemy! - rzucam. Niemcy się śmieją." "Look out.Here are polnische banditen-warns the German-We will show them-I shout.Germans laugh" This from memories the German anihiliation of Warsaw.As you can see the term describing Poles as thieves is used by Germans.The same stereotype is repeated by Schmidt. --Molobo 21:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I understand, though a reference to Schmidt's use of the stereotype would be nice. Anyway, let's assume it is correct. That does not make your conclusions correct, in which you appear to associate Schmidt with mass murders. Unless sources are provided, we are back to bad jokes. Groeck 22:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"we are back to bad jokes" Which are the same stereotype that in part led to and was used in mass murder of Poles by Germany.It is certainly worth noting that such stereotypes have found audience again in Germany. --Molobo 23:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"though a reference to Schmidt's use of the stereotype would be nice."

From Thomas Urban-a know researcher on German-Polish relations. http://www.thomas-urban.pl/artykul2.php "Wróciły dobrze znane stereotypy na temat Polaków: „polski bałagan", „Polak-złodziej", „Polską rządzi kler, ciemnota" i „Polacy to antysemici". Niestety, sporo Niemców traktuje Polskę jako jakiś dziki kraj, gdzie rośnie tajga. Parę lat temu znany prezenter TV Harald Schmidt regularnie opowiadał do znudzenia dowcipy o Polakach, którzy kradną. W ten sposób urabia się opinię." Well known stereotypes about Poles have returned-"Polish disorder", "Poland is led by priests and dumbness" and "Poles are antisemites".Unfortunetly most Germans treat Poland as wild country wher taiga grows.A few years ago known TV presenter regularly till boredom talked about Poles that steal.In such way an opinion is made. --Molobo 23:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC) Usage of stereotype of Poles being criminals in concentration camp by SSmen http://republika.pl/horajec/okup2.html" przychodzi oficer esesman i każdego z nas wita harapem, lub butem w brzuch, albo pięścią w twarz . Mnie tak przywitał , że mi ząb zaraz wyleciał i mówił "polnisch bandit"." An SS officer comes and welcomes us with harap, or with kick in the stomach, or fist in the face.He welcomed me so much, my tooth fell out, and he spoke "polnisch bandit".


"Idziemy piątkami na drugie pole- w bramie nas liczą i nahajką ćwiczą. Esesmani mówią coś do siebie, pokazują na nas - "polnische banditen". Przystanęliśmy przy pierwszym bloku; prowadzą nas do trzeciego bloku." We go in five on the second field-in the gates the count us and treat with whips.SSmen speak something to themselfs, they point out us-"polnische banditen".We stoped at the first bloc, they led us to third bloc.

http://www.warsawuprising.com/witness/atrocities9.htm During the Rising, on leaving the house where I lived, No. 30 Ogrodowa Street, I found myself in a shelter of the Ministry of Industry and Commerce, No. 2 Elektoralna Street. This was on August 7, 1944. In the shelter there were several hundred people, mostly women and children. In the afternoon of this day, after the Insurgents had retreated from Elektoralna Street, a German outpost was set in front of the gateway of the Ministry. About 9 o’clock in the evening 2 gendarmes entered the shelter and ordered all the men to go out. The soldier who stood on guard assured us that we were only going to work. We were led out three by three (we were about 150 men) to Mirowski Square, among the buildings of the two Market Halls. Here we were ordered to remove the corpses, scores of which were lying on the ground, and after that, rubble from the gutters and the roadway. There were about a hundred Poles on the square when we came, all busy cleaning it up, and some hundreds of Germa n gendarmes, who behaved very brutally: beating the Poles, kicking them, and calling them Polnische Banditen. At a certain moment they stopped our work and ordered those who were not Poles to step forward. One man who had White-Russian documents did so, and was immediately released. After an hour and a half’s work, the gendarmes ordered us to form threes. I found myself in the second rank. We were all made to stand with our hands up. An old man in the front rank, who could not hold his hands up any longer, was cruelly struck in the face by a gendarme. After 10 minutes five rows of three were marched off under the escort of five gendarmes armed with tommy guns to the Market Hall in Chlodna Street. By chance I heard the names of two of the gendarmes who shouted to each other, Lipinski and Walter. When we entered the building after passing two gates I saw, almost in the centre of the Hall, a deep hole in which a fire was burning; it must have been sprinkled with petrol because of the dense black smo ke. We were put under a wall on the left side of the entrance near a lavatory. We stood separately with faces turned to the wall and hands up.

After a few minutes I heard a series of shots and I fell. Lying on the ground I heard the moans and groans of people lying close to me and also more shots. When the firing ceased I heard the gendarmes counting those who lay on the ground; they only counted up to thirteen. Then they began to look for two more who were missing. They found a father and son hiding in the adjoining lavatory. They brought them out, and I heard the voice of the boy shouting "Long live Poland", and then shots and moans."

As you can see there is much evidence that stereotype of Poles being criminals was used by Germans during their mass murder of Polish people.The same stereotype repeated by German media star that was awarded for his work.

I am sure those Poles would love German jokes about Poles being criminals...

--Molobo 22:08, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Concerns around Florian Illies

  • Florian Illies. It seems to me that his comments about Schmidt's Polish jokes are actually meant to be positive, not negative (in the context used, making jokes about someone or something reflects some level of respect for the target of the jokes, not disrespect). But obviously that is just my POV.
I have now spent several days trying to find any reference on the web which would indicate that Florian Illies "cashes in on a clear anti-Polish bias", much less how that would show an anti-Polish sentiment in German polulation if it were true. All I have been able to find is references that he thinks that it is ok to make Polish jokes. Unless someone provides a reference which would prove the claim, I am going to remove the text. Groeck 15:55, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Concerns around Persistent prejudice against Poles (1945 to present) section

  • Persistent prejudice against Poles (1945 to present). Seems to me that the references made do not reflect Anti-Polonism, but rather poor choices of word. To read an Anti-Polish attitude or "hostility" into misrepresentations of events in the early days of World War II seems to be a quite arbitrary claim, not supported by anything but the author's opinion.

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

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

I think this proves my point that German jokes are more about direct neighbors and do not reflect a specific prejudice. Groeck 20:08, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Two groups you listed were target of extermination policies by Germans. --Molobo 12:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
What does that have to do with jokes ? Groeck 16:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
That stereotypes that have led to mass murder of those people by German state are still present in German society. --Molobo 18:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Seems to me that your conclusion that "stereotypes --> mass murder" is your personal POV unless sourced. Groeck 21:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Already sourced by examples. --Molobo 22:14, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes. And to extend the point a little farther: is John Cleese anti-German?: is Steve Coogan anti-French?: is Chris Rock anti-white? Sure, if you pick a given skit, but in general no. Keep your thinking cap on. An anti-Polish joke on German T.V. is not the reappearance of the SS. Is Canadian culture anti-American? Of course. But no more anti-American than American culture is anti-Canadian (according to ME)...and of course it reveals a bond as much as anything else (why, incidentally, did German-Polish friendship get removed?). Nothing on the page proves to me that this is specific and particular to Poles. I asked this above and I think it important: is the treatment of Poles in Germany different than that provided Turks and Arabs? I'd like to see somebody prove yes. Marskell 23:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

An antipolish joke in modern German TV certainly would be enjoyable by still living former Polish inmates of Auschwitz where SS guards have already told them such fine examples of humour. --Molobo 12:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
See my above comment about Polish jokes about Holocaust victims. Groeck 16:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Exactly. I collected some more stats, this time about articles in German language mentioning hate of foreigners. Countries are mentioned in such articles as follows:

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

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

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

I would suggest to remove all unconfirmed information, i.e., all original research, and replace it with information which can be confirmed through independent references. Groeck 04:23, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

All information in the article was already confirmed in previous talk.Please read it.--Molobo 12:16, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
All your claims have been dealt with previously.Read talk archived.Also you didn't read the references in this talk pasted in here above.For example http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/401/212schlott.html Polonia in Germany Malgorzata Warchol-Schlottmann --Molobo 11:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Plz do not overwhelm the talk page. The link is sufficient and we can read it from there. If there is a particular quote you like pull it out and post it. Marskell 12:18, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Please read it then instead of repeating the same questions over and over. --Molobo 18:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

In addition, a caution must be taken when articles are copied like this here as this may be a copyright violation. In particular, I thoroughly checked that it is allowed to translate the Gazeta Wyborcza notice above. Alx-pl D 13:37, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
  • Regarding the use of the term "dealt with". Obviously, that is not the case, since none it is not reflected in the article. "Ignored with Prejudice" appears to be more appropriate. As for the reference cited above, it actually proves my point. It mentions schools in Germany teaching Polish. It talks a lot about discrimination against foreign immigrants, and it states that German laws cause great harm to Polish immigrants - but it can not establish specific discrimination against Polish immigrants in particular (German law is just as disciminative against other immigrants, and even against Germans who accept other countries' citizenships). In fact, it seems to claim discrimination against Polish immigrants because German law does not specifically create an exception for Polish immigrants over other immigrants from other countries.
On a more general note about POV vs. NPOV. In order to be a neutral article, it would be necessary to provide opposite views for each claim made in the article. Statements made can not be considered "true" just because someone says it. Terminology such as "has been claimed ..." would be more appropriate than listing POV as facts. Ultimately, I think that those trying to establish the existence of specifically Anti-Polish sentiment in today's German society are doing themselves a disservice by excluding the complete picture. The article itself, as written today, is immediately identified as heavily POV and thus as unreliable. If anything, just the opposite is accomplished. As written, it is much more useful in establishing an Anti-German view of its authors than anything else, and the article might serve as a good example to be cited in an "Anti-Germanism" article elsewhere.
Groeck 16:15, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
Just because Germany murdered Jews doesn't mean Poles weren't murdered as well.Just because Germany discriminates others doesn't mean it doesn't discriminate Poles.They are several other points which didn't care to mention in which Poles are singled out-and they are in the article. --Molobo 18:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Now, I expect a heavy war on removing the NPOV tag. In fact such a war took place in mid August. Alx-pl D 22:14, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
The article can easily be identified as POV even by a casual reader. Removing the tag would not change this. This is reflected in the entire tone of the article, not just in individual phrases or chapters. Look at Anti-Americanism as an example for a much more balanced article and compare the two. Groeck 12:00, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
A casual German - maybe, a casual Polish - I doubt, a casual Dane or Dutch - I don't know. I've done a survey of the Anti-xxx articles before I wrote edit and I agree with you that the American article may serve as an example of how a good compromise with regard of the article may look like with an additional twist that anti-Polonism article should be shorter (to retain systemic balance). Alx-pl D 13:16, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
If I may toot my own horn slightly, I and another user are largely responsible for the current shape of Anti-Americanism; it was a mess when I started here. Some pointers:
  • Employ a very short intro, which has an enormous affect on stability.
  • Avoid "he said, she said." We quote Samuel Johnson but not the latest radio DJ making an Anti-American comment.
  • Criticisms and counter-criticisms sections of equal length.
  • Remove or differently incorporate country specific sections. This change enormously aided stability.
  • Diverse pics.
  • General NPOV (naturally)
This article more or less fails on just about all of the points. I'd suggest someone cut and paste this to a user page and try a total re-vamp there first. Any volunteers? Marskell 13:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I'd give it a try unless someone else volunteers. Might take a while, though. Groeck 13:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I will second Groeck. The article proved that German citizenship or "status" laws are archaic and insular. It did not prove specifically anti-Polish bigotry. Marskell 22:26, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Oh really ? You must have missed those sentences

'The Germans speak arrogantly of Polnische Wirtschaft, thus confirming the economic differences between the two countries but conveniently forgetting the German (and Prussian) contribution to the destruction of that Wirtschaft. In the opinion polls about various nationalities, Poles rank lower than Turks or Russians, and 87 percent of young Germans regard them as "worse than themselves."(17) In popular TV programs, Poles are presented the way blacks were presented in the American press half a century ago. On the other hand, during the time of communism in central and eastern Europe, it was difficult for Polish and other immigrants from communism to develop pride concerning their country of origin. The poverty of eastern and central European countries, their lack of democracy and constant economic crises evoked the feeling shame and jealousy as contrasted with West German prosperity. The discrimination of Poles (and of other ethnic minorities) in Germany has been exacerbated by the extremist right and its slogans of Deutschland für Deutsche and Ausländer raus!


Still another problem is the culture shock stemming from two different perceptions of what Europe really means. To Poles, it seems natural that they, together with the Germans, belong to a common European culture and share a common religion. This feeling of belonging together is not shared by the Germans. While the Poles accept German culture as part of European culture, the Germans do not see Polish culture as sharing the same cultural roots. While an educated Pole knows at least some German writers, the opposite is not true of an educated German. The growing realization of this situation, the feeling of frustration, anger and resentment not only against the Germans but also against Polish culture is a natural result, and some immigrants begin to share the prejudices of the dominant group. While the emigration of the last 20 years has somewhat softened these problems, they still do exist.

