![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Couldn't find Rudi Pawelka's remark on the net. If he really said so, it would surely have caused a scandal whose traces could be find on the net easily. NightBeAsT
You forgot about Polish "agression" in Upper Silesia, lawlessness of Polish state, whose fingers must be watched, and the fact that he is angry about the fact that when WW2 is mentioned Poland isn ;t remembered for her aggression. -- Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
"And the entire CDU and CSU think so too because they were once reported by a Polish source to have met with these organizations!!!" I don't know if they think so(Stroiber is a bit antipolish but I will have to look) but they tolert such person who uses Hitler's rhetoric. -- Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes you are right.Saying that he is angry Nazi Reich is accused of agression when it was Poles that were aggresive doesn't mean he accuses Poles of WW2 or he is antipolish :)-- Molobo 18:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC) And of course GW is a right wing nationalist newspaper :) -- Molobo 18:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC) Sorry? NightBeAsT 18:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC) And of course this part of the text is very propolish also : Polen ist mit einer solchen Rechtsprechung kein Rechtsstaat. Unser Appell an Europa: Schaut diesen Epigonen des kommunistischen Unrechtsstaates auf die Finger !-- Molobo 18:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
How silly of me to forget that "showing the finger" is a friendly "rhetorical device" :) -- Molobo 20:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't Poland is a thief that needs her hands watched.Also I don't think claiming that the treaty that restored Poland from occupation was "unjust", or diktat, nor do I think liberation of Poles was "aggression", that we need to remember besides Nazi Reich...-- Molobo 00:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Please stick to the topic and aks me personal questions on my talk page.What we are talking is Pawelka speach against Polish state in which he among accusing Poland of aggression, blaming Poland for WW2, insulting remarks that Poland must have her hands watched, also said that liberation movement of Poles was aggression, and treaty that created Poland was injust.-- Molobo 20:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes we can add to the article that history about Bismarck's campaigns of germanisations and persecutions of Poles aren't mentioned in German schools.Thank you for pointing that out.-- Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
And please your nationalistic rant about Germany being "humilitated" by losing what it grabbed in XIX century from others isn't ontopic.Of course its nice to forget about other aspects about Pawalka's speech.-- Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
"And Pawelka and the listeners were Germans and most probably didn't even know that the treaty had something to do with Poland too." Oh I am sure.Poznan, Pomorze Gdanskie, Gdansk, Upper Silesia have no meaning to Germans.Especially those near Pawalka :)Especially since they want to get possessions in those regions. -- Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Asking me personal questions is offtopic.-- Molobo
"As for your thief theory: you guys personalised Poland by calling it "her", like a woman, now, Molobo, you're complaining that someone applies the personalisation "to keep an eye on someone" to Poland, like Poland were a woman or man." I never complained at compering Poland to man or women.I complained about Pawelka antipolonist portay al of Poland as lawless communist state that needs her hands watched.-- Molobo
For example http://www.golem.de/0002/6233.html -- Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
"but Pawelka only said the former thus less emphatic" Actually saying that Poland is lawless state, and appeal to Europe to "watcht there hands" seem quite emphatic.-- Molobo
"If you ask Pawelka whether he thinks Poland is responsible for the situation that led to WW2, would he confirm it?" And would I ask Hitler as a reporter if he wants to murder all Jews in Poland would he confirm it ?-- Molobo
-- Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
" Has he accused Poland for the situation that led to WW2 in other speeches" I don't know his other speeches, he did in that.But wait ? You know his other speeches ? Do you listen to his speeches often ?-- Molobo
"yet no source thinks he blames Poland for WW2" Actually the largest and most respected Polish paper(often accused of antiPolish attiude by nationalists) thinks so.-- Molobo
" By the way, are you accusing Prince Harris of being a nazi after he wore a nazi uniform? Certainly no" Please stay on topic.This has nothing to do with antipolonism.-- Molobo
"As for the question I asked you about the treaty: what I was trying to point out was that objection to the Treaty of Versailles was dominant in Germany. " Dislike for Poland and desire for its destruction was commonplace in Weimar Republic.See Stresseman and his attempts to destroy Poland by economical means.-- Molobo
Ok lets see how our Stressi viewed things
Stresemann in a letter to the German ambassador in London, quoted after Broszat (see above), p. 224. Martin Broszat, 200 Jahre deutsche Polenpolitik, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1972, Oh what a lovely peacemaker and friend of Poland ! -- Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Good we shall add that German politicians at that time ware hostile to Poland.Good contribution from your side :) -- Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
"The treaty of Versailles, believe it or not, is known to have been a factor for the Weimar Republic's end and Hitler's success." Really ? That is your POV.In fact I could claim that it was the lack of enforcing it that was the source of German Nationalists success(surely you don't want to claim was an invidual set apart from all the rest of politicians in his views).-- Molobo
"The treaty intentionally humiliated Germany - for example the place and time of that treaty are those of Bismarck's foundation of Germany."The WW2 was started to destroy Poland not to avenge signing of the treaty.-- Molobo
-- Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC) "Don't forget that WW1 has been a tragedy for Germany" Somehow I can find little sadness that the plan for economical exploitation of Central Europe to achieve German hegemony failed.If Germany hadn't purused dreams of being world power WW1 wouldn't happened.-- Molobo
Oh poor German imperialists.Theire short war to create empire failed.How sad I feel...-- Molobo
I already provided a quote of German war aims in Central Europe in the talk page.Maybe it seems strange to you but depopulation of Poland and turning into exploited economy isn't something which I would like...-- Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
German failure to achieve a hegemony in Europe and conquer other nations doesn't fill me with sadness.And that is what made those "sufferings". -- Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
"To Germans this meant just an insignificant detail - there was never much controversy about Poland about the treaty. And Pawelka and the listeners were Germans and most probably didn't even know that the treaty had something to do with Poland too" If you think so, then please learn more about history.Destruction of Poland was one of main targets of German policy since 1918.Pursued by collaboration with Soviet Union, support for bolshevik invasion by von Seeckt, and economical war of Stresseman.-- Molobo
-- Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
"Please don't forget that Poland is not the centre of the universe, not saying that Germany is, but when people in Germany hear 'Prussia' or 'Treaty of Versailles', they are not often reminded of Poland" How true.Upper Silesia, Poznan, Pomorze, Gdansk meant nothing to German politicians in postWW1 period I guess...-- Molobo 23:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh dear.How many members are there in expeeles organisations 2 or 3 milion ? Quite unimportant it seems indeed...
-- Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
The text I mentioned is indeed the text in question. I've checked it thouroghly by now. Let me point out the main problematic passage which sounds most offending for us Poles:
And of course Hitler killed Jews because they were bolsheviks not because they were Jews... Just like Pawelka doesn't blame Poland for WW2, he just wants us remember Polish "aggresion" before WW2 ;) Molobo Asking for "showing the finger" towards Poland isn't antipolish as well of course -- Molobo 20:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Watching somebodies hands is different and means usually that the other is not to be trusted or a thief. -- Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Of course he said.We have to rember the "injust Diktat"(oh how injust indeed it restored Poland, terrible) and Polish aggression.Thus not only Poland is to blame for war its also equal to Nazi Reich according to his words.-- Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Can we agree on this formulation (it takes into account the remark that Molobo wanted to be included in the passage above):
I did not mention the PAP source by SylwiaS, because it seems for me a little bit suspicious. I've never seen a signed notice from PAP, and the one pointed out by Sylwia is signed. Maybe the notice is form another medium? I am in favour of adding the source, but after the real origin is sorted out. If this proposal is not acceptable, please, point out what should be improved. Alx-pl 22:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC) Please this is not the article about German revisionist organisations.What is important here is there antipolonistic ideology which they continue to spread.As to other goals, feel free to add them in articles about such organisations.-- Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC) To be honest, I wouldn't agree fully on this. Apart from the formulation (eg Pawelka doesn't want to use the human rights but he sees the right of property as a human right and he wants to fight for this right), there were absolutely no allusions, simply statements of a speech taken out of their context. Pawelka didn't excuse the Third Reich in the speech ( [6]). He said it was the "dictator Hitler", who lead the "situation" in Europe to "explosion". Shortly before (it's written right under the first long line) Pawelka said "I'm embarassed by what a nationalsocialist state has caused. For culturized people, who had given the world so much, it's almost incomprehensible." Four paragraphs below he said, "It's in no way about a weakening or a relativating of the actions of the NS-state, it is about the truth, human rights and the defence against the attempt to hide atrocities behind German atrocities." This is mirrored by a sentence in the sixth paragraph of the speech, which says: ""Concealing one's own atrocities behind the German atrocities is a European norm", this is how the Hungarian writer Esterhàzy put it in the Frankfurter Paulskirche." The entire speech argues in favour of his organization, not who or what was responsible for WW2. This is the context. Those who claim he put the blame for WW2 to Poland only want to bad-mouth him. That's why I cannot agree with you on these alleged allusions because in the context of his speech the allegations look ridiculous. And that's why I was so critical of an inclusion of the whole dispute: his allocation of guilt is just a meaningless allegation to shock some readers and earn money with sensationalism, based on the assumption that next to no one likes the Preußische Treuhand anyway. I'm 100% sure these journalists didn't even believe what they wrote themselves. NightBeAsT 23:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC) Nobody needs to bad mouth them my dear German citizen, he badmouthed himself when ha talked about Poland as thief(we need to look at Polands hands), accused Poland of agression in Upper Silesia, told that the treaty that restored Poland was injust, and that oh he doesn't like Hitler but please remember the Polish aggression.Such blunt revisionistic statements and insults against Poland and Polish people speak for themselfs.-- Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
"but Poland is guilty for the situation that led to WWII That is the exact sentence relevant and proper to be put into the article.As whetever they are marginal or not, that is of lesser importance.They do receive visits from top German politicians however.-- Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Please spare the revisionistic "atrocities against Germany".Btw he says clearly"Remember polish aggesion", and shows that Poland is a thief"Look at their hands".-- Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Alx what all of this has to do with Pawalka claims that treaty restoring Poland was injust, Poland is a thief, and its agression should be remembered as one of causes of WW2.-- Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
12:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC) The proposed statement doesn't fit what we talk about.What we talk about is Pawelka's attempts to portay Poland as thief, aggressor and treaty creating Poland as injust.-- Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
NightBeAsT, you are doing a very good job. I think your previous reply was very much to the point, and in fact gave rise to much deeper summary of the Pawelka case. I think your proposal is very good. Alx-pl D 13:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Dear Molobo, let me cite the definition of anti-Polonism: Anti-Polonism [...] is a term denoting an irrational or malicious hostility toward Poles as a nation or as a cultural community. The case of my mother's neighbour is an illustration of the way Pawelka's action is hostile against Poles. Thus it is definitely to the point. Unfortunately, one cannot exclude that Pawelka is just stupid and that's why the word suspected is used, and of course the text by NightBeAsT should be illustrated by sources which will give the readers a chance to asses their opinion. The propaganda that Pawelka uses in his speach is just and only a tool to achieve his end of property retribution and with this regard it is of minor importance. What's more it is always the case that when one plans an aggression then he wants to portray his opponent in bad light. That's why it can be OK to omit this issue. Of course, if you think it is of importance here, you can add a suitable sentence so that we all could discuss it.