That does not prevent the occasional Germans revisionist claims. Among those was a recent attempt by the extreme right wing German party, "Nationale Offensive," to establish itself in the Opole region of Poland, in the village of Dziewkowice. The Bund der Vertriebenen, an organization representing those expelled from east of the Oder-Neisse line, occasionally expresses revisionist goal and demands that Germans from Germany be allowed to join the German minority organizations in Poland. "Helmut, you are our chancellor too:" such posters (in Polish) occasionally appeared in Silesia under the auspices of such German organizations.


In particular, the treatment accorded to Poles has obviously been not on the agenda of the German civil rights organizations or of those German scholars and thinkers who spend time agonizing over Germany's actions in the twentieth century. +

Few Germans wish to remember that the establishment of Poland's western border along the Oder-Neisse rivers is linked with the incorporation of 46 percent of Poland's prewar territory by the Soviet Union and the decision of the three Great Powers to transfer German population from Poland to Germany, and the Polish population from Ukraine, Belarus and Lithuania to post-German territories. The forced human dislocation, without precedent in modern history, compelled 4.5 million Poles to leave their eastern and rural homelands and move to the industrialized region abandoned by the forcibly expelled millions of Germans. The Germans remember the tragedy of their dislocation but conveniently forget that of the Poles.

--Molobo 18:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


Note: I replaced text with reference to relevant part of referenced article. Groeck 21:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Please refrain from erasing relavant parts of my posts. --Molobo 21:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
As mentioned earlier by others, links are sufficient. That is what the web is for, and it avoids possible copyright violation problems. Groeck 22:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Persistent prejudice against Poles (1945 to present)

This comment refers to the first part of this chapter. I understand it has been discussed before. After reading through the related talk page comments, there appears to have been an agreement that the statements made are unsupported by the facts. Yet, the text is still there.

I spent some time last night trying to find references for the several "it has been cited that ..." statements in this chapter. I could not find any. References cited confirm the statements, but not an associated Anti-Polish sentiment, much less an "Anti-Polonism" associated with it (of course, I might have missed something).

In addition, the claim made about Polish cavalry fails to mention that the "supidity and incompetence" argument was used during WW II as propaganda by the Germans (and would thus belong to the pre-1945 section). References I found on the Web, contrary to the claim made, typically refer to the bravery of such attacks, and tend to correctly clarify that it was typically not real attacks, but the best way for attacking horses to pass by suddenly appearing tanks.

As such, the text should be removed, or references should be provided for every "has been cited". Groeck 13:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

What statements are unsupported by facts ? --Molobo 18:17, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
I asked for references. Without references, all statements are unsupported. Groeck 18:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
References were givne in previous versions and talk. The article is vandalised so it doesn't have them.What references do you have in mind. --Molobo 21:39, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
All of them. The references I have been able to find confirm the statements, but not the "Has been cited as examples of anti-Polonism ..." claims. Cited where ? Please provide references which associate the statements with anti-Polonism (links, please). Please note that I do not question the claims; all I am asking for is references supporting them. Groeck 16:03, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Polish National Library reference to anti-Polonism

Sorry for creating a separate headline for this, even though it has been mentioned a number of times above.

I downloaded the referenced document. I searched through it several times. Either it does not mention the term "anti-Polonism", or I forgot how to search in a Word document. I also tried to find a link through an internet search, but did not find it either. I understand that it has been claimed multiple times that the term would be there, and that an internet search would point to it. Did anyone besides me try to download the file ? If so, did you find the term ? If it is not there, it should not be cited in the article as reference.

Groeck 15:19, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The term "anti-Polonism" does not occur in the document. It is its Polish counterpart "antypolonizm" that does. The current formulation, being a result of a few edits and counteredits done in haste, is misleading. I'll change it. (Btw. this information was a way to counter my claim that the word "antypolonizm" does not occur in major Polish dictionaries and encyclopedias, but as no-one supports it I understand that this information is not that important to find its way to the article). Alx-pl D 15:58, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

In other words a Polish word is used for the English version.Lets not give impression Alx that this is a different word. --Molobo 22:12, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

If you think that the current formulation gives impression that "antypolonizm" is a different word then please formulate the sentences accordingly. However, it must me clearly stated what exactly occurs in the Polish dictionary as otherwise the text would be misleading. Alx-pl D 05:37, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
The status of the term has long been one of my concerns. If I start a requested move to Anti-polish sentiment or Persecution of Poles would people say yes (and if so to which one)? Once move we could say "Anti-Polonism is a rare academic word" or something like that. Marskell 16:02, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
That explains a lot. Your proposed wording sounds good to me, though I don't think the library reference should be used (or it should clearly say that the (or an) equivalent Polish term is defined there).
In general, I would favor renaming the article to "Anti-Polish sentiment" or something similar, since it would be easier to describe and to provide real references (such as ; sorry, this one is in German). The stronger term "anti-Polonism" could then be used where appropriate, or even better be described in its own chapter.
For the record, the oldest reference I found for the term "anti-Polonism" is in a book dated 1919 (not a nice one): The Jewish Question in Poland. From the context, and from other information available on the web, it appears that the term has been used historically mostly to describe Jewish-Polish relations as well as for (perceived or real) anti-Polish sentiment in U.S. media in the 1970s . Groeck 16:36, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I see no reason for changing the title. We don't have "Anti-Jewish sentiment".The word Antipolonism is used in scholary works. --Molobo 17:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The terms have different meaning. "Sentiment" implies "dislike", while "Anti-Polonism" is more along the line of "hate". "Sentiment" is a much broader term. The latter term is much easier to describe in the context of the first. Groeck 18:03, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
In this context, I also looked up Polonophobia. This term is derived from Xenophobia, Fear of strangers, i.e., it means "fear of Poles", not "hostility towards Poles". It seems to have been widespread in Russia at some time in the past . Seems to me this is another argument for renaming the article to something more generic, and to use separate chapters to describe the different terms. Groeck 18:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Putting Poles in gas chambers and executing children claiming they are animals isn't hate ? Then again you just claimed calling Poles criminals isn't antipolish. --Molobo 18:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I did not (want to) suggest to remove the term, but to rename the article and describe "Anti-Polonism" appropriately as part of it. Groeck 18:28, 29 September 2005 (UTC)]
Sigh. Marskell 18:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Add

Add info on consistant stereotypes in German cultural sphere on Poles:

http://edition.cnn.com/2005/SPORT/football/09/02/poland.injuries.ap/?section=cnn_latest Austria also faces the prospect of Polish prosecutors investigating a complaint against midfielder Dietmar Kuehbauer. Kuehbauer, who is set to play, is alleged to have refused to be interviewed with Poland's Adam Ledwon on Austrian television last Saturday, saying he "stinks Polish." --Molobo 18:21, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Formatting

Would it be possible to use some style of formatting to help separating comments from each other ? Groeck 18:35, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I guess not. Sigh. Groeck 22:22, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Add quotes showing dehumanisation of Poles in German culture

http://www.sussex.ac.uk/Units/cgjs/publications/hbpolgerpol.html German anti-Slavism, which was often directed at the Poles, had prominent spokesman in the nineteenth century. In a letter in March 1861 to his sister Malwine, Bismarck, for example, expressed the Prussian-German attitude towards the Poles which turned out to be a blueprint for the future: "So clobbeth the Poles so that they despair; they have my deepest sympathy for their situation, but, if we want to exist, we have no choice but to wipe them out ('ausrotten'); the wolf cannot help it that he was created by God the way he is, but one shoots him yet, if one can."(11)

When the German empire made frenetic attempts to germanise her Polish provinces, she was supported by organisations like the Ostmarkenverein or the Pan-German alliance. These endeavours were also well received by prominent German intellectuals. As, for example, the sociologist Max Weber, once a member of the Pan-German alliance, put it: "It was we who humanised the Poles"(12). This anti-Slavism was to be brought to a climax during the Third Reich. --Molobo 23:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

So f*** rename the page German persecution of Poles. Do you not understand this? --Marskell 23:50, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Calm down. Though I must admit that might not be easy. Groeck 00:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
You have shown that you are not a serious contributor by using emotions. Most cultures, civilisations have committed atrocities or have stereotypes that led to ones.Germany, despite what may one think about it judging by posts from German uses, has them also. It is simply history.The fact remains that German culture has many stereotypes about Poles showing them as thieves, denying they are humans, or that they are inferior.You can't really dispute that, since you will find hundreds of scholary works, documents or trials on it.If you can't face history I suggest you avoid topics dealing with it.--Molobo 00:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Well, Molobo, one might possibly conclude that you are possibly not a serious contributor yourself, since you keep repeating the same stereotypes again and again. Furthermore, one might possibly suspect some level of emotional response on your side, especially when it comes to your opinion about Germans. Per your own statement, this would also disqualify you as contributor. Fair is fair. Besides, one might possibly argue that your comments above German culture has many stereotypes about Poles have no meaning besides "so what ? every culture has stereotypes". That is not the problem. The problem might possibly be the conclusions you appear to draw from it.
Additional recommended readings might be Germanophobia and Teutophobia and related articles elsewhere on the web (I must admit that the number of hits for the terms on Google surprised me - maybe a Misplaced Pages article on the term is warranted ?). Groeck 03:45, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

A phobia is "irrational fear".The article doesn't speak about irrational fear about Germans but about cultural, political and historical aspects of German society that led to atrocities against Poles.Of course it isn't limited to Germany.I doubt you can speak about a phobia when real life atrcoities accured.You could if they didn't. --Molobo 11:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

"Furthermore, one might possibly suspect some level of emotional response on your side, especially when it comes to your opinion about Germans." So far we hace seen emotional and quite hysteric reaction IMHO on part of German posters towards mentioning historical facts which could led us to some conclusions as to their view of history of Germany.However Misplaced Pages is not original research.

"especially when it comes to your opinion about Germans" I have yet to express opinion on Germans in the article.So far I used scholary works, historical events and quotes from German politicians such as Bismarck, Hitler, or Goebbels.--Molobo 11:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that we have seen a lot of emotional and quite hysteric reaction. As my Math teachers would have said "I leave it up to the reader to determine who reacted emotional and quite hysterical". One might argue that you continuously express opinions about Germans. Again, I would leave it to the reader to determine if this is correct or not. As for your claims of having used scholarly works etc - you use those for individual statements. Your conclusions, as I have pointed out, are yours, and are mathematically wrong. There is no emotion in mathematics. Groeck 13:48, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but you have proved nothing so far.Have you proved that Germans didn't use the stereotype of Poles as criminals during WW2 as justification for atrocities ? No you didn't.Have you proved that Harald Schmidt doesn't use the same stereotype ? No you didn't. Furthermore If we have a mathematical solution to solving POW disputes in regards to history or political views then I suggest you post it on Wiki's main page right away. I suggest a Noble is also in order. Molobo.

I have shown that your conclusions are mathematically unsupportable. That should be sufficient. Note that I do not question the statements you make in above paragraph (though I have been asking for references in some cases), only your conclusions. The notion and different aspects of Fallacy have been used on several other discussion pages, so it is hardly new. Groeck 17:29, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

You can't show mathematically what history is probable or true.Sorry. --Molobo 00:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Polish jokes on the international Web

Both from and about Poles. Doesn't seem to be limited to Germans telling jokes.