The CDU/CSU and BdV case is of course worth mentioning, but it can be rationally discussed after the formulation for Preußische Treuhand is settled, because its meaning is totally dependant on the PT thing. There is a suitable section below to discuss in. Alx-pl D 20:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I really don't think Pawelka's IQ is of importance here.He clearly blamed Poland for its aggresion prior IIWW, considered treaty which created Poland injust and described Polish uprising against German state as aggression.-- Molobo 20:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
" A language which sounds in ears of PT in one way, in ears of Poles in another way and in ears of Europeans in yet another way. " There are no "Europeans", they are Portugese,Ukrainians, Fins, Lithuanians etc.Wikipiedia aims of objective and neutral portayal of things, not showing every national stereotype as you propose.So from the begining your proposal is flawed.You may start articles Ukrainian-Polish relations,Portugese-Polish relations.Nothing stops you. However your claim is wrong on other grounds more important-Pawelka address this not to mythical Europeans, but to Germans, who know both German history and German propaganda.He basically repeats the same Nazi slogans used to justify aggresion against Poland.I doubt he doesn't know what he is doing-reinforcing Nazi propaganda by claiming it is true.Any mention about Pawelka should mention fact that he simply repeats propaganda invented and used by Nazis.
Please bring polls that show Canadians and Mexicans are indifferent to Poland. Molobo.
I fear such discussion is irelevant to the article.I am still waiting for polls confirming your POV.Please ask me personal questions on my talk page in the future.However I don't think it is that all important compared to Pawelka using Nazi propaganda, so for now we may leave it.-- Molobo 17:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
As to speeches http://www.hitler.org/speeches/10-06-39.html "Versailles was the cradle of a Polish State which had emerged from the untold sacrifice of blood - not of Polish but of German and Russian blood. Poland, who for centuries past had proved herself incapable of existence, was in 1916 artificially begotten and in 1919 no less artificially born by a German government just as incapable of existence.
In utter disregard of almost 500 years of experience, without consideration for the lesson of historical development during many centuries, without appreciation for ethnographic conditions and with no regard for all economic expediencies, a State was constructed at Versailles which, according to its whole nature, was sooner or later bound to become the cause of a most serious crisis.
A man who, I am sorry to say, now ranks among our fiercest enemies, at that time clearly foresaw all this. I mean Mr. Lloyd George. Like so many others he sounded warning, not only at the time of the creation of that structure but also in the course of its subsequent expansion which had taken place in utter disregard of reason and right.
At that time he expressed apprehension that in that State an accumulation of conditions was being created containing the risk of conflicts which sooner or later might lead to great European complications.
As a matter of fact, conditions surrounding the structure of this new so-called State, as far as its nationalities were concerned, could not be clarified until now. It requires some knowledge of Polish census methods to realize how utterly alien to truth, and therefore irrelevant, statistics on the national composition of that territory were and are.
In 1919 the Poles laid claims to the territory where they pretended to have a majority of 95 per cent - in East Prussia, for instance - whereas a plebiscite later showed the Poles actually had reached a figure of 2 per cent.
In the State finally created, which contained parts of former Russia, Austria, and Germany, non-Polish elements were so brutally ill-treated, suppressed, tyrannized and tortured that any plebiscite depended entirely on the good will of local administrative officials for producing such results as were desired or demanded. " "Unlimited patience and still greater self-restraint were called for because many of the regional Polish administrative officials took the understanding between Germany and Poland to be merely a license for the persecution and annihilation of the Germans in Poland with even less risk. In the few years up to 1922 more than one-and-a-half million Germans had been forced to leave their homes. "
Almost exact copy of Pawelka's speech.Except of course it was made by Hitler.Both even cite Lloyd George... And another : http://www.hitler.org/speeches/09-13-39.html "The fact that a province was torn from the German Reich and that other German territories were given to the Polish State was explained on the grounds of national necessity. Later, plebiscites everywhere showed that no one wished to become a part of the Polish State - that Polish State which arose out of the blood of countless German regiments. It then expanded at the expense of old settlement areas and above all at the expense of intelligence and economic possibility."
"Poland itself was a 'nationalities State.' That very thing had been created here which had been held against the old Austrian State. At the same time Poland was never a democracy. One very thin anemic upper class here ruled not only foreign nationalities but also its so-called own people.
It was a State built on force and governed by the truncheons of the police and the military. The fate of Germans in this State was horrible"
" The world, which immediately sheds tears when Germany expels a Polish Jew who only a few decades ago came to Germany, remained dumb and deaf toward the misery of those who, numbering not thousands but millions, were forced to leave their home country on account of Versailles - that is, if these unfortunates were Germans. What was for us and also for me most depressing was the fact that we had to suffer all this from a State which was far inferior to us; for, after all, Germany is a Great Power, even though madmen believed the vital rights of a great nation could be wiped out by a crazy treaty or by dictation.
Germany was a big power and had to look on while a far inferior people of a far inferior State maltreated these Germans. There were two especially unbearable conditions: First, this city whose German character nobody could deny was not only prevented from returning to the Reich but in addition an attempt was made to Polonize it by all kinds of devices; second, the province [East Prussia] severed from the German Reich had no direct contact with the Reich, but traffic with this province was dependent upon all kinds of chicanery or upon the good will of this Polish State.
No power on earth would have borne this condition as long as Germany. I do not know what England would have said about a similar peace solution at its expense or how America or France would have accepted it. I attempted to find a solution - a tolerable solution - even for this problem. I submitted this attempt to the Polish rulers in the form of verbal proposals. You know these proposals. They were more than moderate.... "
-- Molobo 12:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
"Lloyd George is a respectable politician in their minds."
However we know that the person is known for his dislike towards Poland.
Really ? Show polls that point out that he is respectable to French and English. -- Molobo 12:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
All statements towards specific attitude of any society need confirmation.So far you haven't provided any confirmation of your Point of View towards several societies.The source given doesn't present such data, nor any info on French views.-- 82.139.13.231 15:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
"Then he refers to sufferings of Germans before WWII which are objective, and it sounds really OK in ears of (simple minded) "
What sufferings ? None existed that weren't made by Germans themselfs.Please don't put the myth of reperations here(it wasn't reason for Germany economy failure).Also I don't think losing colonies exploited was suffering.Please also don't use the myth of German population cut off their "home" since none of Polish areas regained by Polish state had German majority.
Nope, and don't put your views in my mouth.Those "sufferings" are as real as German "sufferings" at the hands of Jewish conspiracy.Pure paranoia. Again you use the figure of some mythical "European".You mean Russian ? Englishman ? Moldavian ? Romanian ? Perhaps Greek citizen ? -- Molobo 12:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
It would be advisable for you learn the attiudes of several nations, claiming Russians view and judge history sthe same as Finnish, and French the same as British is ignorant. -- 82.139.13.231 15:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
"which are and were indeed agressions in eyes of Russians, Czechs and Germans; again this is perfectly all right and objective " The article aims of objective and neutral portayal of reality, not of stereotypes.In all cases we know that Bolsheviks aimed for invasion of Poland, and Czechs took Zaolzie in Polish-Bolsheivk war.There was no aggresion against Germany, unless you count liberation from German pesecution as aggression.
"The article does not aim at objective description. There is no such a thing in humanities" Depends on whom you ask. "This article aims at a neutral description of the problem" So you think that neutral description of pedophila, Holocaust, antisemitism and Nazism,should take into account "different views".-- Molobo 12:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
The antisemitism article doesn't include antisemitic POV on Jews though.When I said that the article will soon include phrases about Polish bandits murdering Germans, you answered that the article should include also that point of view.-- Molobo 17:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC) I see no reason why Antipolish view should be presented as one of the opinions.Is antisemitic view presented as one of "opinions".And here are your own words, when I asked .Zapewne niedlugo znajdzie sie w artykule o antypolonizmie zapis iz wywolalo go nieudolnosc Polaków, ich braki cywilizacyjne oraz wzmianki o niewinnie mordowanych Niemcach przez polskich bandytów...--Molobo You answered: Ale oczywiscie artykul koncowy bedzie musial obejmowac tez ich POV, bo taka jest natura NPOV Alx-pl D Now either you consider such views legitamate(which would explain a lot), or you consider citing your own words a personal attack. -- Molobo 18:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Molobo
Or American being antiamerican :) -- Molobo 16:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
"which sounds like he is a man of truth and virtue in ears of" Actually it sounds like simplistic defence.Comperable to "I don't have anything against Jews but...".