Groeck 00:05, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

And ? There is a difference between a joke for fun's sake and a joke showing and aproving a stereotype that led to mass murder of milions.Showing Poles as thieves in German culture led in part and was part of atrocities committed by Germans on Poles as shown before.The fact that such stereotypes exist today and are aproved by German society-Herald Schmidt was popular-are certainly worth noting. --Molobo 00:46, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Besides I already provided you with a quote from expert of Polish-German relations(Tomasz Urban) who confirms that such "jokes" serve nothing else the portayal of Poles in negative light. --Molobo 00:51, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Recommended further reading:
You are consistent in your claim that "propaganda --> mass murder" and "propaganda --> stereotype" would result in "stereotype --> mass murder". Mathematically, your claim is that "A-->B, A-->C ::= B-->C, and you use that claim to show that Germans would be Anti-Polish (by further associating "mass murderer" with "anti-Polish). This is a essentially an example for a False analogy.
Another chain of claims you keep making is along the line of "1) Schmidt makes Polish jokes"; "2) Polish jokes are based on stereotypes"; "3) Polish stereotypes are anti-Polish" ::= "Schmidt is anti-Polish". 1) and 2) may be considered true without prejudice (i.e., without verifying the claim). 3) is a conclusion which equals Polish stereotypes with anti-Polish attitute, which is wrong (both can exist independently of each other, and even if both were equivalent, the conclusion would still be wrong; it is a logical Fallacy and False analogy). Therefore, your conclusion that Schmidt would be anti-Polish (based on Polish jokes he made) is wrong. The same pretty much applies to all your arguments. Hasty generalization actually provides a nice example for your line of argument.
Nobody will deny that stereotypes exist. Suggested readings above should be quite sufficient to confirm this. The claim "approved by German society" would, however, require references and is otherwise POV.
In respect to your interpretation of Thomas Urban's quotes, your claim that he confirmed that such "jokes" serve nothing else (but) the portayal of Poles in negative light, which does not appear to be supported by the references you provided. Therefore, it appears to be be your interpretation of statements he made, and thus might also be considered POV. unless you can provide references showing that he in fact draws this conclusion. Groeck 03:26, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but Urban said so.I didn't interpret his words.Only translated.You see any other translation ? --Molobo 00:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC) 3) is a conclusion which equals Polish stereotypes with anti-Polish attitute I doubt claiming Poles are criminals, thieves, bandits-just like German Reich under Nazis did-is pro-Polish. --Molobo 00:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


Your attempts of apologism towards German stereotypes of Poles as criminals is not going to change the fact that such stereotype was used in German atrocities against Poles and is still found in German society.Furthermore experts on Polish-German relations admit that Schimdts jokes serve to portayal a negative view of Poles. --Molobo 11:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC) "In respect to your interpretation of Thomas Urban's quotes" I didn't provide an interpretation.I provided a translation. --Molobo 11:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC) " The claim "approved by German society" would, however, require references" Schimdt won several awards.It doesn't seem he was isolated or that he angered German public by using stereotypes of Poles as criminals that accompanied German mass murder of Poles in XX century. --Molobo 11:33, 30 September 2005 (UTC) Furthermore you can find acceptence by another German public figure of his usage of the stereotype: http://www.kaindlstorfer.at/interviews/illies.html "Was heißt das? Illies: Harald Schmidt hat uns gelehrt, daß man Menschen einfach nicht ernst nehmen kann, die ständig vom Umweltschutz reden und hellblaue Buttons mit Friedenstauben tragen, weil diese Menschen den Umweltschutz und das Buttontragen selbst viel zu ernst nehmen. Außerdem sind wir die erste Generation, die wieder über Polenwitze lachen kann, ohne gleich an den Polenfeldzug von 1939 denken zu müssen. Auch in dieser Beziehung hat uns Harald Schmidt befreit." It seems that Harald Schimdt serves as way of letting Germans forget the atrocities on Polish people(We must remember that both Polenfeldzug was a Nazi propaganda term, and that Wehrmacht mass murdered polish civilians during this war).However pointing out such conclusion would be Original Research I think.So the best way would be making a sentence about the Polnische Banditen stereotype used to justify murder of Poles by Germans in WW2 with examples and then citing Illies praising Schmidt that such stereotype can be used again in Germany. --Molobo 11:38, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

"You have shown that you are not a serious contributor by using emotions." Look back at your own talk contributions. Screaming "mass murder" in every response is emotional pleading at its finest. And you did not rebut the suggestion that this should be renamed German persecution of Poles—in fact you are repeatedly confirming it. And Groeck is right about your argumentation generally; under Hasty generalization we should have a disambig pointing here.
And a small thing: when -phobe or -phobia is used as a suffix on an ethnic or national label it means dislike or bigotry and/or fear. Their is a few centuries' pedigree for this in English. Marskell 11:54, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
The arguments this time are 1) "Schmidt making polish jokes" --> "Polish jokes based on stereotype" --> "Illies praising Schmidt for enabling the Germans to make Polish jokes without having to think about the war against Poland in 1939" (free translation, beat me for it) --> "Illies praising Schmidt that such stereotype can be used again" False analogy and 2) "Stereotypes used to justify murder" --> "Illies praising Schmidt that such stereotypes can be used again in Germany" --> "Germans are anti-Polish" Hasty generalization. QeD. What else can I say ? Groeck 14:02, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
Missed another one: "Schmidt making Polish jokes" --> "Jokes are based on stereotypes" --> "Schmidt won several awards" --> "German public approves stereotypes" False analogy and Hasty generalization. Groeck 14:07, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but you are wrong-the stereotype about Poles being criminals was used to justify mass murder of Polish people.Schmidt uses the same stereotype and as we can see-receives gratitude for allowing Germans to again portay Poles as criminals. Molobo

"The stereotype about Poles being criminals was used to justify mass murder of Polish people" - What a absurd conclusion. Stay in your dreamland, but keep us away from this fooling. Your False analogys are chintzy. And cut it out to associate everything with the World War II. We are talking about modern Germany and not about the World War II, if I must remind you. You´re a student, I thing you have enough intelligence. Jonny84 22:12, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

"What a absurd conclusion. " Sorry but I already provided several examples of Germans atrocities where such stereotypes were used by Germans towards Poles. Here is another example of German stereotype of Poles being criminals that was used during an German atrocity:

he people who stood at the entrance were led, no, pushed in, not all at once but in groups of 20. A boy of twelve, seeing the bodies of his parents and of his little brother through the half-open entrance door, fell in a fit and began to shriek. The Germans and Vlassov's men beat him and pushed him back, while he was endeavouring to get inside. He called for his father and his mother. We all knew what awaited us here; there was no possibility of escape or of buying one's life; there was a crowd of Germans, Ukrainians* (Vlassov's men), and cars. I came last and kept in the background, continuing to let the others pass, in the hope that they would not kill a pregnant woman, but I was driven in with the last lot. In the yard I saw heaps of corpses 3 feet high, in several places. The whole right and left side of the big yard (the first yard) was strewn with bodies. (A sketch of the yard was made by the deponent.) We were led through the second. There were about 20 people in our group, mostly children of 10 to 12. There were children without parents, and also a paralysed old woman whose son-in-law had been carrying her all the time on his back. At her side was her daughter with two children of 4 and 7. They were all killed. The old woman was literally killed on her son-in-law's back, and he along with her. We were called out in groups of four and led to the end of the second yard to a pile of bodies. When the four reached this point, the Germans shot them through the backs of their heads with revolvers. The victims fell on the heap, and others came. Seeing what was to be their fate, some attempted to escape; they cried, begged, and prayed for mercy. I was in the last group of four. I begged the Vlassov's men around me to save me and the children, and they asked if I had anything with which to buy my life. I had a large amount of gold with me and gave it them. They took it all and wanted to lead me away, but the German supervising the execution would not allow them to do so, and when I begged him to let me go he pushed me off, shouting "Quicker!" I fell when he pushed me. He also hit and pushed my elder boy, shouting "hurry up, you Polish bandit ". Thus I came to the place of execution, in the last group of four, with my three children. I held my two younger children by one hand, and my elder boy by the other. The children were crying and praying. The elder boy, seeing the mass of bodies, cried out: "they are going to kill us" and called for his father. The first shot hit him, the second me; the next two killed the two younger children. I fell on my right side. The shot was not fatal. The bullet penetrated the back of my head from the right side and went out through my cheek. I spat out several teeth; I felt the left side of my body growing numb, but I was still conscious and saw everything that was going on around me"

As you can see the stereotype of Pole being a criminal, thief, bandit is used by the German here to murder Polish children and pregnant women.The same stereotype of Poles being criminals, thieves, and bandits is used in German tv by a person who is rewarded by German media society. --Molobo 00:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)


And for everybody else who want to get a picture of german media on his own: - This site presents the airtimes of the most german programmes about Poland. Then you can see if Poland is portrayed as underdeveloped country or not. And I think that everybody here on this site know also that Poland is not the richest country, so Molobo can be so much exerted he want to be, it don´t change the actualitys. Jonny84 22:26, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Bizarre and repugnant racial categorizations were used in WWII to justify the mass murder of Poles. At the very best stereotypes regarding thievery were ancillary to the process just as the "hook-nose" on the Jew was merely crude caricature that is ultimately irrelevant in itself. And yes it's absolutely a red herring and emotional pleading to bring the idea up in regards to a TV commentator in 2005. Get on topic Molobo and God could you address the complaint: why should this not be re-named? Marskell 23:29, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

"and emotional pleading to bring the idea up in regards to a TV commentator in 2005." TV commentator shouldn't use antipolonism just as he shouldn't use antisemitism.As to renaming the term is used in Polish encyclopedia(as printed in Wielkiej Ilustrowanej Encyklopedii Powszechnej (Suplement Wspolczesny) t.23/1 Wydanej przez Wydawnictwo Gutenberg Print w 1997 r.) so I see no reason for renaming it. --Molobo 00:50, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Honestly, read Red herring. Attitudes expressed contemporarily on German T.V. may (according to you POV) constitute Anti-Polish sentiment but your repeated references to World War II atrocities are diversions. That's it. Marskell 01:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

"according to you POV" They are according to specialists in regards to German-Polish relations.That is not my POV.However If you believe presenting people as bandits and criminals is positive I don't think we can engage in discussion. "but your repeated references to World War II atrocities are diversions." It was a German author that thanked Schmidt that he can again think about Poles as bandits and laugh without needing to be remembered about German aggresion against Poland. See also : http://www.hagalil.com/archiv/98/02/p-witze.htm Wenn Harald Schmidt fur seine Polenwitze mit Medienpreisen �bersch�ttet werde, denke in Deutschland niemand an die drei Millionen Polen und die weiteren drei Millionen polnischen Juden, die die Deutschen im Zweiten Weltkrieg umgebracht haben. --Molobo 01:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Did I ever state that presenting people as bandits and criminals is positive. No, I did not. Not here and not ever. You are simply mis-representing me.
I am suggesting that Nazi racial categorization (again, to which "thief" is a largely ancillary consideration) differs in kind from a Polish joke on German T.V. in 2005. Marskell 01:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

" differs in kind from a Polish joke on German T.V. in 2005. " Does seem so according to these articles : See also : http://www.hagalil.com/archiv/98/02/p-witze.htm Wenn Harald Schmidt fur seine Polenwitze mit Medienpreisen �bersch�ttet werde, denke in Deutschland niemand an die drei Millionen Polen und die weiteren drei Millionen polnischen Juden, die die Deutschen im Zweiten Weltkrieg umgebracht haben. See also: http://fesportal.fes.de/pls/portal30/docs/FOLDER/IPG/IPG1_2004/ARTKRZEMINSKI.PDF Spaß muss sein. Und – wie Florian Illies6 am Anfang seines Buches bemerkt – Schmidts »Polenwitze« hatten für diese Generation eine befreiende Funktion. Polen war nie ein solches Tabu wie die Juden gewesen, aber als ein »Opfervolk« im Zweiten Weltkrieg und dann im Kriegszustand 1981 unterlag es den Selbstbeschränkungen einer gewissen »political correctness « oder einfach der »guten Erziehung«. Da die Hemmschwelle nie so hoch gewesen war, und die alten Raster der Verachtung gegenüber dem rückständigen Volk und »der polnischen Wirtschaft« weiterhin virulent waren, fiel auch die Umstellung von der »unterdrückten Solidarnosc« auf den »barbarischen Polenmarkt« nicht schwer. Und im Topos der polnischen Autodiebe konnte man unterschwellig sehr leicht die unausgesprochene Assoziation »Volk der Diebe« heraushören: Sie klauen Schlesien, Autos und nun auch deutsche Arbeitsplätze. In der eu sind sie lediglich hinter den Geldern der Nettozahler her, und im Irak wollen sie obendrein als »trojanischer Esel Amerikas« am Krieg gewinnen. Sie spielen sich nur auf und sind nicht einmal imstande, eine vernünftige Automarke auf den Weltmarkt zu bringen. Dies sind vielleicht krass überzeichnete überzeichnete Stimmungslagen, doch keineswegs Projektionen. Die Reserve gegenüber Polens Aufnahme in die eu, die gerade die Eurobarometer in Deutschland anzeigten, wie auch die niedrige Position der Polen auf dem deutschen Thermometer der Sympathie belegen, dass in der deutschen Gesellschaft nach wie vor historisch viel ältere Aversionen gegen den östlichen Nachbarn existieren als die durch die Grenzveränderungen und den »Bevölkerungsaustausch« von 1945 verursachten. Und, was noch wichtiger und bedenklicher ist: Die Selbstkorrektive sind in der deutschen Tradition schwächer als in anderen historisch belasteten Fällen, etwa dem deutsch-französischen, dem deutsch-russischen, deutsch-amerikanischen oder deutsch-israelischen Verhältnis. Care to translate the sentence and add it to the article ? Especially the part about "Volk der Diebe".... --Molobo 01:28, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Ya, great. Flood talk English with German (yes?) but don't actually respond. "'differs in kind from a Polish joke on German T.V. in 2005.' Does seem so according to these articles." So you agree with me that the article is wrong because that is what the sentence dictates? Or do you not understand what "differs in kind" means? Marskell 01:43, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Please translate the article. If you are not willing to I will do it, although my German isn't top quality, perhaps I will need help. However I can already tell you that the article tells that stereotypes about Poles told by Harald led to stereotype of Nation of Thieves and that Germans have much less self-correctnes to Poles then to other nations. --Molobo 11:19, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

My dear friend Molobo! Your last comment here shows clearly, that you never saw the Harald-Schmidt-Show! Otherwise you would have recognized, that he made the same jokes with the same correctness with Turkish, Belgian, Danish, Czech people and so on, too! Simply said, what YOU say is completely Bullshit! (Oops, I don't feel sorry for this "Personal Attac" :-) ) Micha.