"Summing up, it is nowhere that he states explicitely that Poland was guilty for WWII." Oh its here:"Es ist unredlich, wenn man von dem ungerechten und das Selbstbestimmungsrecht missachtendenden Diktat von Versailles 1919 nicht mehr spricht, das der britische Premierminister Lloyd George als Keim für den nächsten Krieg bezeichnete. Es kann in diesem Zusammenhang nicht verschwiegen werden, welchen Leidensweg die 2,4 Millionen Deutschen in Polen bis 1939 gehen mussten, in der Tschechoslowakei waren es über 3 Millionen, die gegen ihren Willen in den neuen Staat gepresst wurden. Eine große Fluchtwelle und Vertreibungen aus Polen erfasste etwa eine Million Deutsche bis 1939." Quite obvious lie and attempt to show Poland as responsible for war. Your type of analysis is similiar to those encountered in people claiming that Hitler never wanted to kill Jews,instead wanted to deport them, or that he never wanted to wage war.I hope you are not a revisionists despite using similar method.-- Molobo 23:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Good.I quoted above similiar propaganda statements of Hitler.If you wish more examples, I posses a copy of scientific paper published by Wroclaw University describing German propaganda in occupied Poland. And another fine example how Pawelka uses Hitler's words: http://www.hitler.org/speeches/04-01-39.html
"For as long as this dictate of Versailles weighed upon the German people it was actually damned to go to the ground. "
And another: http://www.hitler.org/speeches/12-10-40.html "The establishment of a German community was the first item on the program in 1933. The second item was the elimination of foreign oppression as expressed in the Treaty of Versailles, which also prevented our attaining national unity, forbade large sections of our people to unite, and robbed us of our possessions in the world, our German colonies.
The second item on the program was, therefore, the struggle against Versailles. No one can say that I express this opinion for the first time today. I expressed it, my fellowcountrymen, in the days following the Great War when, still a soldier, I made my first appearance in the political arena. My first address was a speech against the collapse, against the Treaty of Versailles"
"They wanted to maintain the Dictate of Versailles in which they saw a second peace of Westphalia" The two sound almost the same...
-- Molobo 12:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah certain pieces of information.Why not a more precise word Alx "propaganda". And lets compare our two German leaders Pawelka and Hitler : Adolf Hitler "Versailles was the cradle of a Polish State which had emerged from the untold sacrifice of blood - not of Polish but of German and Russian blood. Poland, who for centuries past had proved herself incapable of existence, was in 1916 artificially begotten and in 1919 no less artificially born by a German government just as incapable of existence." Hitler uses a phrase "Poland, who for centuries past had proved herself incapable of existence" suggesting that Poland can't exist as a country. What does Pawelka use ? "Epigonen des kommunistischen Unrechtsstaates" Hitler-a state incapable of existance. Pawelka-a lawless state Quite similar. Let's see next Hitler:" I mean Mr. Lloyd George. Like so many others he sounded warning, not only at the time of the creation of that structure but also in the course of its subsequent expansion which had taken place in utter disregard of reason and right." Pawelka "Es ist unredlich, wenn man von dem ungerechten und das Selbstbestimmungsrecht missachtendenden Diktat von Versailles 1919 nicht mehr spricht, das der britische Premierminister Lloyd George als Keim für den nächsten Krieg bezeichnete" The same. Let's see next: Hitler
not thousands but millions, were forced to leave their home country on account of Versailles - that is, if these unfortunates were Germans.
Pawelka Es kann in diesem Zusammenhang nicht verschwiegen werden, welchen Leidensweg die 2,4 Millionen Deutschen in Polen bis 1939 gehen mussten, in der Tschechoslowakei waren es über 3 Millionen, die gegen ihren Willen in den neuen Staat gepresst wurden. Pawelka makes more details then Hitler but it is the same statement.
Next: Hitler In the few years up to 1922 more than one-and-a-half million Germans had been forced to leave their homes. (From me-this is a lie.German government encouraged migration of Germans to Weimar Republic) Pawelka Eine große Fluchtwelle und Vertreibungen aus Polen erfasste etwa eine Million Deutsche bis 1939.
The same.
Next: Hitler: The fate of Germans in this State was horrible. Pawelka: Mai 1921 Überfall auf das deutsche Oberschlesien verbunden mit unsäglichen Grausamkeiten an der deutschen Bevölkerung Again both use the same propaganda. Next: Hitler: In the few years up to 1922 more than one-and-a-half million Germans had been forced to leave their homes. They were hunted out, often without being able to take even their most necessary clothing. Pawelka:
Eine große Fluchtwelle und Vertreibungen aus Polen erfasste etwa eine Million Deutsche bis 1939.
The same. -- Molobo 22:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Hitler:
For, as soon as Poland felt certain of that guarantee, minorities living in that country had to suffer what amounted to a reign of terror. I do not consider it my task to speak of the lot of the Ukrainians, or White Russian population, whose interests now lie in the hands of Russia.
Pawelka: Wer 1933 anfängt, geht auch hinweg über polnische Aggressionen gegen seine Nachbarn: 1918 / 19 Einfall in Russland und Annexion großer Gebiete Similar suggestions -- Molobo 23:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't need to compare Pawelka to Hitler.He copied Hitlers arguments himself -- Molobo 16:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
http://www.schlesien-lm.de/Deutschlandtreffen/rede-pawelka-politische-hauptkundgebung.htm "Es erzürnt mich aber auch, wenn alle Untaten von Deutschen ständig benannt, wenn Aggression und Schuld anderer Länder plötzlich nicht mehr zählen" -- Molobo 22:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
"The brutal expulsion of Germans after World War II is arguable an atrocity. " Please spare us nationalist revisionism irrelevant to the topic.Population transfer of German and Polish population under Soviet control wasn't an atrocity.
Also Pawelka clearly speaks about Polish guilt: "Wer 1933 anfängt, geht auch hinweg über polnische Aggressionen gegen seine Nachbarn: 1918 / 19 Einfall in Russland und Annexion großer Gebiete, Mai 1921 Überfall auf das deutsche Oberschlesien verbunden mit unsäglichen Grausamkeiten an der deutschen Bevölkerung, Oktober 1938 Einmarsch in das tschechische Olsagebiet und Annexion des Gebiets." In this statement he lies several times, as it was Bolshevik Russia which invaded Poland,Belarus, Balts and Ukraine, and he names Polish uprising in Upper Silesia an attack or invasion, not only that but he accusess Poles of atrocities(like Hitler),he fails to mention that Zaolzie was taken over by Czechs in Polish-Bolshevik war. -- Molobo 23:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Molobo.As to the population transfer in Soviet zone of control, Poles were subject to it to and in much worst conditions then Germans. Molobo.
Well perhaps instead of vandalising pages you should read some books ? How about this one : Rüdiger Overman "Deutsche Militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg" The deaths during flight and expulsion concerned the Germans in the immediate postwar period as much as the fate of the missing soldiers, and similar efforts were made to clarify the fate of the missing civilians or bring families together. A huge scientific project reconstructed the events historiographically, the Federal Statistics Office (Statistisches Bundesamt), the refugees’ associations and the clerical search service did a lot with the financial support of the Federal Government to quantitatively assess the fate of those expelled as accurately as possible. The result can be summarized in the conclusion that about 2 million Germans had been killed during flight and expulsion - not including those from the respective territories who had died during military service.
These casualty figures, however, which for decades have been an integral part of the respective serious literature, are the result not of a counting of death records or similar concrete data, but of a population balance which concluded that the fate of about 2 million inhabitants of the expulsion territories could not be clarified and that it must therefore be assumed that they had lost their lives in the course of these events. In the last years, however, these statements have been increasingly questioned, as the studies about the sum of reported deaths showed that the number of victims can hardly have been higher than 500,000 persons - which is also an unimaginable number of victims, but nevertheless only a quarter of the previous data. In favor of the hitherto assumed numbers it could always be said, however, that the balance didn’t say that the death of these people had been proven, but only that their fate could not be clarified. -- Molobo 16:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
"Mai 1921 Überfall auf das deutsche Oberschlesien verbunden mit unsäglichen Grausamkeiten an der deutschen Bevölkerung"-- Molobo 22:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
your translation is wrong.unsäglichen doesn't mean terrible, the whole term translates as : inexpressible cruelties.Certainly doesn't suggest any atrocities right ?-- Molobo 23:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC) Oh btw, I typed it into internet, it brought a pro-nazi, antipolish book: http://litek.ws/k0nsl/detox/Germany_and_Poland.html -- Molobo 23:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
He names a Polish uprising an invasion against Germany.Polish papers already said about it. .He named the Polish uprising in Silesia an Polish aggression.
Yes and Scheidemann, that Social democrat who made Germany a Republic and hated the treaty of Versailles to the extent that he threw his political career out of the window with anger, is by far the worst of them all. A history book says his words even mirrored the mood of Germany. All German parties were against the treaty. And let's not forget the "Nazi" Henry Kissinger, who dismissed the treaty as "a brittle compromise agreement between American utopism and European paranoia" and let's not forget the USA, which disillusioned by the fact that it ignored almost all of Wilson's 14 points, didn't even join the League of Nations in protest. The British parlamentarian Philip Snowden called the treaty at that time a "deathblow to all those who had hope the treaty is going to give us more peace. It's not a peace treaty but a declaration of another war." And a caricature was created in Britain (before Hitler came to power) with a man with a spiked helmet crawling out of a rolled-up document which read "Treaty of Versailles" and this man was titled "Hitler party". And yes, according to its definition (see
de:Diktat ), it was a diktat. What does the Duden say? "Versailler Vertrag: [...] Reverting the treaty of Versailles, which was overwhelmingly seen by the German population as injust diktat by the victors and blamed Germany completely for WW1, had been the main aim of the German foreign politics since 1919." Even my former history teacher called the treaty of Versailles a diktat. Just read
de:Diktat It was a treaty which "exceeded the worst fears", which was a "Diktatfriede" ("Diktatepeace") for Germany and a "Siegfriede" ("Vicorypeace") for France, the German signatories were insulted as "Novemberverbrecher" ("Novembercriminals") or "Erfüllungspolitker" ("Fulfillment-politicians"), it caused an "Anti-Versailles-trauma" or "Anti-Versailles-complex", it meant "humiliation, disgrace, discrimination, fraud, powerlessness, Diktate, an attack at honour and a reduction of self-determination" to Germans which then wanted "revenge, rage and its revision". My history book writes "Schmach- und Diktatfrieden" ("disgrace and diktatepeace") and "Schanddiktat von Versailles" (disgrace-diktat of Versailles) became effective slogans in Germany. Searching for "Versaillerdiktat" with Google leads to 3 hits, "Versaillesdiktat": 14, "Diktatfriede": 99, ""Diktat of Versailles"": 104, "Schanddiktat": 304, ""Versailler diktat"": 605, "Diktatfrieden": 658, ""Diktat von Versailles"": 701 (that's what Pawelka said), ""Diktat Versailles"": 6.430, ""Versailles diktat"": 8.430, (altogether, without inverted commas) "Versailles Diktat": 13.100 and how many hits are connected to the "Versailler Vertrag" in the German language in general: 47.700 --> of all the 47.700 hits, you can find 13.100 mentions of "Diktat". Why's that? Maybe the Duden's 'Lexikon der Allgemeinbildung' (= encyclopedia of general knowledge) can help: "Versailler Vertrag: [...] Reverting the treaty of Versailles, which was overwhelmingly seen by the German population as an injust diktat by the victors and blamed Germany completely for WW1, had been the main aim of the German foreign politics since 1919." No matter how you see it: from the definition of the word Pawelka was right (check a dictionary) and just because he used a word that even Hitler once said as well as millions of Germans, it doesn't make him a Nazi, I'm afraid, or else anyone who speaks German is a Nazi because Hitler wrote and spoke a lot in German. And stop snatching parts of my speech out of the context, molobo. As well as distracting from the main message and making us lose the overview of the discussion, they are going nowhere. Maybe that's your intention: you've managed to make the entire talk page unreadable.
NightBeAsT
01:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
-- Molobo 23:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
NB-you brought up the books, I hoped you remembered the titles of books that describe the loss of German conquest from other nations as "humilitation for Germany"?
Thanks for showing your true colours.I however do not consider naming uprising of Polish population in Silesia an attack from Poland, nor do I consider right accusing Poles of conducting atrocities in line of Hitler's propaganda "right". -- Molobo 23:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Good then.It's nice if you disaggree with antipolonistic statements of Pawelka.I see no reason then not to include what was included before about his speech. Molobo.
Thanks, Alx, we should add to the article that the German press didn't mention Pawelka's copying of Nazi propaganda and accusing Poland of aggression, thus hiding those facts.-- Molobo 12:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
We should also add that the press misinforms the German society, by hiding the fact that nationalisation wasn't aimed at Germans but at all citizens.I wonder why the manipulation ? -- 82.139.13.231 15:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
GW article does. -- Molobo 18:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I mentioned the GW article in my proposal above #Proposal with stress on Preußische Treuhand and retribution Alx-pl D 21:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
This source states about Pawelka that:
which can be translated as:
Alx-pl D 20:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC) See Rzeczpospolita article showing wide acceptence of Pawelka in German politics. Molobo
Which leading CDU and CSU members are meeting with who and when and why is it anti-polonese and what are you talking about? I do not speak polish - I cannot read this source nor does it sound credibly anti-polonistic. NightBeAsT Stroiber, Merkel are regular guests to meetings of such organisations.:A source was given.Molobo.
Who says Stobier or Merkel are antipolonistic(I never looked in Stoiber though, for my own and his good ;P )in the article ? It only states that serious politicians aren't ashamed to support organisations claiming Polish responsibility for WW2 for example, and who insult Polish state-- Molobo 22:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
-- Molobo 20:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
23:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC) No, it is simply the meaning of his words which are a repeat of Nazi propaganda.It's a shame german politicians accept people acting this way. -- 82.139.13.231 15:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
"German courts have not only forbidden divorced Polish-speaking parents to teach their children Polish" ... HUH?!? Are you really, really sure you are talking of Germany??? NightBeAsT
So molobo, bring me the Newsweek magazine article, and I stop disputing on that for ever, cause this isnt a Polish source! Where is the source??? Volker The article is already in the article.Molobo
Molobo
Sure we can translate examples of it in the article If that is your wish :)-- Molobo 20:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Can you give me an access to the Newsweek article? I can translate it for ourselves. Alx-pl 15:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
"but also voiced objections to raising them in Polish culture, claiming that to do so would be harmful to their development" sounds unrealistic. Source? NightBeAsT
"German media frequently portray Poland as an underdeveloped country where criminality is the principal occupation of the populace" how long did you take to make it up? It's slander. NightBeAsT
The German press has coined a derogatory saying, "Heute gestohlen, morgen in Polen" ("Stolen today, tomorrow in Poland")" That doesn't sound journalistic at all. Source? NightBeAsT:Neverthless it was on a sticker given with a youth magizne in Germany.
Molobo
"The highlights of this extremely popular program are insulting "jokes" about Poles, Polish culture and Poland" Firstly his job is to make fun. Secondly, his jokes and sarcasm are about almost everything. How high is the percentage of them connected to Poland? Thirdly, why should jokes connected to Poland be the highlight of the show? NightBeAsT
"also cashes in on a clear anti-Polish bias, with jokes on the Polish language and cleaners (see below)" where is this below, where is the source? Also, the conspiracy theory is ridiculous: not only does Prussia stand for so many other things but also the given source of Perlentaucher quoted him as only calling the idea a "courageous" one. I want the sentence "actively supported a motion to reanimate name the name of "Preußen" (Prussia) for a new German federal state" verified. NightBeAsT 18:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
"German left-wing media show an anti-Polish bias" source? Is that critical, not necessarily anti-polonistic remark, in taz supposed to justify that bias throughout the left-wing media? NightBeAsT
"Antipolish sentiment has grown in that country" Sounds like it was based on a statistic ... but is unfortunately made up.. Source? NightBeAsT 16:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
"Another example of antipolonism sentiments are comments from Martin Schulz a member of European Parliament who demanded to silence polish representatives calling them "hooligans" (during the WWII the term "polnische Banditen" was commonly used by German propaganda) during European Parliament session on 27.10.2004." Isn't it more "anti-noise" than "anti-polonistic"? A hooligan is a rowdy not a "polish bandit". Being annoyed by a racket and silencing by insulting the loud persons as rowdies is not necessarily an "irrational or malicious hostility toward Poles". I also want a reliable source - for example this of the BBC, a source which states that "Socialist group leader Martin Schulz accused him ( Robert Kilroy-Silk, a British politician) of being a hooligan and of "behaving like a spoilt child"." How anti-polonistic of him to insult a loud person born in Birmingham! NightBeAsT 20:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
"Z tej okazji szef socjalistów, Niemiec Martin Schulz, uznal za stosowne okreslic nas (bardzo parlamentarnie) jako chuliganów." http://www.wszechpolacy.pl/t.php?id=729 -- Molobo 21:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Statements of Chirach and phenomen of "Polish plumber"
Yawn again: http://fray.slate.msn.com/id/2121461/entry/2121463/ In France, the "Polish plumber" became a catchphrase for the fears behind the "no" vote. He and his Slavic brethren are expected to march west, working more for less and snatching French jobs. -- Molobo 22:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Poles are described as cheap loweducated people, who steal jobs and get money from France.Of course using your logic we must conclude that German Reich admired Jews for their hight intelligence since it was conviced they were capable of controling the world.
--
Molobo
20:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
First of all remove the bombastic title "German Polish Friendship".A more fitting name should be "attempts to change traditional German antipolonism". Secondly no need to treat Pawelka's attacks on Poland and accusations that it was Polish aggression that led to WW2 lightly, the same propaganda was used by Nazis.Molobo
Molobo.