Anti-Polonism in an encyclopedia

The reference to the Polish encyclopedia that was brought by Molobo is a strong point in favour of the retaining the article under the title anti-Polonism. Alx-pl D 20:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC) I am very sorry, but the week before and this week I was/am very busy in the real life

Recent vandalism not reverted?

I am not following all discussions here, but this recent anon edit strikes me like a vandalism. Shouldn't it be reverted? If so, I'd recommend incorporating recent good faith edits of Sidp into old version it. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 21:37, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

Yes please revert the page to the previous NPOV disputed one (mainly because multiple links, photos have been deleted by the vandal). As to the text content in view of encyclopedia having entry on Antipolonism information it seems necessery to write new version incorporating the rich info and data provided in it.However I would like to have the main structure restored with photos, links and quotes . --Molobo 12:35, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Fortunately someone had the courage to re-edit this text to the original version without these Erika-Steinbach- or Harald-Schmidt-lies Molobo and others would like to see in. These Lies have been the only vandalizm in this text, and fortunately they have been removed now. Micha.

Black legend and other things

Well Micha you don't give up. Perhaps you should create an account rather than sniping from the sidelines.

To repeat there is no Polish Black Legend. You can infer or incidentally analogize one into existence but it makes no more sense than a Nigerian Black Legend or a Mexican Black Legend. The Black Legend is a highly specified idea.

Also, added "academic" before "term." That's as much as we can say in English. Marskell 23:11, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, my last edit was not against you or your Opinion or comments. Just let me explain: on the one hand Molobo called me -and not only me- names on more than one occasion, but on the other hand he does not want to be called e.g. a liar (which he in my opinion is) himself. He was the one who used this method first, and now he removed all my last comments as "personal attacks". Well, if he wants to have an edit war, he can have one. Next time I try to save at least your comments and put it into the re-edited page. Micha.

Sorry Marskell but there is a whole book on Polish black legend, polish encyclopedia also mentions it in the article on antipolonism.Whetever you believe in it is your own POV.I am just putting in what is in scholary works.

---Molobo 23:42, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

Then, where scholarly works are mentioned at the end of the second paragraph, make a properly qualified reference with link. It is inappropriate as it stood because the Black Legend page makes absolutely no reference to Poland and the vast majority of people who understand the term understand it in terms of Spain and Spain alone. In practical discourse there is no Polish Black Legend. Finally, my changes were not vandalism, TYVFM Marskell 09:59, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

" It is inappropriate as it stood because the Black Legend page makes absolutely no reference to Poland" The Wiki page is not the ultimate authority.Neither it is a scholary work. "and the vast majority of people who understand the term understand it in terms of Spain and Spain alone." This is your POV.Remember Wiki is not an original research. " In practical discourse there is no Polish Black Legend" Again, this is your POV.Remember Wiki is not an original research.--Molobo 11:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC) "make a properly qualified reference with link" Marskell there was a time when this article was supplied with links and reference for most of it.However it is vandalised on constant basis, right now I am in process of writing a whole new version supplied with links so that it can be entered at any time after vandalisation(btw in old versions the line was supported with resources)--Molobo 11:05, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"And the vast majority of people who understand the term understand it in terms of Spain and Spain alone" is hardly my POV. The notion has a long pedigree specifically referenced to Spain. Asserting a Polish black legend is like applying Anti-Americanism to Indonesia. "The Wiki page is not the ultimate authority"--and neither is an academic looking for a catchy book title. Marskell 11:10, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"is hardly my POV" Please bring world wide opinion poll on this.Otherwise its your POV. "Asserting a Polish black legend is like applying Anti-Americanism to Indonesia." Again this is your PoV reflecting your bias towards the topic. "and neither is an academic looking for a catchy book title." That this only a catchy title is again your PoV and rather unfriendly reflection of your bias towards the article.

--Molobo 11:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

How is "often associated with" not POV but my perfectly reasonable observation that the Black Legend is fundamentally associated with Spain POV? Come on. I left it in but I qualified it properly. One "researcher has suggested" is about as much as you can say. Marskell 11:37, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"POV but my perfectly reasonable observation " Wiki is not about personal observations.Remember Wiki is not original research. " I left it in but I qualified it properly. One "researcher has suggested" is about as much as you can say" You qualified it wrong.First of all they are several works reaserching this not one. Secondly no a researcher hasn't suggest it but studied.Saying he has suggested implies it doesn't exist and was invented by researches, which serves to push your POV that this only a "catchy title". --Molobo 11:41, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. Your use of POV and OR here is badly skewed. My statement regarding what the Black Legend references is neither POV nor OR. Britiannica uses it this way and we use it this way. That the Black Legend is associated with Spain is simply a fact Molobo. "There are several works"--when this was brought up previously you referenced one. Where are these several? Further, research in the social sciences is necessarily suggestive; there is nothing wrong with my qualification. Marskell 12:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"Your use of POV and OR here is badly skewed." I am sorry but my name isn' Dawid Łukasiewicz.Neither did I write Polish Encyclopedia. 

"That the Black Legend is associated with Spain is simply a fact Molobo"

Sorry but this is your POV.Black Legend isn't concerned only with Spain. ""There are several works"--when this was brought up previously you referenced one. Where are these several? " Why do you misinform ? I brought to you two scholary works that study the issue "Further, research in the social sciences is necessarily suggestive; there is nothing wrong with my qualification" If you want to publish a book be my guest.However Wiki isn't for original research that you are trying to push.--Molobo 12:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Heavy sigh. What OR am I pushing exactly? Seriously, point to it. "Black Legend isn't concerned only with Spain" is no less a POV statement than my putative POV. I referenced Britannica but apparently this isn't good enough for you.
I have misinformed no where. Above, under "Changes" you provided one reference for the Black Legend bit and my comments there still stand: "time-bound and context-specific." That is, it references a Black Legend in Prussia from 1785 - 1815. Based on this, you want to assert a generic Polish Black Legend ("often associated with", "several researchers" etc.) It didn't make sense then and doesn't now. Marskell 12:52, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

" Above, under "Changes" you provided one reference for the Black Legend bit" You misinform.I provided you with two sources the other being Polish Encyclopedia. "you want to assert a generic Polish Black Legend" I am not Dawid Lukasiewicz or makers of Polish Encyclopedia.--Molobo 13:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

FYI: I cannot find a single unique Google that is not a wiki-mirror when I search "Polish Black Legend" (with quotes). Marskell 12:56, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

You want to use Google to affirm academic terms ? Anyway it seems you didn't search much : http://www.catholicculture.org/docs/doc_view.cfm?recnum=6625 The Black Legend against Spain is part of a vast movement started by the enemies of the Faith to destroy the Catholic religion. It is not an isolated case; other Catholic countries like Italy, Ireland and Poland have had their reputations smeared for their adhesion to the Faith. --Molobo 13:02, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Above, under Changes, you provide one reference. Period.
I want to use Google to search academic terms? Sure, why not. Francophobia is broadly an academic terms and it gets 30 000 hits. What you want to do is insert the Black Legend as a matter-of-fact point. The fact that the Google test does not turn up one unique hit for a glossed search is absolutely relevant. And your link proves my point. It's entitled "Spain's Black Legend..." and deals with Spain beyond one ancillary reference to Italy, Ireland and Poland which does not assert that term has been applied to these countries. "The Black Legend is 'an atmosphere created by the fanatic accounts of Spain...'" That's how it's defined there—similar to here, similar to Britannica. Of course religious bigotry isn't isolated to Spain but that hasn't been my point. The term Black Legend is isolated to Spain. Marskell 13:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"The term Black Legend is isolated to Spain" Sorry that is your personal view that ignores now at least 3 scholary works. "Of course religious bigotry isn't isolated to Spain" Please refrain from xenophobic comments in the future. "does not assert that term has been applied to these countries" That is your POV.However both another scholary works-Polish Encyclopedia and book by Dawid Lukasiewicz show also that there is a Polish Black Legend. --Molobo 13:53, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"Please refrain from xenophobic comments in the future." What?!? How are you possibly interpreting this is as xenophobic? I was acknowledging that religious bigotry has been directed at more than just Spain. So now it's 3 scholarly works? It's been one, several and two at various points. LOL. And I must say I love your selective commentary. You accuse me of pushing OR and when I ask where you drop it. I observe that the google test really doesn't favour our presenting this matter-of-factly and you have no response. Marskell 14:00, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Please refrain from personal attacks Marskell. "and you have no response" I already proved that Black Legend of Poland is mentioned and studied in Polish Encyclopedia and scholary work. "It's been one, several and two at various points" Actually it has always been two, however you have chosen to misinfom by ignoring the Polish Encyclopedia.The third was found during the discussion.There is also a fourth by Jan Nowak but he is a controversial author so I left him. --Molobo 14:33, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

You clearly misinterpret a comment and accuse me of xenophobia and my pointing that out is a personal attack? Please.
Third was found during discussion where? The Catholic Culture link? As I said, it underscores my argument not yours. Marskell 14:38, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but it says that Black Legend type prejudices is found towards other cultures.Furthermore you still have to deal with the David Lukasiewcz's book and entry in Polish Encyclopedia.--Molobo 14:51, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"It says that Black Legend type prejudices is (sic) found towards other cultures." Indeed it does, which is precisely what I meant by the bigotry is not isolated to Spain. The article analogizes between prejudice, it does not assert that "Italian Black Legend" or "Polish Black Legend" are matter-of-factly used. Of course Black Legend type prejudices may be observed in anti-Polish attitudes in Germany, or anti-Chinese attitudes in Malaysia, or anti-Black attitudes in the United States, or anti-Anglo attitudes in Quebec, or anti-Jewish attitudes in much of Europe. Blaming the other is as old as we are—what I am concerned about is noting the specific descriptor, Black Legend, as if it were in generic, common use.
I suggest this: "Anti-Polish sentiment often incorporates a broader prejudice against Catholics, which has much in common with bigotry toward other nations and ethnic groups; research, for instance, has underscored a similarity between the Spanish Black Legend and historical German attitudes toward Poland." Marskell 15:07, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"The article analogizes between prejudice, it does not assert that "Italian Black Legend" or "Polish Black Legend" are matter-of-factly used." That is your opinion.However Dawid Lukasiewicz and Polish Encyclopedia show that Polish Black Legend xists. "research, for instance, has underscored a similarity between the Spanish Black Legend and historical German attitudes toward Poland" Sorry but such attitude isn't claimed to be only German by the sources. --Molobo 15:09, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Point to one spot in the article where it references the notion matter-of-factly and not as analoguous to the Spanish Black Legend. Indeed, show me where the three words, Polish, Black and Legend are strung together. The book you have cited most consistently deals with Prussia from 1785-1815 which is why I suggest "historical German attitudes toward Poland." If you'd rather, "historical attitudes toward Poland, particularly in Germany," fine. Marskell 15:17, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

I am sorry Marskell but Polish Encyclopedia doesn't limit Polish Black Legend to Germany. "Indeed, show me where the three words, Polish, Black and Legend are strung together" Czarna Legenda Dziejów Polski-Jan Nowak. Dawid Lukasiewicz-Czarna Legenda Polski. http://www.tiger.edu.pl/kolodko/artykuly/Dzis.8.2003.pdf "Historia ma to do siebie, że niekiedy bywa wredna, wpierw bowiem w odniesieniu do niedawnej przeszłości rysuje czarną wizję. Dotyczy to także historii współczesnej. Historycy nazywają to „czarną legendą". W czasach Odrodzenia bardzo czarno rysowano Średniowiecze. W następnej epoce z kolei, bardzo krytycznie pisano o Odrodzeniu. Kiedy w Polsce odbudowywano gospodarkę po zniszczeniach 2. wojny światowej i tworzono system socjalistyczny, nauczano nas w szkole, jak kiepskim systemem była Polska międzywojenna. Tamten okres też więc, zanim doczekał się w miarę rzetelnego opisu, przejść musiał przez swój epizod „czarnej legendy"." --Molobo 15:31, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"Point to..." referred to the Catholic Culture article. Not limited to Germany—my second proposed sentence renders it particular to but not limited to Germany. The history of this page indicates this is an accurate description. Marskell 15:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