German economy actually is often argued to be harmfull to overall economic policies of Poland.For example Germany wanted Poland to raise taxes to protect German economy.As to military allied, that means nothing, since Greece and Turkey were in NATO together as well.Like said if you want to write an article about eradicating traditional antipolish sentiment in Germany be my guest.-- Molobo 16:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Please provide sources for the content. Alx-pl D 21:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 | → | Archive 10 |
Couldn't find Rudi Pawelka's remark on the net. If he really said so, it would surely have caused a scandal whose traces could be find on the net easily. NightBeAsT
You forgot about Polish "agression" in Upper Silesia, lawlessness of Polish state, whose fingers must be watched, and the fact that he is angry about the fact that when WW2 is mentioned Poland isn ;t remembered for her aggression. -- Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
"And the entire CDU and CSU think so too because they were once reported by a Polish source to have met with these organizations!!!" I don't know if they think so(Stroiber is a bit antipolish but I will have to look) but they tolert such person who uses Hitler's rhetoric. -- Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes you are right.Saying that he is angry Nazi Reich is accused of agression when it was Poles that were aggresive doesn't mean he accuses Poles of WW2 or he is antipolish :)-- Molobo 18:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC) And of course GW is a right wing nationalist newspaper :) -- Molobo 18:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC) Sorry? NightBeAsT 18:22, 17 August 2005 (UTC) And of course this part of the text is very propolish also : Polen ist mit einer solchen Rechtsprechung kein Rechtsstaat. Unser Appell an Europa: Schaut diesen Epigonen des kommunistischen Unrechtsstaates auf die Finger !-- Molobo 18:01, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
How silly of me to forget that "showing the finger" is a friendly "rhetorical device" :) -- Molobo 20:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't Poland is a thief that needs her hands watched.Also I don't think claiming that the treaty that restored Poland from occupation was "unjust", or diktat, nor do I think liberation of Poles was "aggression", that we need to remember besides Nazi Reich...-- Molobo 00:40, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
Please stick to the topic and aks me personal questions on my talk page.What we are talking is Pawelka speach against Polish state in which he among accusing Poland of aggression, blaming Poland for WW2, insulting remarks that Poland must have her hands watched, also said that liberation movement of Poles was aggression, and treaty that created Poland was injust.-- Molobo 20:55, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes we can add to the article that history about Bismarck's campaigns of germanisations and persecutions of Poles aren't mentioned in German schools.Thank you for pointing that out.-- Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
And please your nationalistic rant about Germany being "humilitated" by losing what it grabbed in XIX century from others isn't ontopic.Of course its nice to forget about other aspects about Pawalka's speech.-- Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
"And Pawelka and the listeners were Germans and most probably didn't even know that the treaty had something to do with Poland too." Oh I am sure.Poznan, Pomorze Gdanskie, Gdansk, Upper Silesia have no meaning to Germans.Especially those near Pawalka :)Especially since they want to get possessions in those regions. -- Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Asking me personal questions is offtopic.-- Molobo
"As for your thief theory: you guys personalised Poland by calling it "her", like a woman, now, Molobo, you're complaining that someone applies the personalisation "to keep an eye on someone" to Poland, like Poland were a woman or man." I never complained at compering Poland to man or women.I complained about Pawelka antipolonist portay al of Poland as lawless communist state that needs her hands watched.-- Molobo
For example http://www.golem.de/0002/6233.html -- Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
"but Pawelka only said the former thus less emphatic" Actually saying that Poland is lawless state, and appeal to Europe to "watcht there hands" seem quite emphatic.-- Molobo
"If you ask Pawelka whether he thinks Poland is responsible for the situation that led to WW2, would he confirm it?" And would I ask Hitler as a reporter if he wants to murder all Jews in Poland would he confirm it ?-- Molobo
-- Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
" Has he accused Poland for the situation that led to WW2 in other speeches" I don't know his other speeches, he did in that.But wait ? You know his other speeches ? Do you listen to his speeches often ?-- Molobo
"yet no source thinks he blames Poland for WW2" Actually the largest and most respected Polish paper(often accused of antiPolish attiude by nationalists) thinks so.-- Molobo
" By the way, are you accusing Prince Harris of being a nazi after he wore a nazi uniform? Certainly no" Please stay on topic.This has nothing to do with antipolonism.-- Molobo
"As for the question I asked you about the treaty: what I was trying to point out was that objection to the Treaty of Versailles was dominant in Germany. " Dislike for Poland and desire for its destruction was commonplace in Weimar Republic.See Stresseman and his attempts to destroy Poland by economical means.-- Molobo
Ok lets see how our Stressi viewed things
Stresemann in a letter to the German ambassador in London, quoted after Broszat (see above), p. 224. Martin Broszat, 200 Jahre deutsche Polenpolitik, Frankfurt am Main: Suhrkamp, 1972, Oh what a lovely peacemaker and friend of Poland ! -- Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Good we shall add that German politicians at that time ware hostile to Poland.Good contribution from your side :) -- Molobo 22:01, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
"The treaty of Versailles, believe it or not, is known to have been a factor for the Weimar Republic's end and Hitler's success." Really ? That is your POV.In fact I could claim that it was the lack of enforcing it that was the source of German Nationalists success(surely you don't want to claim was an invidual set apart from all the rest of politicians in his views).-- Molobo
"The treaty intentionally humiliated Germany - for example the place and time of that treaty are those of Bismarck's foundation of Germany."The WW2 was started to destroy Poland not to avenge signing of the treaty.-- Molobo
-- Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC) "Don't forget that WW1 has been a tragedy for Germany" Somehow I can find little sadness that the plan for economical exploitation of Central Europe to achieve German hegemony failed.If Germany hadn't purused dreams of being world power WW1 wouldn't happened.-- Molobo
Oh poor German imperialists.Theire short war to create empire failed.How sad I feel...-- Molobo
I already provided a quote of German war aims in Central Europe in the talk page.Maybe it seems strange to you but depopulation of Poland and turning into exploited economy isn't something which I would like...-- Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
German failure to achieve a hegemony in Europe and conquer other nations doesn't fill me with sadness.And that is what made those "sufferings". -- Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
"To Germans this meant just an insignificant detail - there was never much controversy about Poland about the treaty. And Pawelka and the listeners were Germans and most probably didn't even know that the treaty had something to do with Poland too" If you think so, then please learn more about history.Destruction of Poland was one of main targets of German policy since 1918.Pursued by collaboration with Soviet Union, support for bolshevik invasion by von Seeckt, and economical war of Stresseman.-- Molobo
-- Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
"Please don't forget that Poland is not the centre of the universe, not saying that Germany is, but when people in Germany hear 'Prussia' or 'Treaty of Versailles', they are not often reminded of Poland" How true.Upper Silesia, Poznan, Pomorze, Gdansk meant nothing to German politicians in postWW1 period I guess...-- Molobo 23:53, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Oh dear.How many members are there in expeeles organisations 2 or 3 milion ? Quite unimportant it seems indeed...
-- Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
The text I mentioned is indeed the text in question. I've checked it thouroghly by now. Let me point out the main problematic passage which sounds most offending for us Poles:
And of course Hitler killed Jews because they were bolsheviks not because they were Jews... Just like Pawelka doesn't blame Poland for WW2, he just wants us remember Polish "aggresion" before WW2 ;) Molobo Asking for "showing the finger" towards Poland isn't antipolish as well of course -- Molobo 20:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Watching somebodies hands is different and means usually that the other is not to be trusted or a thief. -- Molobo 22:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Of course he said.We have to rember the "injust Diktat"(oh how injust indeed it restored Poland, terrible) and Polish aggression.Thus not only Poland is to blame for war its also equal to Nazi Reich according to his words.-- Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Can we agree on this formulation (it takes into account the remark that Molobo wanted to be included in the passage above):
I did not mention the PAP source by SylwiaS, because it seems for me a little bit suspicious. I've never seen a signed notice from PAP, and the one pointed out by Sylwia is signed. Maybe the notice is form another medium? I am in favour of adding the source, but after the real origin is sorted out. If this proposal is not acceptable, please, point out what should be improved. Alx-pl 22:33, 20 August 2005 (UTC) Please this is not the article about German revisionist organisations.What is important here is there antipolonistic ideology which they continue to spread.As to other goals, feel free to add them in articles about such organisations.-- Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC) To be honest, I wouldn't agree fully on this. Apart from the formulation (eg Pawelka doesn't want to use the human rights but he sees the right of property as a human right and he wants to fight for this right), there were absolutely no allusions, simply statements of a speech taken out of their context. Pawelka didn't excuse the Third Reich in the speech ( [6]). He said it was the "dictator Hitler", who lead the "situation" in Europe to "explosion". Shortly before (it's written right under the first long line) Pawelka said "I'm embarassed by what a nationalsocialist state has caused. For culturized people, who had given the world so much, it's almost incomprehensible." Four paragraphs below he said, "It's in no way about a weakening or a relativating of the actions of the NS-state, it is about the truth, human rights and the defence against the attempt to hide atrocities behind German atrocities." This is mirrored by a sentence in the sixth paragraph of the speech, which says: ""Concealing one's own atrocities behind the German atrocities is a European norm", this is how the Hungarian writer Esterhàzy put it in the Frankfurter Paulskirche." The entire speech argues in favour of his organization, not who or what was responsible for WW2. This is the context. Those who claim he put the blame for WW2 to Poland only want to bad-mouth him. That's why I cannot agree with you on these alleged allusions because in the context of his speech the allegations look ridiculous. And that's why I was so critical of an inclusion of the whole dispute: his allocation of guilt is just a meaningless allegation to shock some readers and earn money with sensationalism, based on the assumption that next to no one likes the Preußische Treuhand anyway. I'm 100% sure these journalists didn't even believe what they wrote themselves. NightBeAsT 23:57, 20 August 2005 (UTC) Nobody needs to bad mouth them my dear German citizen, he badmouthed himself when ha talked about Poland as thief(we need to look at Polands hands), accused Poland of agression in Upper Silesia, told that the treaty that restored Poland was injust, and that oh he doesn't like Hitler but please remember the Polish aggression.Such blunt revisionistic statements and insults against Poland and Polish people speak for themselfs.-- Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
"but Poland is guilty for the situation that led to WWII That is the exact sentence relevant and proper to be put into the article.As whetever they are marginal or not, that is of lesser importance.They do receive visits from top German politicians however.-- Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Please spare the revisionistic "atrocities against Germany".Btw he says clearly"Remember polish aggesion", and shows that Poland is a thief"Look at their hands".-- Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Alx what all of this has to do with Pawalka claims that treaty restoring Poland was injust, Poland is a thief, and its agression should be remembered as one of causes of WW2.-- Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
12:28, 23 August 2005 (UTC) The proposed statement doesn't fit what we talk about.What we talk about is Pawelka's attempts to portay Poland as thief, aggressor and treaty creating Poland as injust.-- Molobo 19:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
NightBeAsT, you are doing a very good job. I think your previous reply was very much to the point, and in fact gave rise to much deeper summary of the Pawelka case. I think your proposal is very good. Alx-pl D 13:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Dear Molobo, let me cite the definition of anti-Polonism: Anti-Polonism [...] is a term denoting an irrational or malicious hostility toward Poles as a nation or as a cultural community. The case of my mother's neighbour is an illustration of the way Pawelka's action is hostile against Poles. Thus it is definitely to the point. Unfortunately, one cannot exclude that Pawelka is just stupid and that's why the word suspected is used, and of course the text by NightBeAsT should be illustrated by sources which will give the readers a chance to asses their opinion. The propaganda that Pawelka uses in his speach is just and only a tool to achieve his end of property retribution and with this regard it is of minor importance. What's more it is always the case that when one plans an aggression then he wants to portray his opponent in bad light. That's why it can be OK to omit this issue. Of course, if you think it is of importance here, you can add a suitable sentence so that we all could discuss it.
The CDU/CSU and BdV case is of course worth mentioning, but it can be rationally discussed after the formulation for Preußische Treuhand is settled, because its meaning is totally dependant on the PT thing. There is a suitable section below to discuss in. Alx-pl D 20:14, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I really don't think Pawelka's IQ is of importance here.He clearly blamed Poland for its aggresion prior IIWW, considered treaty which created Poland injust and described Polish uprising against German state as aggression.-- Molobo 20:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
" A language which sounds in ears of PT in one way, in ears of Poles in another way and in ears of Europeans in yet another way. " There are no "Europeans", they are Portugese,Ukrainians, Fins, Lithuanians etc.Wikipiedia aims of objective and neutral portayal of things, not showing every national stereotype as you propose.So from the begining your proposal is flawed.You may start articles Ukrainian-Polish relations,Portugese-Polish relations.Nothing stops you. However your claim is wrong on other grounds more important-Pawelka address this not to mythical Europeans, but to Germans, who know both German history and German propaganda.He basically repeats the same Nazi slogans used to justify aggresion against Poland.I doubt he doesn't know what he is doing-reinforcing Nazi propaganda by claiming it is true.Any mention about Pawelka should mention fact that he simply repeats propaganda invented and used by Nazis.
Please bring polls that show Canadians and Mexicans are indifferent to Poland. Molobo.
I fear such discussion is irelevant to the article.I am still waiting for polls confirming your POV.Please ask me personal questions on my talk page in the future.However I don't think it is that all important compared to Pawelka using Nazi propaganda, so for now we may leave it.-- Molobo 17:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
As to speeches http://www.hitler.org/speeches/10-06-39.html "Versailles was the cradle of a Polish State which had emerged from the untold sacrifice of blood - not of Polish but of German and Russian blood. Poland, who for centuries past had proved herself incapable of existence, was in 1916 artificially begotten and in 1919 no less artificially born by a German government just as incapable of existence.
In utter disregard of almost 500 years of experience, without consideration for the lesson of historical development during many centuries, without appreciation for ethnographic conditions and with no regard for all economic expediencies, a State was constructed at Versailles which, according to its whole nature, was sooner or later bound to become the cause of a most serious crisis.
A man who, I am sorry to say, now ranks among our fiercest enemies, at that time clearly foresaw all this. I mean Mr. Lloyd George. Like so many others he sounded warning, not only at the time of the creation of that structure but also in the course of its subsequent expansion which had taken place in utter disregard of reason and right.
At that time he expressed apprehension that in that State an accumulation of conditions was being created containing the risk of conflicts which sooner or later might lead to great European complications.
As a matter of fact, conditions surrounding the structure of this new so-called State, as far as its nationalities were concerned, could not be clarified until now. It requires some knowledge of Polish census methods to realize how utterly alien to truth, and therefore irrelevant, statistics on the national composition of that territory were and are.
In 1919 the Poles laid claims to the territory where they pretended to have a majority of 95 per cent - in East Prussia, for instance - whereas a plebiscite later showed the Poles actually had reached a figure of 2 per cent.
In the State finally created, which contained parts of former Russia, Austria, and Germany, non-Polish elements were so brutally ill-treated, suppressed, tyrannized and tortured that any plebiscite depended entirely on the good will of local administrative officials for producing such results as were desired or demanded. " "Unlimited patience and still greater self-restraint were called for because many of the regional Polish administrative officials took the understanding between Germany and Poland to be merely a license for the persecution and annihilation of the Germans in Poland with even less risk. In the few years up to 1922 more than one-and-a-half million Germans had been forced to leave their homes. "
Almost exact copy of Pawelka's speech.Except of course it was made by Hitler.Both even cite Lloyd George... And another : http://www.hitler.org/speeches/09-13-39.html "The fact that a province was torn from the German Reich and that other German territories were given to the Polish State was explained on the grounds of national necessity. Later, plebiscites everywhere showed that no one wished to become a part of the Polish State - that Polish State which arose out of the blood of countless German regiments. It then expanded at the expense of old settlement areas and above all at the expense of intelligence and economic possibility."
"Poland itself was a 'nationalities State.' That very thing had been created here which had been held against the old Austrian State. At the same time Poland was never a democracy. One very thin anemic upper class here ruled not only foreign nationalities but also its so-called own people.
It was a State built on force and governed by the truncheons of the police and the military. The fate of Germans in this State was horrible"
" The world, which immediately sheds tears when Germany expels a Polish Jew who only a few decades ago came to Germany, remained dumb and deaf toward the misery of those who, numbering not thousands but millions, were forced to leave their home country on account of Versailles - that is, if these unfortunates were Germans. What was for us and also for me most depressing was the fact that we had to suffer all this from a State which was far inferior to us; for, after all, Germany is a Great Power, even though madmen believed the vital rights of a great nation could be wiped out by a crazy treaty or by dictation.
Germany was a big power and had to look on while a far inferior people of a far inferior State maltreated these Germans. There were two especially unbearable conditions: First, this city whose German character nobody could deny was not only prevented from returning to the Reich but in addition an attempt was made to Polonize it by all kinds of devices; second, the province [East Prussia] severed from the German Reich had no direct contact with the Reich, but traffic with this province was dependent upon all kinds of chicanery or upon the good will of this Polish State.
No power on earth would have borne this condition as long as Germany. I do not know what England would have said about a similar peace solution at its expense or how America or France would have accepted it. I attempted to find a solution - a tolerable solution - even for this problem. I submitted this attempt to the Polish rulers in the form of verbal proposals. You know these proposals. They were more than moderate.... "
-- Molobo 12:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
"Lloyd George is a respectable politician in their minds."
However we know that the person is known for his dislike towards Poland.
Really ? Show polls that point out that he is respectable to French and English. -- Molobo 12:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
All statements towards specific attitude of any society need confirmation.So far you haven't provided any confirmation of your Point of View towards several societies.The source given doesn't present such data, nor any info on French views.-- 82.139.13.231 15:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
"Then he refers to sufferings of Germans before WWII which are objective, and it sounds really OK in ears of (simple minded) "
What sufferings ? None existed that weren't made by Germans themselfs.Please don't put the myth of reperations here(it wasn't reason for Germany economy failure).Also I don't think losing colonies exploited was suffering.Please also don't use the myth of German population cut off their "home" since none of Polish areas regained by Polish state had German majority.
Nope, and don't put your views in my mouth.Those "sufferings" are as real as German "sufferings" at the hands of Jewish conspiracy.Pure paranoia. Again you use the figure of some mythical "European".You mean Russian ? Englishman ? Moldavian ? Romanian ? Perhaps Greek citizen ? -- Molobo 12:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
It would be advisable for you learn the attiudes of several nations, claiming Russians view and judge history sthe same as Finnish, and French the same as British is ignorant. -- 82.139.13.231 15:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
"which are and were indeed agressions in eyes of Russians, Czechs and Germans; again this is perfectly all right and objective " The article aims of objective and neutral portayal of reality, not of stereotypes.In all cases we know that Bolsheviks aimed for invasion of Poland, and Czechs took Zaolzie in Polish-Bolsheivk war.There was no aggresion against Germany, unless you count liberation from German pesecution as aggression.
"The article does not aim at objective description. There is no such a thing in humanities" Depends on whom you ask. "This article aims at a neutral description of the problem" So you think that neutral description of pedophila, Holocaust, antisemitism and Nazism,should take into account "different views".-- Molobo 12:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
The antisemitism article doesn't include antisemitic POV on Jews though.When I said that the article will soon include phrases about Polish bandits murdering Germans, you answered that the article should include also that point of view.-- Molobo 17:19, 24 August 2005 (UTC) I see no reason why Antipolish view should be presented as one of the opinions.Is antisemitic view presented as one of "opinions".And here are your own words, when I asked .Zapewne niedlugo znajdzie sie w artykule o antypolonizmie zapis iz wywolalo go nieudolnosc Polaków, ich braki cywilizacyjne oraz wzmianki o niewinnie mordowanych Niemcach przez polskich bandytów...--Molobo You answered: Ale oczywiscie artykul koncowy bedzie musial obejmowac tez ich POV, bo taka jest natura NPOV Alx-pl D Now either you consider such views legitamate(which would explain a lot), or you consider citing your own words a personal attack. -- Molobo 18:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Molobo
Or American being antiamerican :) -- Molobo 16:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
"which sounds like he is a man of truth and virtue in ears of" Actually it sounds like simplistic defence.Comperable to "I don't have anything against Jews but...".
"Summing up, it is nowhere that he states explicitely that Poland was guilty for WWII." Oh its here:"Es ist unredlich, wenn man von dem ungerechten und das Selbstbestimmungsrecht missachtendenden Diktat von Versailles 1919 nicht mehr spricht, das der britische Premierminister Lloyd George als Keim für den nächsten Krieg bezeichnete. Es kann in diesem Zusammenhang nicht verschwiegen werden, welchen Leidensweg die 2,4 Millionen Deutschen in Polen bis 1939 gehen mussten, in der Tschechoslowakei waren es über 3 Millionen, die gegen ihren Willen in den neuen Staat gepresst wurden. Eine große Fluchtwelle und Vertreibungen aus Polen erfasste etwa eine Million Deutsche bis 1939." Quite obvious lie and attempt to show Poland as responsible for war. Your type of analysis is similiar to those encountered in people claiming that Hitler never wanted to kill Jews,instead wanted to deport them, or that he never wanted to wage war.I hope you are not a revisionists despite using similar method.-- Molobo 23:29, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Good.I quoted above similiar propaganda statements of Hitler.If you wish more examples, I posses a copy of scientific paper published by Wroclaw University describing German propaganda in occupied Poland. And another fine example how Pawelka uses Hitler's words: http://www.hitler.org/speeches/04-01-39.html
"For as long as this dictate of Versailles weighed upon the German people it was actually damned to go to the ground. "
And another: http://www.hitler.org/speeches/12-10-40.html "The establishment of a German community was the first item on the program in 1933. The second item was the elimination of foreign oppression as expressed in the Treaty of Versailles, which also prevented our attaining national unity, forbade large sections of our people to unite, and robbed us of our possessions in the world, our German colonies.
The second item on the program was, therefore, the struggle against Versailles. No one can say that I express this opinion for the first time today. I expressed it, my fellowcountrymen, in the days following the Great War when, still a soldier, I made my first appearance in the political arena. My first address was a speech against the collapse, against the Treaty of Versailles"
"They wanted to maintain the Dictate of Versailles in which they saw a second peace of Westphalia" The two sound almost the same...
-- Molobo 12:18, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
Ah certain pieces of information.Why not a more precise word Alx "propaganda". And lets compare our two German leaders Pawelka and Hitler : Adolf Hitler "Versailles was the cradle of a Polish State which had emerged from the untold sacrifice of blood - not of Polish but of German and Russian blood. Poland, who for centuries past had proved herself incapable of existence, was in 1916 artificially begotten and in 1919 no less artificially born by a German government just as incapable of existence." Hitler uses a phrase "Poland, who for centuries past had proved herself incapable of existence" suggesting that Poland can't exist as a country. What does Pawelka use ? "Epigonen des kommunistischen Unrechtsstaates" Hitler-a state incapable of existance. Pawelka-a lawless state Quite similar. Let's see next Hitler:" I mean Mr. Lloyd George. Like so many others he sounded warning, not only at the time of the creation of that structure but also in the course of its subsequent expansion which had taken place in utter disregard of reason and right." Pawelka "Es ist unredlich, wenn man von dem ungerechten und das Selbstbestimmungsrecht missachtendenden Diktat von Versailles 1919 nicht mehr spricht, das der britische Premierminister Lloyd George als Keim für den nächsten Krieg bezeichnete" The same. Let's see next: Hitler
not thousands but millions, were forced to leave their home country on account of Versailles - that is, if these unfortunates were Germans.
Pawelka Es kann in diesem Zusammenhang nicht verschwiegen werden, welchen Leidensweg die 2,4 Millionen Deutschen in Polen bis 1939 gehen mussten, in der Tschechoslowakei waren es über 3 Millionen, die gegen ihren Willen in den neuen Staat gepresst wurden. Pawelka makes more details then Hitler but it is the same statement.
Next: Hitler In the few years up to 1922 more than one-and-a-half million Germans had been forced to leave their homes. (From me-this is a lie.German government encouraged migration of Germans to Weimar Republic) Pawelka Eine große Fluchtwelle und Vertreibungen aus Polen erfasste etwa eine Million Deutsche bis 1939.
The same.
Next: Hitler: The fate of Germans in this State was horrible. Pawelka: Mai 1921 Überfall auf das deutsche Oberschlesien verbunden mit unsäglichen Grausamkeiten an der deutschen Bevölkerung Again both use the same propaganda. Next: Hitler: In the few years up to 1922 more than one-and-a-half million Germans had been forced to leave their homes. They were hunted out, often without being able to take even their most necessary clothing. Pawelka:
Eine große Fluchtwelle und Vertreibungen aus Polen erfasste etwa eine Million Deutsche bis 1939.
The same. -- Molobo 22:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Hitler:
For, as soon as Poland felt certain of that guarantee, minorities living in that country had to suffer what amounted to a reign of terror. I do not consider it my task to speak of the lot of the Ukrainians, or White Russian population, whose interests now lie in the hands of Russia.
Pawelka: Wer 1933 anfängt, geht auch hinweg über polnische Aggressionen gegen seine Nachbarn: 1918 / 19 Einfall in Russland und Annexion großer Gebiete Similar suggestions -- Molobo 23:06, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
I don't need to compare Pawelka to Hitler.He copied Hitlers arguments himself -- Molobo 16:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
http://www.schlesien-lm.de/Deutschlandtreffen/rede-pawelka-politische-hauptkundgebung.htm "Es erzürnt mich aber auch, wenn alle Untaten von Deutschen ständig benannt, wenn Aggression und Schuld anderer Länder plötzlich nicht mehr zählen" -- Molobo 22:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
"The brutal expulsion of Germans after World War II is arguable an atrocity. " Please spare us nationalist revisionism irrelevant to the topic.Population transfer of German and Polish population under Soviet control wasn't an atrocity.
Also Pawelka clearly speaks about Polish guilt: "Wer 1933 anfängt, geht auch hinweg über polnische Aggressionen gegen seine Nachbarn: 1918 / 19 Einfall in Russland und Annexion großer Gebiete, Mai 1921 Überfall auf das deutsche Oberschlesien verbunden mit unsäglichen Grausamkeiten an der deutschen Bevölkerung, Oktober 1938 Einmarsch in das tschechische Olsagebiet und Annexion des Gebiets." In this statement he lies several times, as it was Bolshevik Russia which invaded Poland,Belarus, Balts and Ukraine, and he names Polish uprising in Upper Silesia an attack or invasion, not only that but he accusess Poles of atrocities(like Hitler),he fails to mention that Zaolzie was taken over by Czechs in Polish-Bolshevik war. -- Molobo 23:12, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Molobo.As to the population transfer in Soviet zone of control, Poles were subject to it to and in much worst conditions then Germans. Molobo.
Well perhaps instead of vandalising pages you should read some books ? How about this one : Rüdiger Overman "Deutsche Militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg" The deaths during flight and expulsion concerned the Germans in the immediate postwar period as much as the fate of the missing soldiers, and similar efforts were made to clarify the fate of the missing civilians or bring families together. A huge scientific project reconstructed the events historiographically, the Federal Statistics Office (Statistisches Bundesamt), the refugees’ associations and the clerical search service did a lot with the financial support of the Federal Government to quantitatively assess the fate of those expelled as accurately as possible. The result can be summarized in the conclusion that about 2 million Germans had been killed during flight and expulsion - not including those from the respective territories who had died during military service.
These casualty figures, however, which for decades have been an integral part of the respective serious literature, are the result not of a counting of death records or similar concrete data, but of a population balance which concluded that the fate of about 2 million inhabitants of the expulsion territories could not be clarified and that it must therefore be assumed that they had lost their lives in the course of these events. In the last years, however, these statements have been increasingly questioned, as the studies about the sum of reported deaths showed that the number of victims can hardly have been higher than 500,000 persons - which is also an unimaginable number of victims, but nevertheless only a quarter of the previous data. In favor of the hitherto assumed numbers it could always be said, however, that the balance didn’t say that the death of these people had been proven, but only that their fate could not be clarified. -- Molobo 16:19, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
"Mai 1921 Überfall auf das deutsche Oberschlesien verbunden mit unsäglichen Grausamkeiten an der deutschen Bevölkerung"-- Molobo 22:50, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
your translation is wrong.unsäglichen doesn't mean terrible, the whole term translates as : inexpressible cruelties.Certainly doesn't suggest any atrocities right ?-- Molobo 23:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC) Oh btw, I typed it into internet, it brought a pro-nazi, antipolish book: http://litek.ws/k0nsl/detox/Germany_and_Poland.html -- Molobo 23:26, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
He names a Polish uprising an invasion against Germany.Polish papers already said about it. .He named the Polish uprising in Silesia an Polish aggression.
Yes and Scheidemann, that Social democrat who made Germany a Republic and hated the treaty of Versailles to the extent that he threw his political career out of the window with anger, is by far the worst of them all. A history book says his words even mirrored the mood of Germany. All German parties were against the treaty. And let's not forget the "Nazi" Henry Kissinger, who dismissed the treaty as "a brittle compromise agreement between American utopism and European paranoia" and let's not forget the USA, which disillusioned by the fact that it ignored almost all of Wilson's 14 points, didn't even join the League of Nations in protest. The British parlamentarian Philip Snowden called the treaty at that time a "deathblow to all those who had hope the treaty is going to give us more peace. It's not a peace treaty but a declaration of another war." And a caricature was created in Britain (before Hitler came to power) with a man with a spiked helmet crawling out of a rolled-up document which read "Treaty of Versailles" and this man was titled "Hitler party". And yes, according to its definition (see
de:Diktat ), it was a diktat. What does the Duden say? "Versailler Vertrag: [...] Reverting the treaty of Versailles, which was overwhelmingly seen by the German population as injust diktat by the victors and blamed Germany completely for WW1, had been the main aim of the German foreign politics since 1919." Even my former history teacher called the treaty of Versailles a diktat. Just read
de:Diktat It was a treaty which "exceeded the worst fears", which was a "Diktatfriede" ("Diktatepeace") for Germany and a "Siegfriede" ("Vicorypeace") for France, the German signatories were insulted as "Novemberverbrecher" ("Novembercriminals") or "Erfüllungspolitker" ("Fulfillment-politicians"), it caused an "Anti-Versailles-trauma" or "Anti-Versailles-complex", it meant "humiliation, disgrace, discrimination, fraud, powerlessness, Diktate, an attack at honour and a reduction of self-determination" to Germans which then wanted "revenge, rage and its revision". My history book writes "Schmach- und Diktatfrieden" ("disgrace and diktatepeace") and "Schanddiktat von Versailles" (disgrace-diktat of Versailles) became effective slogans in Germany. Searching for "Versaillerdiktat" with Google leads to 3 hits, "Versaillesdiktat": 14, "Diktatfriede": 99, ""Diktat of Versailles"": 104, "Schanddiktat": 304, ""Versailler diktat"": 605, "Diktatfrieden": 658, ""Diktat von Versailles"": 701 (that's what Pawelka said), ""Diktat Versailles"": 6.430, ""Versailles diktat"": 8.430, (altogether, without inverted commas) "Versailles Diktat": 13.100 and how many hits are connected to the "Versailler Vertrag" in the German language in general: 47.700 --> of all the 47.700 hits, you can find 13.100 mentions of "Diktat". Why's that? Maybe the Duden's 'Lexikon der Allgemeinbildung' (= encyclopedia of general knowledge) can help: "Versailler Vertrag: [...] Reverting the treaty of Versailles, which was overwhelmingly seen by the German population as an injust diktat by the victors and blamed Germany completely for WW1, had been the main aim of the German foreign politics since 1919." No matter how you see it: from the definition of the word Pawelka was right (check a dictionary) and just because he used a word that even Hitler once said as well as millions of Germans, it doesn't make him a Nazi, I'm afraid, or else anyone who speaks German is a Nazi because Hitler wrote and spoke a lot in German. And stop snatching parts of my speech out of the context, molobo. As well as distracting from the main message and making us lose the overview of the discussion, they are going nowhere. Maybe that's your intention: you've managed to make the entire talk page unreadable.
NightBeAsT
01:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
-- Molobo 23:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
NB-you brought up the books, I hoped you remembered the titles of books that describe the loss of German conquest from other nations as "humilitation for Germany"?
Thanks for showing your true colours.I however do not consider naming uprising of Polish population in Silesia an attack from Poland, nor do I consider right accusing Poles of conducting atrocities in line of Hitler's propaganda "right". -- Molobo 23:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Good then.It's nice if you disaggree with antipolonistic statements of Pawelka.I see no reason then not to include what was included before about his speech. Molobo.
Thanks, Alx, we should add to the article that the German press didn't mention Pawelka's copying of Nazi propaganda and accusing Poland of aggression, thus hiding those facts.-- Molobo 12:23, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
We should also add that the press misinforms the German society, by hiding the fact that nationalisation wasn't aimed at Germans but at all citizens.I wonder why the manipulation ? -- 82.139.13.231 15:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
GW article does. -- Molobo 18:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
I mentioned the GW article in my proposal above #Proposal with stress on Preußische Treuhand and retribution Alx-pl D 21:17, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
This source states about Pawelka that:
which can be translated as:
Alx-pl D 20:26, 26 August 2005 (UTC) See Rzeczpospolita article showing wide acceptence of Pawelka in German politics. Molobo
Which leading CDU and CSU members are meeting with who and when and why is it anti-polonese and what are you talking about? I do not speak polish - I cannot read this source nor does it sound credibly anti-polonistic. NightBeAsT Stroiber, Merkel are regular guests to meetings of such organisations.:A source was given.Molobo.
Who says Stobier or Merkel are antipolonistic(I never looked in Stoiber though, for my own and his good ;P )in the article ? It only states that serious politicians aren't ashamed to support organisations claiming Polish responsibility for WW2 for example, and who insult Polish state-- Molobo 22:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
-- Molobo 20:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
23:16, 17 August 2005 (UTC) No, it is simply the meaning of his words which are a repeat of Nazi propaganda.It's a shame german politicians accept people acting this way. -- 82.139.13.231 15:39, 24 August 2005 (UTC)
"German courts have not only forbidden divorced Polish-speaking parents to teach their children Polish" ... HUH?!? Are you really, really sure you are talking of Germany??? NightBeAsT
So molobo, bring me the Newsweek magazine article, and I stop disputing on that for ever, cause this isnt a Polish source! Where is the source??? Volker The article is already in the article.Molobo
Molobo
Sure we can translate examples of it in the article If that is your wish :)-- Molobo 20:56, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Can you give me an access to the Newsweek article? I can translate it for ourselves. Alx-pl 15:54, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
"but also voiced objections to raising them in Polish culture, claiming that to do so would be harmful to their development" sounds unrealistic. Source? NightBeAsT
"German media frequently portray Poland as an underdeveloped country where criminality is the principal occupation of the populace" how long did you take to make it up? It's slander. NightBeAsT
The German press has coined a derogatory saying, "Heute gestohlen, morgen in Polen" ("Stolen today, tomorrow in Poland")" That doesn't sound journalistic at all. Source? NightBeAsT:Neverthless it was on a sticker given with a youth magizne in Germany.
Molobo
"The highlights of this extremely popular program are insulting "jokes" about Poles, Polish culture and Poland" Firstly his job is to make fun. Secondly, his jokes and sarcasm are about almost everything. How high is the percentage of them connected to Poland? Thirdly, why should jokes connected to Poland be the highlight of the show? NightBeAsT
"also cashes in on a clear anti-Polish bias, with jokes on the Polish language and cleaners (see below)" where is this below, where is the source? Also, the conspiracy theory is ridiculous: not only does Prussia stand for so many other things but also the given source of Perlentaucher quoted him as only calling the idea a "courageous" one. I want the sentence "actively supported a motion to reanimate name the name of "Preußen" (Prussia) for a new German federal state" verified. NightBeAsT 18:53, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
"German left-wing media show an anti-Polish bias" source? Is that critical, not necessarily anti-polonistic remark, in taz supposed to justify that bias throughout the left-wing media? NightBeAsT
"Antipolish sentiment has grown in that country" Sounds like it was based on a statistic ... but is unfortunately made up.. Source? NightBeAsT 16:21, 15 August 2005 (UTC)
"Another example of antipolonism sentiments are comments from Martin Schulz a member of European Parliament who demanded to silence polish representatives calling them "hooligans" (during the WWII the term "polnische Banditen" was commonly used by German propaganda) during European Parliament session on 27.10.2004." Isn't it more "anti-noise" than "anti-polonistic"? A hooligan is a rowdy not a "polish bandit". Being annoyed by a racket and silencing by insulting the loud persons as rowdies is not necessarily an "irrational or malicious hostility toward Poles". I also want a reliable source - for example this of the BBC, a source which states that "Socialist group leader Martin Schulz accused him ( Robert Kilroy-Silk, a British politician) of being a hooligan and of "behaving like a spoilt child"." How anti-polonistic of him to insult a loud person born in Birmingham! NightBeAsT 20:21, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
"Z tej okazji szef socjalistów, Niemiec Martin Schulz, uznal za stosowne okreslic nas (bardzo parlamentarnie) jako chuliganów." http://www.wszechpolacy.pl/t.php?id=729 -- Molobo 21:00, 17 August 2005 (UTC)
Statements of Chirach and phenomen of "Polish plumber"
Yawn again: http://fray.slate.msn.com/id/2121461/entry/2121463/ In France, the "Polish plumber" became a catchphrase for the fears behind the "no" vote. He and his Slavic brethren are expected to march west, working more for less and snatching French jobs. -- Molobo 22:29, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
Poles are described as cheap loweducated people, who steal jobs and get money from France.Of course using your logic we must conclude that German Reich admired Jews for their hight intelligence since it was conviced they were capable of controling the world.
--
Molobo
20:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
First of all remove the bombastic title "German Polish Friendship".A more fitting name should be "attempts to change traditional German antipolonism". Secondly no need to treat Pawelka's attacks on Poland and accusations that it was Polish aggression that led to WW2 lightly, the same propaganda was used by Nazis.Molobo
Molobo.
German economy actually is often argued to be harmfull to overall economic policies of Poland.For example Germany wanted Poland to raise taxes to protect German economy.As to military allied, that means nothing, since Greece and Turkey were in NATO together as well.Like said if you want to write an article about eradicating traditional antipolish sentiment in Germany be my guest.-- Molobo 16:56, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
Please provide sources for the content. Alx-pl D 21:46, 13 September 2005 (UTC)