"The history of this page indicates this is an accurate description" Please remember Wiki is not original research. --Molobo 19:34, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Molobo, your definition of OR really is astounding. How is a comment on the course of this page OR? Really, you've accused me of pushing OR four or five times and not once have you pointed to an example of it. If I stated "my name is Tim," I suspect you'd come on here and say "please remember Wiki is not original research." Cease referencing OR unless you are pointing to a specific edit. There is absolutely nothing wrong with my giving an opinion of the page in talk—that's part of what it exists for. Marskell 23:35, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

Adding your personal views in the article what is Black Legend and what is not(which btw contradict scholary works) is OR.Sorry. --Molobo 10:19, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Adding POV is POV, not OR--the terms are not synonomous though you seem to treat them as such. OR is synthesizing or extropolating from primary sources or unpublished data. What I find very odd is that you regularly call generic talk page comments OR. "The history of this page indicates this is an accurate description" is OR?! No, just a comment. And one is allowed to present comments of this sort on Talk. That's what talk is for. Marskell 11:42, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Talk is confirming the article.However article is not for presenting your private views Marskell. --Molobo 12:47, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Which I was not doing. Anyhow, the upshot is the point remains with better qualification. Marskell 17:14, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Jewish stuff

The google's first hits (I omit Misplaced Pages mirrors) give

(this is the result of screening of the first 30 google hits). Alx-pl D 10:30, 22 October 2005 (UTC) BTW. this is also an argument to remove the adjective academic. The word anti-Polonism is widely used in the public debate on Polish-Jewish relations (whereas it is hardly used in the public debate on Polish-German relations which was and is currently the main source of the content for the article). Alx-pl D 10:39, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

Sorry to not respond. The article must be internally consistent. We can't say "it's used in the context of Jewish-Polish relations" and then cite a series of examples relating to Germany or (historically) Prussia. The examples above appear numerous but to the English reader remain sparse. A few ten year-old examples, a few Polish writers in English etc. I don't want to introduce systemic bias but this is the English wiki. What is the appropriate way to contextualize this term? Marskell 23:08, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

"What is the appropriate way to contextualize this term? " Polish Encyclopedia defines antipolonism as hostility towards Poles and Polish state. --Molobo 23:49, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

I'm not talking about a single sentence lead. Plz reference what we were discussing. Or, to be me more precise, what is the appropraite way to unpack the term. Marskell 23:53, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

What does often mean?

It does not mean two or even four references, Molobo. You want, as I have stated more times than I can count, to insert the Black Legend bit as time of day. It's not time of day. You haul out the POV soapbox any chance you get and all you're doing with this is inserting POV. "Often" means regularly, in common discourse, obvious. There is absolutely nothing obvious about a "Polish Black Legend." Marskell 00:52, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

guys, I don't even get what this "black legend" stuff is supposed to be, in either of the contested versions. What does Anti-Polonism have to do with Spaniards? Can you not just quote whoever made the comparison, verbatim, for better or worse? I must say that the black legend article is not very lucid either (look at the ToC, it seems to ramble about random episodes of Spanish history). For the uninvolved, it is quite difficult to follow the contorted logic of nationalists, and their little rhetorical pointscorings, so I would much appreciate if you could write this article in plain English, without having the reader read between the lines. 81.63.114.127 10:12, 25 October 2005 (UTC)
"What does Anti-Polonism have to do with Spaniards?" Very little, which has been my point. Both countries are historically Catholic, which is one basis for comparison, but as I say and as your comment underscores "Black Legend" refers to Spain in common discourse. Yes, if someone could produce a verbatim point that we can discuss here that would be helpful. Marskell 10:21, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

'For the uninvolved, it is quite difficult to follow the contorted logic of nationalists' What is your reason for calling editors of the Polish encyclopedia and Dawid Lukasiewicz nationalists ?--Molobo 11:54, 25 October 2005 (UTC)

found an article

I found an interesting article: http://www.orbis-linguarum.net/1999/12_99/VIADRINA.html.

The article on Polish Misplaced Pages

Here is the translated content of the article from the Polish Misplaced Pages to compare: (Alx-pl 16:39, 20 November 2005 (UTC))

Antypolonizm

Anti-Polonism (alternatively spelled antipolonism; also, Polonophobia) is a political slogan that describes collectively all sentiments and all kinds of hostility toward Poles. The word anti-Polonism started to occur in Polish right-wing and radical right-wing media in 1990s as an answer to accusations of anti-Semitism done by Jewish circles.

Historic counterpart of anti-Polonism is polakożerstwo (in English - Poles devouring) - a term used in 19th century to describe anti-Polish politics of Otto von Bismarck.

Currently, the grounds of anti-Polonism are not rasist and it has no support in any organised ideology. The journalists, politics and priests use that term in the context of events that signify sentiment towards Poles (for instance in the context of Polish jokes, presentation of negative stereotypes of Poles in foreign media or historical misstatements like Polish death camps).

Some right-wing journalists, when they refer to anti-Polonism, incorporate conspiracy theories which link the historical persecution of the Polish nation with the incidents of present times. According to these theories anti-Polonism manifested throughout the history in different ways both in acts of individual persons and in organised actions ordained by governments of states or organisations. The actions ranged from propagation of motivated by anti-Polonism aversion for Poles to felonious acts the goal of which was to suppress Polish state and physical extermination of the Polish nation. The groups which are currently most frequently accussed for anti-Polonism include Jewish circles together with German and Russian politics.

See also

External links

Discussion on the Polish Misplaced Pages content

Thanks for taking the time Alx. Does this not underscore the point that's been made about re-hashing historical stuff? Marskell 09:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
In my opinion the current version (and all the previous ones that I saw) of the article on English Misplaced Pages does not cover at all the fact that the term Anti-Polonism is used in nationalist publications and does not cover the way the term is used there. Alx-pl D 18:15, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Polish wikipedia is very poorly done. Perhaps you should translate the entry from Polish Encyclopedia that gives a more detailed information.--Molobo 01:30, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I am very sorry to read that. I am also very sorry to write the following sentences as they are not to the point but to the person. This very sentence, Molobo, says a lot about how much you value what's Polish. In fact it reveals that you don't think at all on how to make everything what's Polish shine, but on how to make people think that everything what's Polish is crappy and of no value at all. Once more, I am very sorry to write that. Alx-pl D 17:11, 27 November 2005 (UTC) PS. I did not recommend to make English version the exact copy of the Polish one, I only pointed out that this version presents yet another point of view which was/is not covered by the English version. Alx-pl D
The exact same issue was pushed on Anti-Americanism: namely, that the topic isn't actually a particular problem but rather an accusation that right-wingers and nationalists trot out to smear people. We incorporate that argument in use of the term there and could probably do the same here. Marskell 07:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly-if only you will find a scholary source confirming this.As of now perhaps Alx-pl could translate the version from Polish encyclopedia about anti-polonism, which is quite different from Polish wiki.Of course you would have hard time arguing that the term is invention of right-wingers in Poland and used only by them, as it is used by Gazeta Wyborcza-a rather liberal newspaper. I am sure they abuse the term, but it isn't limited only to their line of thinking. For example Gross cites in one of his books Jan Józef Lipski using the term and condeming both antisemitism and anti-polonism. Lipski was known for criticising Polish nationalism and xenophobia so as you see the term isn't the domain of far right. --Molobo 12:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh and Alx-pl perhaps you would add information from this article : 

Od wielu miesięcy toczy się w Rosji operacja medialna opisująca przeszłość naszych wzajemnych stosunków. (...) Kampania "polityki historycznej" wobec Polski zaczęła się parę miesięcy przed rocznicą zakończenia II wojny światowej. (...) Sens przekazu był jasny: Polska jest zawsze niepewnym sojusznikiem, w wojnie jej rola była dwuznaczna, a pretensje wysuwane przez Polaków (Katyń, Powstanie Warszawskie, pakt Ribbentrop-Mołotow) to rodzaj agresji propagandowej. W ramach tej kampanii były oficer Smiersz porównywał sytuację w Polsce w 1945 r. do obecnej sytuacji "naszych chłopców" w Czeczenii, zaś autorka poczytnej strony  pisała o AK jako sojuszniku hitlerowców itp. Zdumiewa to, że operacja po tej rocznicy nie ustała, lecz dalej toczy się w najlepsze. Ostatnio można było przeczytać, że to Polska prowokowała hitlerowskie Niemcy do wojny oraz że "bojownicy polskiej Armii Krajowej w mieście Mińsk Mazowiecki wyrżnęli nasz szpital, zabijając 200 rannych i cały personel (kobiecy)". Reszty nie przytaczam przez wzgląd na wrażliwość czytelników. Jedynym narodem, który jest przedstawiany w równie negatywnym świetle w rosyjskich mediach, są "czeczeńscy terroryści".

--Molobo 12:25, 25 November 2005 (UTC)


Germany, Poland and Europe: Conflict, Co-Operation and Europeanisation by Marcin Zaborowski - Manchester University Press Anti-polonism in (West) Germany although as not decisive as anti-Germanism in Poland, also came to be a significant factor in in the construction of Bonn's official policies towards Warsaw. page 34.

You can read the rest on google print. --Molobo 12:34, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Quotes

As for citation of the "hen is not a bird" http://users.erols.com/mietek/test/show_news.php?id=news120500.html FROM UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE DATED: 8/11/00 GEORGIE ANNE GEYER by Georgie Anne Geyer WHEN HENS FLY: WARSAW TAKES WING TOWARD THE WEST 

        WARSAW, Poland -- When Russia looks westward these days, it seems to pass right over Poland. Russian leaders don't even seem to see that substantial land mass it has fought over so many times throughout history and which they have cynically regarded as merely a "corridor" -- theirs -- to Germany and to Europe. Somehow Moscow cannot bear the thought that Warsaw is now part of the West.

        But it was not always that way. Historically, the Russians have considered Poland, without second thought, to be nothing but a part of imperial Mother Russia. A favorite refrain was "A hen is not a bird; it can't fly." Poland was the hen.

As for Molotov using Pilsudski's statements-objective reference please. --Molobo 15:27, 25 November 2005 (UTC) Poliakam, panam, sobakam sobachaia smert!. The quote is from Jan T. Gross. Revolution from Abroad: The Soviet Conquest of Poland's Western Ukraine and Western Belorussia. --Molobo 15:40, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again, what does often mean?

I've already stated what often means: regular, time-of-day, taken for granted, easily understood. These do not apply to a putative Polish Black Legend.

I am only entering what is stated in scholary work (Lukasiewicz's book )if you have a scholary source that disputes what Lukasiewicz writes, please present it.--Molobo 18:01, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I'm not wasting breath here. You cite a work, the page mentions a work. This has been gone over endlessly: our page on Black Legend, Britainnica's and any search of the topic bring up Spain--period. There is no basis for using "often." --Marskell 18:04, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

This is not my opinion Marskell but research made by Lukasiewicz, please provide something that disputes this research. Also its mentioned not only in Lukasiewicz book. --Molobo 18:07, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

I just did: our page, Britannica and Google. Often--that is the term disputed. Marskell 18:14, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about ? Britannica doesn't deal with Poland or books that mention Polish black legend.--Molobo 17:39, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

What are you talking about? It's the single most authoritative reference work in the English language. And it defines Black Legend vis-a-vis Spain. Marskell 17:53, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

My changes

I toned down the article-Samoobrona btw is defined as leftist in its ideology so it didn't fit "far right" definition.Its already mentioned that symbolism used in past persecution of Poles is exploited by such parties-mentioning it three times and under badge from concentration camp seems improper and I believe gives dishonour to people who were forced to wear it. Of course mentioning it is ok with me but not under the badge. Information on NOP or Szczerbiec should be provided in article on them or antisemitism in Poland. --Molobo 17:28, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"Samoobrona btw is defined as leftist in its ideology so it didn't fit "far right" definition". Well, that depends on who defines whom. As parties like Samoobrona, League of Polish Families, Law and Justice, or National Socialist German Workers Party demonstrate, "leftist" pro-welfare state or socialist populism and "right" national rhetoric are not exactly mutually exclusive... --Thorsten1 17:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I know for a fact that the term in Poland is almost exclusively used in the context of right wing anti-semitic and anti-europeist propaganda. Information about some of the groups that make this use of the term belongs here "and" in anti-semitism in Poland. I am suprised that a user of Misplaced Pages supports the same use of the term done by Adam Gmurczyk (president of Narodowe Odrodzenie Polski) at texts like this: . Alexbulg 21:23, 27 November 2005 (UTC) I also think that all the historical part should be removed and maybe placed at an independent article, since this issue is about a modern right wing concept, not a historical once. Having this information here is in according to the ideas of said extremist groups. Alexbulg 21:31, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Concept vs. reality

I am glad to see the article move in a saner direction, i.e. shedding light on the development and political usage of the Polish word antypolonizm, instead of proclaiming some universal anti-Polish impulse behind the very disparate persecutions Poles have suffered at various points in history. Not surprisingly, not everyone shares my opinion: Brisvegas complained that "this article was increasingly focussed on the anti-Semitism of right-wing Polish groups than the actual phenomenon of anti-Polonism."

The trouble is, there simply is no "actual phenomenon" commonly known as anti-Polonism. Nobody seriously disputes that Poles have suffered repressions in history, and that negative stereotypes about them persist. However, as a concept unifying all these very different repressions and stereotypes, antypolonizm is a dubious coinage. Listing Bismarck's anti-Catholic Kulturkampf, wartime atrocities against Poles and "Polish jokes" under the headline "anti-Polonism" makes about as much sense as it would to list the English conquest of Ireland, the Potato Famine and "no Irish need apply" signs under the headline "anti-Irishism". At best, such a definition is theory-building or original research, which simply is off limits for Misplaced Pages.

As mentioned during the VfD, the English word "anti-Polonism" is not in general use, whereas the Polish word antypolonizm is virtually a monopoly of said "right-wing Polish groups". Perhaps significantly, it is not even listed by the most comprehensive Polish dictionary, the Słownik Języka Polskiego PWN.

Typically, the word is used as follows (from the forum of a Polish talk radio network): "There is no anti-Semitism in Poland, this is an invention of the Jewish population, which occupies high-ranking positions in the administration and government. There is, however, anti-Polonism. The Jews hate the Polish nation and are trying to destroy it at every turn." This aptly describes the vicious circle of accusations of Polish anti-Semitism and Jewish anti-Polonism.

I found only one piece of evidence that uses the word antypolonizm in a similar fashion as "our" article: "Antypolonizm" in the "modern supplement" volume of the pre-war Wielka ilustrowana encyklopedia powszechna Gutenberga, a facsimile edition of which was published in the 1990s. Subtitled "Activities aiming at the destruction of the Polish state and nation", the article boldy covers everything from remarks in Bishop Thietmar of Merseburg's chronicle from 1012, via the Moravian educator Comenius who had welcomed The Deluge, the usual suspects Marx and Lenin, right down to Steven Spielberg's "lies" in Schindler's List. In line with the term's political connotation, the article culminates in the conspiracy theory that "after the 1953 reparation agreement between West Germany and Israel, activities aimed at denigrating the image of the Poles (in relation to the Jews during WW II) and at the same time white-washing the Germans became increasingly frequent". The article is hosted on a clearly anti-Semitic "patriotic" hate site, which also declares that "The Jews use the term 'anti-Semitism' whenever Poles defend themselves against anti-Polonism. They also have an interest in anti-Polonism". This speaks volumes about the people who coined the word anti-Polonism and use it with particular gusto.

In its current version per Brisvegas, the article states that "anti-Polonism" has "been studied in scholarly works by Polish, German and Russian researchers", and that it "has entered mainstream academic usage to describe a variety of behaviours and ideologies influenced by an irrational hatred of Poles." I vehemently challenge this: I am not aware of any works by "Polish, German and Russian researchers" which would employ the term "anti-Polonism" (either as a catch-all term in the way the article suggests, or specifically referring to "Jewish anti-Polonism") and at the same time deserve the label "scholarly" (which obviously excludes works by the likes of Ryszard Bender or Jerzy Robert Nowak). Likewise, the claim about "mainstream academic usage" appears to be created out of thin air.

It is about time we made a clear distinction between the concept of anti-Polonism and the reality it allegedly describes. The article should describe the concept, but without adopting the dubious ideological interpretation of reality by of those who mostly use it. --Thorsten1 17:51, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Take it up with Molobo but brew a pot of coffee first. Marskell 17:55, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi Thorsten: http://www.episkopat.pl/?a=dokumentyKEP&doc=dialog 'Trzeba uczynić wszystko, aby odbudować i pogłębiać chrześcijańską solidarność z ludem Izraela po to, aby nigdy i nigdzie podobne nieszczęście nie mogło się znowu wydarzyć. Trzeba również skutecznie przezwyciężać wszelkie przejawy antyżydowskości, antyjudaizmu (czyli niechęci wyrosłej z fałszywie rozumianej nauki Kościoła) i antysemityzmu (tj. nienawiści zrodzonej z pobudek narodowościowych, lub rasowych), jakie miały i jeszcze mają miejsce wśród chrześcijan. Oczekujemy, że z równą determinacją przezwyciężany będzie antypolonizm. ' You have also links to Russian work on polonophobia in the article. --Molobo 18:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

"This speaks volumes about the people who coined the word anti-Polonism and use it with particular gusto. "

Jan Józef Lipski or Jerzy Turowicz ? http://www.mateusz.pl/czytelnia/jt-bilet.htm Są Polacy, którzy lubią usprawiedliwiać antysemityzm antypolonizmem środowisk żydowskich. To jest zupełnie błędne postawienie sprawy, bo antypolonizm jest skutkiem antysemityzmu. Antypolonizm jest nieraz krzywdzący i niesprawiedliwy, ale jest wynikiem tego, że rodzice czy dziadkowie Żydów, urodzonych w Ameryce, którzy przyjechali tam z Polski i przywieźli swoje doświadczenia, byli ofiarami tego antysemityzmu. Pogromy, dyskryminacja, niechęć na uniwersytetach -- oni ten bagaż ze sobą przywieźli i on w reakcji powoduje antypolonizm, więc tego nie można stawiać na równi. --Molobo 18:05, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

http://www.sun.rhbnc.ac.uk/Music/Conferences/00-9-pol.html

Polonophilia and Polonophobia of the Russians Bloomington, September 2000


Call for Papers Polonophilia and Polonophobia of the Russians


This conference is scheduled for September 16-17, 2000 at the Indiana University Bloomington campus. We invite proposals for papers on any aspect of the history of Russia's alternating attraction to and repulsion of Poland's cultural expression. Topics may include, but need not be limited to, contributions of Polish creativity to Russian culture and the reactive use by Russian artists and writers of Polish expression as a foil for creating a self-conscious Russian cultural identity. The conference is jointly sponsored by the Indiana University Russian and East European Institute, the Indiana University Polish Studies Center, and the University of Wisconsin Madison Department of Slavic Languages and Literatures. Co-directors are Bozena Shallcross, Indiana University; David Ransel, Indiana University and Alexander Dolinin, University of Wisconsin at Madison. --Molobo 18:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

You know, I really expected you to cite Jan Józef Lipski as a witness. The fact that the anti-nationalist Lipski used the term in a particular context does not sanctify its usual usage by nationalists in other contexts. "Innocent by association" is as much a fallacy as "guilty by association".
And what exactly do you wish to show with the Jerzy Turowicz quote, apart from the fact that he used the term antypolonizm? He did so with a clear critical perspective Mind if I translate? "There are Poles who like to justify anti-Semitism with the anti-Polonism of Jewish circles. This is an absolute misrepresentation, because anti-Polonism is the result of anti-Semitism. Anti-Polonism can be harmful and unfair, but it results from the fact that the parents or grandparents of American-born Jews, who emigrated from Poland and brought their experiences with them, had been the victims of this anti-Semitism. Pogroms, discrimination, hostility at the universities - this is the luggage they carried with them, and this is causing anti-Polonism as a response. Therefore, one cannot put on par with ."
"You have also links to Russian work on polonophobia in the article". Well, I didn't find any, but that is what happens when an article gets as chaotic as this one. Anyway, I didn't ask about texts that deal with episodic Polonophobia in Russia (the existence of which is not under dispute), but about evidence that "anti-Polonism" is used as the universal heuristic tool the article presents it as. That is quite a difference. --Thorsten1 19:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Note: My post above and Alx-pl's post below dated 19:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC) have been modified by Molobo. For their original versions, refer to the history of this page. --Thorsten1 21:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I only deleted your attempts to describe my personal views and persona.Please concentrate on article and don't use the talk page for personal remarks about other people. --Molobo 02:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"You know, I really expected you to cite Jan Józef Lipski as a witness" "Anti-Polonism is not morally any better than anti-Semitism or anti-Ukrainism." Jan Jozef Lipski. My point was to show that the term is used by various people. --Molobo 19:26, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

So what. Sorry, but I don't see the point in "debating" with anyone who arbitrarily vandalises my contributions. Under these circumstances I consider any further discussion a waste of time. --Thorsten1 21:15, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

I only delete personal remarks which aren't related to the article. --Molobo 02:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

Not surprisingly, a formulation of the article which was more in line with the Jan Józef Lipski's opinions (, ) was silently erased by User Witkacy. Alx-pl D 19:47, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Polish Jokes

Intellectuals, Socialism, and Dissent: The East German Opposition and Its Legacy by John C Torpey

Page 81/82 Perhaps most significant for understanding the reaction of the East German citizenry to the earthquake rumbling through Poland during the second half of 1980 was the SED's blatant exploitation of traditional German anti-Polish feeling.In describing East German's reaction to Solidarność one interviewee noted that "this rather difficult relationship played an important role. People say the Poles don't know how to work...The Party succeeded in developing a social psychology that was anti-polish. Wittenberg pastor Friedrich Schorlemmer who in the fall of 1989 would go on to help the ill fated citizens initiative Democratic Awakening, raised the matter of regime's exploitation of the older ressentiments towards the Poles.This tactic had become especially apparent in the rejuvenation of "Polish Jokes", some of which remained listeners of the spread of such jokes under the Nazis. --Molobo 20:03, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Can you please format the text above so that it is clear what is the title of the publication (this should be in italics), what is the author (this should be in the normal font)? Can you please put in italics what you cite? In order to put text in italics you have to enclose it with ''. That means the text in editor ''This is text in italics'' will look as follows:
This is text in italics
You could also make your point more clear by commenting on the excerpt and by making certain parts of the quotation bold. In order to make something bold you have to enclose it with '''. That means the text in editor '''This is text in bold''' will look as follows:
This is text in bold
Alx-pl D 08:45, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

A question

A lot of this discussion centres on the treatment of Poles by Germans and ultimately by Nazis. What I would like to know is: was the persecution of Poles a part of the more general persecution of Slavs, or were Poles singled out as worse than say Russians, Czechs, Slovenians, Serbs, etc.? Zocky 02:07, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

This is very difficult question and probably no one around can answer it conclusively. What I know is that for instance Ukrainians collaborated with Nazi Germany and had their own military troops on German service during WW2. Czechs tried not to make any violence against Germans and some of their movie stars from before WW2 were in close relationships with high German officials during WW2. But this is I guess too weak to be a conclusive answer. Alx-pl D 18:25, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
It's true that in many Slavic countries there were Nazi collaborators, and that the persecution of the Slavic population varied across countries, partly because of that. But AFAICT this collaboration was mostly tactical, at least on the Nazi side, as, according to their ideology, Slavic peoples were inferior and their land was to be ultimately taken over by Germans. It's also worth of notice that the apologists of those collaborators are often the same people who propagate outlandish theories of non-Slavic origin of their peoples.
Vast numbers of Slavs were also extermined by Nazis in countries not as large or as close to Germany as Poland is. So, again, are there any sources for claiming that Nazis were specifically anti-Polish, rather than simply Slav-haters? Either way, the general anti-Slavism of Nazis needs to be pointed out. Zocky 19:03, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

The problem Zocky is that in contrast to Ukrainians or Czechs, Poles were viewed as inferior by German culture long before Nazism existed.And this traditional hatred and contempt was enforced eve n more strongly by Nazism.--Molobo 13:26, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

For example see : htttp://www.oslo2000.uio.no/program/papers/s18/s18-blackbourn.pdf http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=1724846635492 http://www.ruf.rice.edu/~sarmatia/902/223books.html 

The stated aim of this scholarly study is to trace back the negative stereotypes of Poles entrenched in German historiography and popular culture ever since Prussia and Russia engineered the partitions of Poland in the eighteenth century. The treatise begins with a survey of authors and readers of the Prussian statistical publications in the period under review. We learn that the credibility of Beamtentumsliteratur (studies written by petty officials in Prussia) was often marred by corruption and dishonesty of said officials, as well as by their lack of proficiency in Polish. The data they collected were also marred by incompetence, ignorance and a classically hostile attitude toward the Other--in this case, toward the Poles. The writers' generalizing helped to distort the picture: whenever they did not like something, they were likely to say "as is always the case in Poland;" but when they encountered a city they liked (Poznan), they commented that "the city was built according to German standards." German officials routinely compared Polish peasant farmers to the wild inhabitants of "Kamchatka and the West Indies," or to "Roman slaves and American Indians." Such scholars and travelers as Johann Georg Forster compared Poles to "cattle in human form" (in SŠmtliche Schriften). A certain Lichtenberg (said to be Forster's friend) wrote that Poland was inhabited by "landowning despots, dirty Jews and plica" . The expression "German cockroaches" must have entered the English language owing to the similarly brutal descriptions of German immigrants to America by those who came earlier from the British Isles.

Among the specific complaints of these official record keepers were the prevalence of Catholicism among Poles (it was considered scandalous), low level of education, consumerism and vanity of the Polish landowners, poverty and servitude of the Polish peasantry, and the greed of Polish Jews who were seen as Poland's "third estate" and whose numerosity in Poland (by comparison to Prussia) irritated the German officials. üukasiewicz's conclusions are that the Prussian officials created a taxonomy within which persons of Polish nationality were perceived as inferior and in need of Prussian tutelage. --Molobo 13:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Polish Parliament Commission to fight Antipolonism

Komisja walczy z antypolonizmem --Molobo 15:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

From Prussian to Nazi persecution

http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=1724846635492 More dangerous than an entertaining, if somewhat condescending, fascination with quaint folkloric customs was the tendency to link customs with biological characteristics, a topic explored in Chapter Eight, "Peopling Eastern Europe, Part II: The Evidence of Manners and the Measurements of Race." While Herder was reflecting on the Slavs, Fichte was teaching in Poland and writing negative, racist comments about the Poles. Polish women were slovenly and with a stronger sex drive than Germans (p. 335); Poland was full of wild animals, wild people, and Jews. 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 15:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputed tag

I am intimately familiar with the subject as I have researched it for University, and right now there is majoritary consensus that no such thing as Anti-Polonism in the sense given by the article exist outside the ideology of nationalist and/or right wing Polish parties. In its current form, the article would be approved by Adam Gmurczyk. I am also curious to know why Molobo has reverted facts that I have properly sourced with embeded links and explained at the Talk Page. Several undisputed facts like the term is not included at Słownik Języka Polskiego PWN have been removed by Molobo with no explanation. As I had put it, the first part of the article focused on Modern Anti-Polonism, which is an ideological fabrication entirely, while the second one did on Historical Anti-Polonism, which was also a reality but no longer exists. I'll wait for an explanation before re adding the information that you questionably removed. Alexbulg 15:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Since no consensus has been achieved (see my talk page and Molobo's), I won't revert to my version, but rather put the tag to show that the article is disputed. Alexbulg 15:46, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Several undisputed facts like the term is not included at Słownik Języka Polskiego PWN have been removed by Molobo with no explanation You can put that information in the article.Then I will put information that the word is found in National Library of Poland in Dictionary of subjects.You will put that it is rarely used in research.I will put a dozen or so scholary works as example that still, it is used. What will we achieve in doing that ? You can't dispute that the word exists.

I don't. And we would achieve neutrality, unless of course you're not interested and you defend a one sided version only. (Alexbulg, Revision as of 16:06, 13 December 2005)

As I had put it, the first part of the article focused on Modern Anti-Polonism, which is an ideological fabrication entirely, while the second one did on Historical Anti-Polonism, which was also a reality but no longer exists. You claim that no prejudice against Poles exist ? That is an argument defeated easly. If you would read the archive like I asked you, you will multiple evidence of modern bias towards Poles. Shall I give you book titling Poland a "hyeana" ? Or saying that "every Pole should be shot with contempt" ? Shall I give you a link to Gazeta Wyborcza with article on "antipolish ideology" being used ? --Molobo 15:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It doesn't exist in the sense assigned by this article, which is the same sense assigned by conspiracy theorists of right wing parties. Anti-Polonism is not a racial issue nowadays in the same sense it was i.e. in the XIX century and the first half of the XX century. Equalling Polish jokes with Nazi persecution is the typical speech of the NOP, not that of scholars. (Alexbulg, Revision as of 16:06, 13 December 2005)

And please read before editing-they are two books by German researches on antipolonismus-yet you set it as "need citation". The citation is easly found by scrolling down by sources.Not to mention your naming of Russian research as "being from XIX century" while it is from modern author speaks negatively about your contributions. --Molobo 15:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It deals with XIX issues, that's what I clearly say, and you can't deny it. ] 16:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

But it isn't from XIX researcher.Furthermore a simple reading of links will take to Gazeta Wyborcza which has an article on modern usage of antipolish ideology in Russia. --Molobo 16:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Equalling Polish jokes with Nazi persecution is the typical speech of the NOP, not that of scholars. It seems you have limitied knowledge about this :

Intellectuals, Socialism, and Dissent: The East German Opposition and Its Legacy by John C Torpey

The Mirth of Nations by Christie Davies

Both books mention Polish Jokes as originating in Nazi Germany.--Molobo 16:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

And thus Polish jokes=Nazism, according to you? Quite an absurd line of thought, don't you think? Alexbulg 16:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
They originated there, yet their widespread use in the U.S. use constitutes Anti-Polonism, according to you, then. So you're saying that the Unites States society is an Anti-Polish and has links to the Third Reich? Absurd. Also, I don't deny Polish jokes exist, but you say in general that they are a demonstration of Anti-Polonism and racism, which is debatable at best. Now if you talk about WWII era jokes, it should be mentioned clearly "Nazi Germany-time Polish jokes" separated from modern use, as they are commonplace in the U.S., Russia, Italy and other places nowadays, just like American, Russian or Jewish jokes exist too. But now, you're mixing everything in the same bag. Alexbulg 16:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Nope, just that the jokes have German origin and are based on racist stereotype(similar to claiming that Poles have to think in certain way because they are Poles). And the book shows that reason for their spreas may have been the growing number of German emmigrants.Not my words. Are the jokes antipolish-of course even if their users don't consider them as such they led to stereotyping Poles as stupid and inferior. It also seems that they can led to discrimination at work :

I rather doubt however that American society has nowadays a strong anti-Polish bias.

But you say that it is a demonstration of Anti-Polonism. So basically its common use (even on movies) in the U.S., according to the logic you display at the article, points exactly otherwise. And that's more or less the same logic displayed at You forgot Poland. Sorry, but your arguments are severely flawed, and you contradict yourself time and time again.

  • Jokes are antiPolish but it doesn't mean the whole society uses them, or that make all people antipolish.Oh and don't forget to sign yourself.

--Molobo 16:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

So according to that logic, you are clearly saying that German and Russian societies are not necesarily Anti-Polish. I recommend you also say that at the article, since it doesn't quite look like that now. Alexbulg 16:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

So according to that logic, you are clearly saying that German and Russian societies are not necesarily Anti-Polish. I didn't mention neither society in the above discussion.Of course judging by sources and resources we can't even compare the small amount of prejudice in USA towards Poles to traditional beliefs stereotyping negatively Poles in German or Russian cultures. --Molobo 16:48, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Recent Anti-Semitic edits by User Molobo

The recent edits by User:Molobo show an undenyable trait of Anti-Semitism, and thus I recommend this article to be read with utmost care regarding the numerous POVs it contains of his authory. I also suggest extreme caution when reading further contributions by this user. Alexbulg 16:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop from using insults.Portaying a nation as having inbreed natural traits is racism of the worst kind, regardles of who is using it against whom. --Molobo 17:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

That doesn't explain why you performed this edit removing a sourced fact . I'm afraid I concur with the user who reverted you. Alexbulg 17:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It was already explained to you that there already exists a page for antisemitism in Poland, where your contributions are more fitting. --Molobo 17:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

It's your POV Molobo that the contributions are more fitting there. (Yet, Alexbulg's contributions to the discussion today are very much personal attacks, I must admit.) Alx-pl D 17:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Thank you, Alx, and you are partially right. I have admitted my exciment and offered to cool down to Molobo at his talk page, with no reply from him yet. Molobo's contributions too were much more directed towards me, and my own arguments of his Anti-Semitism are shown by his edits. If that's not what he meant (and he explains what he meant by deleting relevant and sourced information regarding Jews that belongs here), he'll have my apollogy. Alexbulg 17:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I already explained you that information about persecution of Jews is fitting into antisemitism article. --Molobo 17:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

(The term) was frequently used as a diversion to deflect directed to Poles accusations of anti-Semitism which were expressed by certain Jewish groups. In what way does this fit in Anti-Semitism and not here? By deleting it, it pretty much looks like you're trying to hide the existence of modern Anti-Semitism in Poland, which is an anti-semitic attitude in itself. Alexbulg 17:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Sorry but I never deleted it but changed its structure as it is presented to show the detailed situation.In fact your accusations are absurd because I was the first to enter the information that extremist circles abuse the term, and created chapter on misuse of the term. --Molobo 17:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

No you were not. You created only the chapter and put it to the bottom to hide it.

Ekhem I didn't hide.It was quite visible to any user who would read the text. --Molobo 17:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Yet you deleted all connection between the term and the complaint of Jewsih circles . Please leave your own personal views outside of Misplaced Pages and let relevant information stay where it belongs, even if it contradicts your views. In fact your accusations are absurd because I was the first to enter the information that extremist circles abuse the term Absurd and false claim: I was the first to do it. In your version, no mention to right wing politics existed. You merely moved it to a different section to suit your own POV of presenting separately the "misuse" of the term to an alleged "reality" that doesn't exist. The term is basically used by said groups, and sometimes (rarely) used outside of them, not the other way around as you presented. So stop hiding relevant and connected information regarding the conections between the users of the term and his Anti-Semitic views, unless you support said Anti-Semitic views. Alexbulg 18:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I put it in the chapter of the misuse of the term. Please leave your own personal views outside of Misplaced Pages I advise you to do the same. In your version, no mention to right wing politics existed Since they are both leftist and ring wing I see no reason to claim that such views are only part of one political side."So stop hiding relevant and connected information regarding the conections between the users of the term and his Anti-Semitic views, unless you support said Anti-Semitic views." Again there is a page on Antisemitism-you are welcome to edit it to your views, since you seem to be interested more in Antisemitism then Antipolonism.--Molobo 18:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

The matters have a point of connection here, and thus as Alx-pl has said, claiming that it doesn't belong here is only your personal POV. Your attempt to separate them looks pretty much like a diversion to hide every trace of criticism towards anything related to Poland. Alexbulg 18:25, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Your constant accusations seem make me view critical your neutrality-if the term is misused it should be mentioned in specific chapter, and not spread throughout the whole article. --Molobo 18:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

And your constant diversions of the point and omission to address critical issues make me be critical towards your neutrality too. I said many times, like other users (many) at this page that the term is not misused; rather, it is almost always used by extremists. If you feel that the rule is in fact the exception, that may only mean that you support the sense of the term assigned by the users of the rule, i.e. the sense given by NOP and the likes. Alexbulg 18:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

All Polish parties and Polish Catholic Church are extremists ? Thank you for showing your POV, but I don't think it should be included. --Molobo 18:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Those are the rare uses :-) They don't make it a key part of their speech, like extremists do, which is undenyable and has been repeatedly mentioned at this talk page. If that's "my POV", it is also that of nearly every other user who has posted here. On the contrary, your own POV, is only supported by you. Alexbulg 19:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC) Those are the rare uses :-) Those are the important and official uses. "On the contrary, your own POV, is only supported by you" No it is supported by Decleration of Polish Catholic Church, and Polish Parliement Comission for Contacts with Abroad, various scholary works, Jan Józef Lipski etc. --Molobo 19:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Info

This may be of interest for editors here. Alx-pl D 20:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


Discrimination of Poles in Germany

http://wiadomosci.wp.pl/wiadomosc.html?kat=1356&wid=8128597&rfbawp=1135120771.499&ticaid=1c19 Polski deputowany do Parlamentu Europejskiego Marcin Libicki (PiS) zamierza zwrócić się do niemieckiego ministerstwa ds. rodziny, seniorów, kobiet i młodzieży z prośbą o interwencję w przypadkach dyskryminowania polskich rodziców przez niemieckie urzędy - poinformował w Berlinie doradca polskiego eurodeputowanego Norbert Napieraj.

Napieraj oraz drugi współpracownik Libickiego, Szymon Szynkowski vel Sęk, rozmawiali wcześniej z przedstawicielami niemieckiego ministerstwa oraz ambasady polskiej. Libicki kieruje komisją petycji Parlamentu Europejskiego.


Jak powiedział dziennikarzom Napieraj, do komisji docierają sygnały od Polaków mieszkających w Niemczech, wskazujące na dyskryminowanie polskich rodziców z małżeństw mieszanych. Grupa rodziców skierowała w tej sprawie petycję do komisji. http://www.nowydzien.pl/nowydzien/1,70091,3084887.html

--Molobo 23:23, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

Can you translate it and comment on that? Which source indicates that it is relevant to anti-Polonism? We need a clear statement not your interpretation, of course. Alx-pl D 23:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

this article still has egregious problems

I reworded the lead a bit...but the rest of the article is still...crap. I started rewriting the next section, but it needs to be almost completely scrapped and started over, this time in English. Also, what is this persistent harping about "Polish death camps"? The only thing I can imagine is that the Poles who are griping about this usage have a very poor grasp of English and fail to understand that it means "death camps in Poland", and that no native English speaker anywhere is stupid enough to think it means "death camps set up by Poles". What this reeks of is Polish-POV-pushing--reinterpreting English usage according to Polish linguistic norms, and then crying "victim!", when, in fact, the entire problem is a failure to understand the original. All your base indeed. Tomer 00:41, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Since you obviously are a native English speaker, I can only congratulate you on your grasp of the language, contrary to the Poles, for whom the language is obviously too difficult to comprehend. I'm sure you were not trying to insult anyone. Now, take a look at the quote of David Harris (the American Jewish Committee Executive Director) whose command of English is apparently much inferior to yours: "We would also like to remind those who are careless in their choice of words, as has been the case with some media outlets, that Auschwitz-Birkenau and the other death camps, were located in German-occupied Poland, the European country with by far the largest Jewish population, but they were most emphatically not Polish camps. --Wojsyl 01:14, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Harris takes a very prescriptive view of "proper usage", which is not at all common among English speakers outside of predominantly leftist circles in academia, the media and politics. Nobody referring to "Polish death camps" has ever meant that they were set up by Poles, nor that they were an invention of Poles, nor does any native speaker believe that that's what it means. Citing Harris (or any number of other people) saying "they weren't Polish" (i.e., a Polish idea), which everyone already knows, is pointless until you can find someone who believes they were. Tomer 01:35, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Tomer, perhaps with your superior understanding of English you can explain in what context the word "Poland" was used in the following quotes:
  • On January 1, 1994, the New York Times in an article titled Victims of Bias Try to Guide Skinheads Off Road of Hate, describes an anti-hate lesson to a group of youths at the Wiesenthal Center's Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles. This article includes: "Mr. Frumkin, a 63-year-old native of Lithuania who was held at the Dachau concentration camp in Poland, related some of his experiences and said: "I hope to God you don't waste your lives hating. It's pointless."
  • On September 16, 1994, The Pilot, a Boston Catholic paper published: "At a reception for 190 Bostonians at the Holocaust Museum, Washington, D.C. "A Survivor's Story" -- Irene Weiss of Washington, D.C. tells the story of her years in Poland's Buchenwald concentration camp and how as a teenager she managed to survive the horrors of prison life."--SylwiaS | talk 01:42, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Certainly I can tell you. There's no dispute about what "Poland" means, this issue is over what "Polish" means. I can see how the usage in the second citation could easily be viewed as "careless" (and I'd be inclined to agree)...since it makes it possible to misinterpret (for someone who doesn't know the history of WW2) it as saying that Buchenwald was set up by the Polish govt. That said, I would say that the The Pilot's editorial staff is in need of some English lessons, not that the statement is an expression or indication of "anti-Polonism". At the same time, both they, and the people at the New York Times, need some serious geography lessons, since neither of those camps were in Poland...Dachau is in southern Germany, and Buchenwald is in central Germany. Tomer 01:55, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

One sentence at a time...

  • The historic counterpart of anti-Polonism is polakożerstwo (in English - the devouring of Poles) - a term used in 19th century to describe anti-Polish politics of Otto von Bismarck.
Historic counterpart? How is it a counterpart? You mean the historic term (known only in Poland)? By whom was it used? And what were the anti-Polish politics of Bismarck for which this term was used? Also, what happened to the other two "the"s in this sentence (the 19th century, the anti-Polish politics)? Tomer 00:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Kulturkampf = Anti-Polonism of Otto von Bismark. Informationguy
I'm gonna hafta go ahead and disagree with this assessment, since half of Bismarck's German empire was also Catholic. Nothing about the Kulturkampf was explicitly anti-Polish...the fact that it adversely affected Bismarck's views of the staunchly Catholic Polish populace is a byproduct of the conflict which was political, not religious, and based in a conflict between the authority of Bismarck as Emperor and the Pope as Religious Sovereign over half of Bismarck's subjects. Tomer 09:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)


Kulturkampf = Anti-Polonism of Otto von Bismark. ::I can understand that that argument can be used like that, however, please note, that in the German parliament when Bismark was criticized for the unfair treatment of the German Catholic population's religion of choice, expecially in Bavaria, Bismark said explicity two things: that it was a political deploy to attack the Polish population in Germany, and that Roman Catholicism by itself holds allegiance to the Vatican (which is geographically located in Italy) not Germany. (The Vatican City, one of the European microstates, is situated on the Vatican Hill in the north-western part of Rome, Italy). While Protestanism, was created by a German, Martin Luther, and is in the greater German interest, according to Bismark. (See the Bismark and Kulkurkampf talk pages: http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Kulturkampf) 72.1.195.4


"Bismarck and the "Polish Question." Speech to the Lower House of the Prussian Parliament, January 28, 1886. http://h-net.org/~german/gtext/kaiserreich/speech.html "The intention here is to stifle criticism of an increasingly rigorous anti-Polish government policy, justifying it as an entirely reasonable response to Polish provocation." - Otto von Bismark 72.1.195.4


72.1.195.4 - This is a Public Library computer. - 72.1.195.4


I share your doubts here. No idea of the supposed meaning of the "counterpart". --Wojsyl 01:21, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I guess this sentence comes from a translation of the "antypolonizm" article on the Polish wikipedia. Maybe "equivalent" is more comprehensive here? alx-pl D 17:38, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Polakożerstwo is not equivalent to antypolonizm, it's one supposed manifestation of this supposed phenomenon. More comprehensive, yes. More accurate, no. Tomer 18:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The journalists, politics and priests use that term in the context of events that signify sentiment towards Poles (for instance in the context of Polish jokes, presentation of negative stereotypes of Poles in the media or historical misstatements like Polish death camps.
Here we have an extra "the", unless this is a reference to some specific group of journalists, politics and priests who used "that term" (whichever term "that" refers to is unclear)... And from there, the sentence degenerates into a mess of English words all jumbled together in such a way that I can't figure out what it's saying. Tomer 00:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Just remove the "the". But I agree that the sentence seems meaningless. --Wojsyl 01:24, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • Historic actions based on antipolonism ranged from propagation of motivated by anti-Polonism aversion for Poles to felonious acts the goal of which was to suppress Polish state and physical extermination of the Polish nation.
What? First, if you're going to insist on using this neologism, figure out how to spell it, and spell it that way consistently, at the very least within the same sentence! That said, I honestly don't know what this sentence means... my best guess: "Historic actions based in anti-Polish sentiment range from oppression designed to stymie Polish national aspirations, to attempts at wholesale genocide." Why did I gripe so much in the preceding section about this whole section needing to be scrapped and restarted, "this time in English"? Because it took me 3 minutes to try to figure out what that sentence was trying to say (and I'm still not sure I did)...but seriously 3 minutes per sentence? That's ridiculous. It's like whoever was writing this was orgiastically gushing random incoherent ideas into the article without regard for whether or not they made sense, expecting that someone else should clean up after them. Clearly, that expectation has not been met... Tomer 00:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
  • The groups which are currently most frequently accussed for anti-Polonism include Jewish circles (often as part of an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory) together with German and Russian politics.
"Accussed for"? Is that supposed to be "cursed for" or "accused of"? How exactly do you either curse or accuse "Jewish circles" (or is this an obscure reference to "kikes")? Is this saying that German and Russian politicians are accused of/cursed for anti-Polish sentiment/activity? Or that the politics of those two countries are accused of/cursed for being designed to oppress Poles and Poland? Tomer 00:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the sarcasm here. This form (accuse for) in this meaning is used in plenty of places including notable BBC (, , ), Cambridge University (). Of course, the form accuse of is used more often and is preferred by the Cambridge Dictionary so if you want to correct the phrasing you can just mention that it is the case. Similarly, "Jewish circles" is used in different contexts, not necessarily in a pejorative way. alx-pl D 09:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
"cuss" is a derivative form of "curse". Look at the way it's spelled. Beyond that, you can neither accuse nor curse Jewish circles of anything. You can accuse Jews or Jewish groups, but not Jewish circles. The sarcasm in that half of the post has to do with the fact that the origin of the word "kike"...oh nevermind. go read the article. Tomer 16:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
Now it's even (almost) funny. :-) You seem to suggest that "Jewish circle" is not a group of people. However the Cambridge Dictionary says otherwise. I guess I must be missing something very subtle in your argument? What's that? alx-pl D 17:31, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
There seems to be an understanding gap here. I did not say that "Jewish circle" is not a group of people, what I said is that you can't accuse (or curse) "Jewish circles" of anything. Ideas can circulate in Jewish circles. Terminology can be used in Jewish circles. But Jewish circles aren't a collective noun that can be objectified, despite its morphological appearance. In the same way, you can say "Anti-Polonism is a much-used propaganda tool in some Polish political circles", but not "Some Polish political circles circulate the idea that anti-Polonism is an everlasting evil comparable to anti-Semitism". You can, on the other hand, say "Some Polish political groups circulate...". Why? I don't know. That said, your reference to the Cambridge Dictionary doesn't support your claim, since you'll notice it's never used as an object in any of the examples... Tomer 18:22, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
It's good to learn such nuances. Thanks. alx-pl D 10:05, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That's the first three paragraphs. Do I have to do this for the entire article? Tomer 00:58, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh hello, me again...I nearly forgot about this gem from the lead...I wasn't sure what to do with it:

  • It has, however, been studied in scholarly works by Polish, German, Russian and English
What does this mean anyways? Tomer 01:16, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

It could be removed since it dates back to attempt to delete the article based on allegation that the word doesn't exist. In order to disproved it several research articles have been found(German,English, Russian) that used. The whole indroductory sentence was made to counter those attempts of deletation.Curiously although research papers are given in sources somebody still puts citation needed. Of course the article is vandalised so often its hard to make it surivive.I stoped being interested when it was changed to "polish conspiracy trying to hide polish anti-semitism". I doubt the article is salvageble. --Molobo 11:42, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


I removed the quote: 

As discussed in the Times Literary Supplement:

Indeed, a significant proportion of Polish citizenry remains cocooned in myths of "traditional Polish tolerance" (largely true in the multi-ethnic Kingdom of Poland centuries ago, not much in evidence subsequently) and of Poland as "Christ among nations"-- a chosen people, singularly virtuous and ready to redeem the world in the name of "your and our freedom." For them, anything perceived as a slur on the good name of their country arouses passionate rebuttals and charges of malevolence and "anti-Polonism". In January l994 a young correspondent of Gazeta Wyborcza, Michal Cichy, reported on the case of about 40 Jews killed by a group of Polish fighters during the 1944 Warsaw Uprising. The article, which in no way implied that the insurgents at large committed such outrages, elicited an orgy of protests. A prominent historian, Tomasz Strzembosz, accused Cichy of practicing a "distinct type of racism," and charged his boss, Adam Michnik, of "cultivating a species of tolerance that is absolutely intolerant of antisemitism yet regards anti-Polonism and anti-goyism as something altogether natural." (Scholars have since then documented many other murders of Jews committed by soldiers of the underground Home Army.) -- Abraham Blumberg, Murder Most Foul, TLS, March 2 2001

The quote is inaccurate and misleading-Cichy has long time ago apologised for making the article seem to indicate Home Army was responsible. The thesis made in the quote is already stated in the article, and the last line of the quote is disputable. --Molobo 11:49, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

Still an object of propaganda. Guess I'll have to deal with the article as soon as I've more time again (or if Molobo should change his aims in Misplaced Pages). Sciurinæ 16:49, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

A conference on Polonophobia

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's version

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)

Bismarck times

I removed the sentence:

The term was used frequently in 19th century Poland to describe the anti-Polish policies of German-Prussian statesman Otto von Bismarck.

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 . 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:
  1. Why should the adjective 'felonious' be justified in an NPOV-style and what secondary source uses it?
  2. 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?
  3. Why should the term "false allegation" need the addition "tale" and "not true" to make clear it is false?
  4. "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?
  5. "has stirred protest from Polish government." 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?
  6. "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?

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:

  1. "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.
  2. "In Prussia, and later in Germany, Poles were forbidden to build homes" sounds like a big deal. Is it verifiable?
  3. "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 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.
  4. "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?
  5. "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 from winning over the indigenous population against the state"?
  6. "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.
  7. "and Polish children were tortured at school for speaking Polish (Września)." very good, really, that's the *unbiased* way you would summarize a source.
  8. "Poland lost approximately a third of its population" Source for "a third"? 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.(, see page six)
  9. "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?


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)

Some examples of using the word

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)

Rename maybe ?

How about renaming the article to Polonophobia ? I've not requested the article to be moved yet, as I'd like to collect some thoughts on this first. --Lysy 09:53, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

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 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 15:01, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we should also announce it on Misplaced Pages talk:Polish Wikipedians' notice board? alx-pl D 15:54, 20 January 2006 (UTC)
Category: