Israel is protecting war (ww2)criminal accused of genocide [Archive]

cegorach

11-24-2006, 13:36

[QUOTE]Shall we stay on topic and refrain from personal attacks? After all, what I wrote is nothing new or shocking.

Of course YOU DID

Historically speaking there have been many waves of antisemitism in modern Poland. Some were downright murderous, as when in 1941 the Polish inhabitants of the town of Jedwabne killed and burned the 1600 Jewish inhabitants of their town. The same thing happened in a host of other Polish towns that year. Need I point out other instances of Polish collaboration with the Holocaust or during the Warsaw ghetto uprising? This is all well-established, I think.

The problem is that Podlasia region is the ONLY ONE which experienced something like this. It is a LOCAL phenomenon - in NO other region NOTHING similar happened. There were FEW cases of such murders and they are investigated since Poland is free again.

Of course DO that - the cases of Polish collaboration are the MARGIN - there was NONE open collaboration, that is the main difference.
There was NONE organisation helping the Nazis to eliminate Jews only some criminal collaborators who were selling not only Jews, but resistence members and other people.
Poland was the only country which had Jewish party members in its government, Jewish branch of the resistence, special organisation to save tje Jews ( Zegota) - the INTEGRAL part of the resistence.
Not to mention such things like the Jewish units in the '44 uprising or the liberation of Gesiowka death camp by the resistence.

Over 100 000 Jews were saved by Polish citizens, despite the DEATH penalty given for ANY form of help as I am sure you are aware.

Aslo don't you see that the Jewish uprising was also Polish ? The Star of David was placed close to the Polish banner by the resistence fighters. They had support (limited - their mission was doomed and lack of resources was strangling the Polish resistence as well) of the Polish resistence.

Finally - don't you see that Poland was TERRORISED - Poles were exterminated too. People were taken in open human hunts on the streets. It was not France, Norway, Belgium, Denmark or Holland where collaboration was organised and supported, where Jews were transported (France) by state companies. No it was not.

Well established doesn't mean it is true ! For more than 45 years Poles couldn't defend themselves for the accusations made partly by ignorant, partly by extremists, partly by mentally scared who blamed those who were so close, but were also under terrible pressure.

I ahve seen other 'well-established' 'truths' - Poles are a robble, uprising of '44 was criminal adventure, Germans killed Poles in Katyn, Poland attackedn in 1920, Northern Korea was defending not attacking and many others - the well established MYTH of Polish collaboration exists, but how truth it is is a different question !

After the war, large sections of Poles from all walks of life persecuted the Holocaust survivors. There have even been post-war Polish pogroms, either encouraged or glossed over and ignored by both the Catholic Church and the Communists. In fact if there was one issue in which the Church and the Communist governments of the post-war period could agree, it was antisemitism.

Ohh Mr. Gross's works. They are hardly the reliable source - he is a journalist not a historian.

The case of the after-war pogroms is clearly a shame, but ( FEW) these were compensated by the fact of lack of any during the war.
Besides the fact that some Jews were seen in Soviet NKVD unfortuanatelly revievied some anti-semitic sentiments. It is a shame, but hardly a reason to poison the ORG with those anti-Polish accusations.

The last sentence is simply disgusting, Do you mean that John Paul II was anti-semitic ? Or cardinal Wyszynski ? Please enlighten me.

And even today, Polish government ministers indulge in the sort of antisemitic rhetoric I quoted above.

That is a plain, ordinary LIE - NONE Polish minister used any form of anti-semitic rhetoric. In fact Poland is the CLOSEST Israel's ally in the EU.

It doesn't help anyone to deny that history and take offense at facts. And it certainly does not help Polish-Israeli relations to the point where Tel Aviv will hand over an Israeli citizen for prosecution in Poland in a highly politicised case like Mr Morel's.

What facts ? You are seriously biased.

I have spent years combating anti-semitism so I am all aware of its existence, but I am also aware of the anti-Polish stereotypes linked to this.

You have suggested:

1. That the Polish government is anti-semitic - Which is a LIE

2. That Polish courts are anti-semitc - Which is a LIE

3. That Poland supports anti-semitism - Which is a LIE

So I am asking WHY we are in the EU ? :wall:

@Stig

Guys keep it down, we had some fights about this before. Tarrak (Kraxis) isn't on lately not here nor at the Pond or the AO forums (because he has no internet atm), so he can't moderate this, but if this turns into a fight between our nationalistic Polish friends and the rest of the world I can easely send him a mail to check in again because some people have difficulties with debating, as a forum is all about debating

Some, I agree. Throwing accusations with NONE basis in facts is hardly debating. It is an INSULT.

And insults have to be dealt with, sometimes with pure facts, sometimes with a pounch to the face and if someone has been awarded as a historian he should be careful in extreme when using doubtful sources or soon we will see Holocaust deniers offending Jews in this forum too.:thumbsdown:

KrooK

11-24-2006, 14:21

Hmm after previous post I can only agree with cegorach.

I have a bit different point of view but I base on same facts.
I have lawyer's point of view and I don't like situation when criminal can't be punished not because of lack of procedings but because someone is protecting him.

I showed my sources. Please show me Mr. Gross sources.

ELITEofWARMANGINGERYBREADMEN88

11-27-2006, 00:12

[QUOTE=Adrian II]

Of course YOU DID

The problem is that Podlasia region is the ONLY ONE which experienced something like this. It is a LOCAL phenomenon - in NO other region NOTHING similar happened. There were FEW cases of such murders and they are investigated since Poland is free again.

Of course DO that - the cases of Polish collaboration are the MARGIN - there was NONE open collaboration, that is the main difference.
There was NONE organisation helping the Nazis to eliminate Jews only some criminal collaborators who were selling not only Jews, but resistence members and other people.
Poland was the only country which had Jewish party members in its government, Jewish branch of the resistence, special organisation to save tje Jews ( Zegota) - the INTEGRAL part of the resistence.
Not to mention such things like the Jewish units in the '44 uprising or the liberation of Gesiowka death camp by the resistence.

Over 100 000 Jews were saved by Polish citizens, despite the DEATH penalty given for ANY form of help as I am sure you are aware.

Aslo don't you see that the Jewish uprising was also Polish ? The Star of David was placed close to the Polish banner by the resistence fighters. They had support (limited - their mission was doomed and lack of resources was strangling the Polish resistence as well) of the Polish resistence.

Finally - don't you see that Poland was TERRORISED - Poles were exterminated too. People were taken in open human hunts on the streets. It was not France, Norway, Belgium, Denmark or Holland where collaboration was organised and supported, where Jews were transported (France) by state companies. No it was not.

Well established doesn't mean it is true ! For more than 45 years Poles couldn't defend themselves for the accusations made partly by ignorant, partly by extremists, partly by mentally scared who blamed those who were so close, but were also under terrible pressure.

I ahve seen other 'well-established' 'truths' - Poles are a robble, uprising of '44 was criminal adventure, Germans killed Poles in Katyn, Poland attackedn in 1920, Northern Korea was defending not attacking and many others - the well established MYTH of Polish collaboration exists, but how truth it is is a different question !

Ohh Mr. Gross's works. They are hardly the reliable source - he is a journalist not a historian.

The case of the after-war pogroms is clearly a shame, but ( FEW) these were compensated by the fact of lack of any during the war.
Besides the fact that some Jews were seen in Soviet NKVD unfortuanatelly revievied some anti-semitic sentiments. It is a shame, but hardly a reason to poison the ORG with those anti-Polish accusations.

The last sentence is simply disgusting, Do you mean that John Paul II was anti-semitic ? Or cardinal Wyszynski ? Please enlighten me.

.

That is a plain, ordinary LIE - NONE Polish minister used any form of anti-semitic rhetoric. In fact Poland is the CLOSEST Israel's ally in the EU.

What facts ? You are seriously biased.

I have spent years combating anti-semitism so I am all aware of its existence, but I am also aware of the anti-Polish stereotypes linked to this.

You have suggested:

1. That the Polish government is anti-semitic - Which is a LIE

2. That Polish courts are anti-semitc - Which is a LIE

3. That Poland supports anti-semitism - Which is a LIE

So I am asking WHY we are in the EU ? :wall:

@Stig

Some, I agree. Throwing accusations with NONE basis in facts is hardly debating. It is an INSULT.

And insults have to be dealt with, sometimes with pure facts, sometimes with a pounch to the face and if someone has been awarded as a historian he should be careful in extreme when using doubtful sources or soon we will see Holocaust deniers offending Jews in this forum too.:thumbsdown:

you got my full support m8. I argee with every single thing you said, incuding your answer to the Insult posts. Very well said.

Adrian II

11-27-2006, 01:11

Ohh Mr. Gross's works. They are hardly the reliable source - he is a journalist not a historian.Jan T. Gross is a respected Polish-born historian, formerly with the University of New York and presently with Princeton University.

In 2001 Professor Gross published the widely acclaimed book Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland. The book describes the slaughter of the Jewabne Jews in 1941 by their fellow Poles as the Nazis watched approvingly.

The book was hotly disputed at first. A Polish goverment commission, the Polish Institute of National Memory, was set up with explicit instruction to investigate the case. ON July 9th , 2002, the Institute issued its final verdict which corroborated the book. In a speech on the subject onj July 17, 2002, at Georgetown University, Polish President Alexander Kwasniewski emphasised both Professor Gross' valuable contribution to Polish history and the need for Poland to come to terms with such facts:

Together with regaining freedom we started a difficult process of clearing our conscience and learning full, sometimes bitter, truth. A strong testimony of this was a discussion about a crime of Jedwabne, that shattered our conscience, but that also helped us realize that we can begin to build the future only if we base ourselves on complete historic truth. During the ceremonies commemorating the victims of the murder in Jedwabne I asked for forgiveness on behalf of those who understand well one cannot be proud with Polish history if one does not express regret for the evil Poles did to the others. I am saying it after the completion of the investigation conducted by appropriate judicial authorities in Poland. Despite a long time that has past since that moment, few witnesses and little evidence, the findings unequivocally state that the people from Jedwabne were murdered by their Polish neighbors.

Recently Professor Gross published another book: Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz: An Essay in Historical Interpretation (2006). It deals with the large-scale post-war persecution of Jews in Poland, notably in the form of pogroms, incuding the infamous one at Kielze (one year after the war) which was already on record as having been the bloodiest pogrom of the whole century in all of Europe. It details how Poles from all walks of life persecuted the Holocaust survivors, and how Church leaders and the Communist leadership refused to stop the pogroms, massacres and plundering of Jews. Gross argues that Anti-Semitism became a common currency between the Communists and a Polish society which had broadly participated in the Nazi campaign against the Jews, and for whom the Holocaust survivors were a standing reproach.

After the post-war pogroms and persecution, about 100.00 Jews were left in Poland. Many of them emigrated in the wake of yet more antisemitic campaigns in 1956 and 1968. Even in the 1980s, the leaders of Solidarity were portrayed as a 'non-Polish' element, i.e. a Jewish clique. Since 1991, leaders like Kwasniewski and Lech Walesa have spoken out against antisemitism. Its prevalence and acceptability in Polish politics have decreased, but it is still a considerable political force that is represented by ministers within the present government.

Given this history and the present unstable state of affairs, I can easily understand why the Israeli government has declined the request to extradite Mr Morel.

JimBob

11-27-2006, 07:06

Adrian-Care to actually quote the Polish ministers? Germans killed Jews in the 1940's does that mean they are anti-semites now? You cite example of anti-semitism from 60 years ago, what about today.

Even in the 1980s, the leaders of Solidarity were portrayed as a 'non-Polish' element, i.e. a Jewish clique.
Who did that characterizing? People who were against Solidarity, namely hardline Communists. Are we really going to put the words of Communists in everyone's mouths? Besides Solidarity was a popularly supported organization, so obviously people didn't give a damn about it being a "Jewish Clique"

@Krook-It is likely that there is an element of religious preferance involved, but what is the statue of limitation in Isreal for the crime he would be charged with. If it is up then there is nothing that anyone can do and he beat the law, sorry.

cegorach

11-27-2006, 09:02

[QUOTE]Jan T. Gross is a respected Polish-born historian, formerly with the University of New York and presently with Princeton University.

BUt he is using JOURNALIST'S methods - he likes not to veryfy the data. Uses HIS OWN estimates. Generally takes unbalanced and biased point of view. It wasn't so bad in the 'Neighbours', but is terrible in the 'Fear...'.

In 2001 Professor Gross published the widely acclaimed book Neighbors: The Destruction of the Jewish Community in Jedwabne, Poland. The book describes the slaughter of the Jewabne Jews in 1941 by their fellow Poles as the Nazis watched approvingly.

HOWEVER:

He is most famous for his work on the Jedwabne massacre, Neighbors (2001), which argued that the massacre was conducted by Poles and not by the German occupiers, as previously assumed. The results were the subject of vigorous debate in Poland, and later have been supported, in part, by Institute of National Remembrance. However, the Institute estimated that the number of victims was about 380, based on its own investigation of the massacre site. This number was considered to be the lower bound for the number of victims, and it is lower than the 1,600 victims claimed in Gross' book, which he obtained from his estimates for the Jewish population of Jedwabne in 1941 and assuming that almost all were killed in the pogrom. In spite of those contrary results from those he extrapolated from an existing population figure,Gross has not changed the number of victims in the further editions of his book. Further investigations exposed that Jedwabne had not been the only town in which such pogroms took place.

I call this nothing more as unprofessional. Despite DETAILED research which is not questioned by anybody and fully approved he sticks to his point of view. What is that ?
I call that nothing else as bias.

Recently Professor Gross published another book: Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz: An Essay in Historical Interpretation (2006). It deals with the large-scale post-war persecution of Jews in Poland, notably in the form of pogroms, incuding the infamous one at Kielze (one year after the war) which was already on record as having been the bloodiest pogrom of the whole century in all of Europe. It details how Poles from all walks of life persecuted the Holocaust survivors, and how Church leaders and the Communist leadership refused to stop the pogroms, massacres and plundering of Jews. Gross argues that Anti-Semitism became a common currency between the Communists and a Polish society which had broadly participated in the Nazi campaign against the Jews, and for whom the Holocaust survivors were a standing reproach.

Yes he ARGUES. He is a professor of sociology and uses journalists' methods and his point of view is affected by his experience - of those dimwitted, primitivites spurred by the Party to purge their inter-Party opposition.

He makes several mistakes e.g. placing the Communists with the Church on the same side and offends all the Poles telling that they did little during the war from apparent wide-spread anti-semitism. That is TAINTED- why ?

1. He describes the Communists as anti-semitic. Whisch is curious since numerous party leaders on exposed positions were JEWS. It was STALIN'S decision of course - 'divide and rule' - to play one ethnical group against another, however there were situations where Jews persecuted Jews, or even staranger - Jews persecuted Poles for helping other Jews ( entire Zegota organisation). The problem was simple - the Communists used all means to instill their position - massive terror or exploiting the most primitive and cruel emotions - if anti-semitism worked for some, they welcomed it.

2. He creates some strange class of the society calling it 'intelligentsia' or similar where he throws ALL opposing anti-semitism or simply helping Jews.
THE problem is that the people were in the CHURCH, also in the PARTY (though much LESS) and generally everywhere.
Why does he do it ?
I don't know, but maybe the 'pretty' picture of the anti-semitic Church wouldn't work with men like cardinal Wyszynski or others who risked their lives saving Jews ?

The pogroms after the war are among the darkest hours of the Polish history, though should the whole society be marked by the crimes of the margin ?

There was notable indifference in behaviour towards those who survived, but that was rather simple EVERYONE lost someone, Poland lost 1/3 of its citizens including 20 % of those of the Polish nationality and was STILL occupied.

Gross makes one most terrible mistake - blames everyone taking the old 'Poles are voracious anti-semitic' slant out of a closet.
I can't be greateful for that, though if this gives me the opportunity to debate the topic now I can at least react to the offense, good since I have spent years combating the anti-semitism and this will be a welcome change - anti-polonism is little different after all.

After the post-war pogroms and persecution, about 100.00 Jews were left in Poland. Many of them emigrated in the wake of yet more antisemitic campaigns in 1956 and 1968. Even in the 1980s, the leaders of Solidarity were portrayed as a 'non-Polish' element, i.e. a Jewish clique. Since 1991, leaders like Kwasniewski and Lech Walesa have spoken out against antisemitism. Its prevalence and acceptability in Polish politics have decreased, but it is still a considerable political force that is represented by ministers within the present government.

State run campaigns. Besides it was more the result of inter-Party struggle, than another reason to say that Poland is anti-semitic.

I welcome the change - earlier Polish ministers were openly anti-semitic, now they only represent the point of view...
Little, but progress nonetheless.

Back to the topic. Anti-semitism is as old as the presence of the Jews in Poland i.e. 1000 long, older than the Christianisty itself since Jews were here first. BUT it always has been the margin of the society with a couple of exceptions during the whole history.
I don't need to point out that the majority of the Jews in the world lived in Poland which would be strange for anti-semitic country.
Anyway - a form of political slant from the margin of the political struggle cannot be seen as the wide-acceptance of anti-semitism.
It didn't help in stoping the 'Solidarity', neither KOR and other opposition organisations, even with clearly of Jewish origin people such like Michnik or Geremek. Michnik's 'Gazeta Wyborcza' is the largest daily here and there are none anti-semitic graffiti on the buildings of Agora company its publisher.
Another man of Jewish origin Kuron - is clearly one of the real HEROES of the opposition and post-communist transformation and noone really even cares to throw his origin as the slant.
That is most enjoyable that several most respected men here are of Jewish origin - in APPARENTLY anti-semitic country...

The last anti-semitic president candidate (not too open anti-semitic, though - not like the NPD in Germany or similar in the western Europe) got 0,32 % of votes.
Honestly anti-semitism virtually guarantees political DEATH here.

The populist leaders which were taken to the government by the ruling conservative Law and Justice cannot actually be called anti-semitic - they know that commiting a political suicide is not the best way to grasp some power.
Not my most favourite men, honestly I despise them, thoguh I cannot call them anti-semitic - actually even as anti-populist slant it would be far to different from the reality. I really must regret, it would be the easiest way to thow them to the political rubbish bin.
Sure the latest local elections shown that the conservative Law and Justice (I am conservative-liberal so not my most favourite too) ate the little parties alive and did it with CLEARLY philo-semitic leaders. WEIRD ? Or perhaps, just perhaps the stereotypical anti-semitism in Poland isn't so meaningful ?

Given this history and the present unstable state of affairs, I can easily understand why the Israeli government has declined the request to extradite Mr Morel.

What is the unstability you are talking about ?
You are base your insult on some rumours, underhand insults and similar.
Do you think that every Dutchman is satan-worshipping pedophile who would kill his own mather ?

It is the same kind of prejudice YOU are using. Should I consider Dutch courts as biased in pedophile crimes area ? Should I say that they cannot be trusted since there is an organisation which openly fights for legalising this perverted idea ?
You are using a slanted point of view - that because on the margin of the Polish politics there are idiots who are using anti-semitic slogans Polish courst cannot be trusted and portray the WHOLE country, the whole apparently 'unstable'
state of affairs as ANTI-SEMITIC !

IN other words Poland is anti-semitic country, perhaps also a 'bloddthirsty, imperialist regime sucking Jeiwsh blood' ?
These are words which can be expected from anti-Polish extremists which unfortunatelly do EXIST, but should I blame a state which harbours such extremists as well ? Should I call the country which allows them to spread such bias as anti-Polish ? :wall:

Adrian II

11-27-2006, 12:48

In other words Poland is anti-semitic country, perhaps also a 'bloddthirsty, imperialist regime sucking Jeiwsh blood'?Lol. Shall we skip the rhetoric, my friend?

I have given you the information you required on Polish pogroms during the war. The Jedwabne massacre was established not by journalists but by a Polish government commission. Instead of addressing the issue, you squabble about the exact number of victims. This is typical for people in a state of denial about their history.

The commission's report concluded that 'The incomplete scope of the exhumation work and the impossibility to verify the hypothesis that a grave or collective graves exist at the Jewish cemetery do not allow one to substantiate the number of all individuals killed on the day of the events in Jedwabne.'

However, it is not the exact number that counts, it is the fact that as soon as the Germans approached, Polish inhabitants from a wide area gathered in Jedwabne in order to kill all the Jewish inhabitants. Read the descriptions of the ugly scenes, the intentional and studied way in which the Jews were herded together, humiliated, abused and killed in a day-long orgy. Then tell me - does it really matter, in the larger frame of things, whether they succeeded in killing them all?

I don't know if you are religious, but your attitude seems typical of the Polish Catholic Church. Poland's Catholic primate, Cardinal Jozef Glemp, at first denied the Jedwabne massacre. After the commission issued its findings and he couldn't deny it any longer, he called it 'a local tragedy'. When he couldn't maintain that either in view of other findings, he compared it to Katyn (where Polish officers were killed by Stalin’s troops) and 'Palestine', as if to say: see, we are all guilty of the same crimes, Jews included. And finally, he was more concerned with the image it projected abroad than about the issue itself when he deplored the upcoming English translation of Gross' book: 'Today, the release of its English-language version is being awaited with anxiety, because the truth thereby revealed to Americans is expected to unleash Jewry’s sharp attacks on Poles.'

There you go, the truth about a Polish attack on Jews is twisted into a Jewish attack on Poles. This reminds me of a funny remark by Polish-Israeli author Henryk Broder that antisemites have more trouble with the Holocaust than Jews. They want to both affirm and deny it, all at the same time. 'Oi, the trouble the antisemites have with Auschwitz!'

I referred you to Polish pogroms after the war, to the antisemitic campaigns in 1956, 1968 and in the 1980's. In the light of the above it is no surprise that there is still a considerable problem of antisemitism in Polish society. As late as 1999, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (Council of Europe) issued a human rights report with the following conclusion:

ECRI noted that changing patterns of migration had also brought new challenges, but that Poland remained a society in which the issues of racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and intolerance were still relatively unacknowledged: the legislation in the field was insufficiently implemented, and the introduction of legislative provisions dealing explicitly with national and ethnic minorities was proving slow to realise. The general attitude of society seemed rather closed, towards difference, and feelings of antisemitism remained pervasive. The report adds that there appeared to be little concrete knowledge or monitoring of the extent and manifestations of racism and discrimination within society, which in turn meant that specific measures to combat these phenomenon were often lacking in various fields.

A notable recent incident concerns the Catholic radio station Radio Maryja (approximately 3 million listeners) with links to the governing Law and Order party. One of its commentators called restitution efforts by Polish Jews 'extortion', he belittled the Holocaust and accused 'Judeans' of 'sneaking up from the back, trying to force our government to pay protection money, concealing that fact by calling it a compensation.'

This is why the supposed case against Mr Morel is so highly politicised. Let us face it, my friend. Many Poles would love to get their hands on Mr Morel, guilty or not, in order to be able to say: 'Look, Jews were mass-murderers, too. Our father in heaven, are we absolved now?'

Israel, of course, will not play along.

cegorach

11-27-2006, 14:04

[QUOTE]Lol. Shall we skip the rhetoric, my friend?

If I see the same from your side of course. But you won't ? Or perhaps you will start with apologising instead of impairing the professionalism of Polish courts and using anti-semitic taunting so often.

I have given you the information you required on Polish pogroms during the war. The Jedwabne massacre was established not by journalists but by a Polish government commission. Instead of addressing the issue, you squabble about the exact number of victims. This is typical for people in a state of denial about their history.

Of course I addressed the issue in the second part of my latest answer. Read again. Do not offend me framing me in 'history revisionism' cathegory.
I question his reliability, his skills not the very fact.
I have the feeling you did write the last sentence only to offend me.

The commission's report concluded that 'The incomplete scope of the exhumation work and the impossibility to verify the hypothesis that a grave or collective graves exist at the Jewish cemetery do not allow one to substantiate the number of all individuals killed on the day of the events in Jedwabne.'

Yes, but it is much more reliable than Grosse's estimates based on nothing more than his own idea. NOONE before counted such large number of victims - that includes all other sources. Shall I provide you with the list of other authors and their estimates ? That of course included Jewish ones, though there is no conflict between some sort of extreme estimates, there is just a difference between reliability and 'happy guessing'.

However, it is not the exact number that counts, it is the fact that as soon as the Germans approached, Polish inhabitants from a wide area gathered in Jedwabne in order to kill all the Jewish inhabitants. Read the descriptions of the ugly scenes, the intentional and studied way in which the Jews were herded together, humiliated, abused and killed in a day-long orgy. Then tell me - does it really matter, in the larger frame of things, whether they succeeded in killing them all?

DO NOT treat me as some sort of Polish nationalist. That is offensive. The graphic descriptions of the terrible fate of those people has nothing to the real topic.

Shall I add other descriptions of horrible crimes which have happened during the war. The people were lynched by their neighbours and that is horrible, of course it is, but it is NO REASON to frame the entire nation. As even Mr. Gross claims it happened only in Podlasie region where those Jews were made scapegoats for collaboration with the Soviets.
That was primitive mob blaming the strangers for their sufferings.
Yes, strangers since different nationalities lived close to each other, but not together - were often alien to each other.
It was the direct result of some level of anti-semitism present in every country with any Jewish community augmented and channeled by the intentional policy of the Soviets to play on nationality against each other - Belorussians and Ukrainians were played against Poles for example - with additional German support after 22nd June 1941. Poles were the primary target of Soviet cleansings in the area just like Jews in German-run sector.
Similar tactic was used by the Germans, though more brutal approach of the Germans dismayed those few would-be-collaborators from supporting them to the level seen e.g. in Norway of France. Interesting there is none similar events in German section, though the number of Jews was considerably higher. Why ? I have explained I believe.
The perpetrators should be find if still alive, but it doesn't change the simple fact that Poland in general was not anti-semitic, especially during the war.
Even workers for the death camp services (those employed) had to be transported from Ukraine and the Baltic states, since not enough people could be found in the entire 'anti-semitic' Poland.

I don't know if you are religious, but your attitude seems typical of the Polish Catholic Church. Poland's Catholic primate, Cardinal Jozef Glemp, at first denied the Jedwabne massacre. After the commission issued its findings and he couldn't deny it any longer, he called it 'a local tragedy'. When he couldn't maintain that either in view of other findings, he compared it to Katyn (where Polish officers were killed by Stalin’s troops) and 'Palestine', as if to say: see, we are all guilty of the same crimes, Jews included. And finally, he was more concerned with the image it projected abroad than about the issue itself when he deplored the upcoming English translation of Gross' book: 'Today, the release of its English-language version is being awaited with anxiety, because the truth thereby revealed to Americans is expected to unleash Jewry’s sharp attacks on Poles.'

Please do not throw religion to the discussion now, since I think that many people mstake it with bigotry and some sort of religious xenophoby.
The Polish Catholic Church is quite decentralised, actually. And don't you forget that:

1. Discussion about events like in Jedwabne was non-existent in Poland after 1945. That is a good thing Mr. Gross addressed the topic in the first place, though it is rather the opposite when it comes to his latest work where he choses a different approach.

2. 'The victimhood' was not only used in Israel, but also in Poland, even by the Communists who tried to gain some support, that is why the cases of those purges or other disgusting crimes were not discussed.
It is still hard to shake the legacy.
Mr.Glemp actually seems to back the 'victimhood' which is narrowminded, but hardly unique to Poland.

Finally the it is almost 'hardcoded' in Polish nationality to think about ourselves in the wider sense i.e. how the world would react to that ?
Not without good reasons.
There were and still are many myths about Polish history and Poland in general. Many have been eliminated, but numerous still exist. It is hard to counter some since these are often believed to be true by so many.
So called 'genetical' anti-semitism is one of those. It is one of the most offensive insults, that is why Polish newspapers and foreign services react so often to the smallest remarks about 'Polish death camps' present in the foreign press.
There is the methaphor to describe Poland as the 'peacock of the nations' - simply we DO CARE what other people will think and some officials react by denial, unfortaunatelly Gelp is one of them, though I might just add that his position was pretty low since the real head of the Polish Church was better known John Paul II , Glemp was just a clerk and should stay with the administrative work he is good at.

There you go, the truth about a Polish attack on Jews is twisted into a Jewish attack on Poles. This reminds me of a funny remark by Polish-Israeli author Henryk Broder that antisemites have more trouble with the Holocaust than Jews. They want to both affirm and deny it, all at the same time. 'Oi, the trouble the antisemites have with Auschwitz!'

NOw you clearly got carried away, didn't you ?
To call me , ME as than anti-semite is like... I don't really have a comparision. I am clearly philo=semitic spending much time defending Israel - I can give you links, though the discussion is in Polish. Also in the Lords forum I have started not less than three topics about the links between Poles and Jews, since it is far less known than the usual 'anti-semitic' taunting.

NO, I do see the widepicture. Analise the sources, there are numerous present in English now, you will find that ethnic tension was the usual approach of the Stalinist regimes to the question of keeping the subjects under controll.
That is why you will find so many Latvians or Poles in Soviet CHk and later NKVD - to cause the hatred in the Soviet Union. Of course Jews were here as well, since Russian anti-semitism is most likely the strongest in the world.

I referred you to Polish pogroms after the war, to the antisemitic campaigns in 1956, 1968 and in the 1980's. In the light of the above it is no surprise that there is still a considerable problem of antisemitism in Polish society. As late as 1999, the European Commission against Racism and Intolerance (Council of Europe) issued a human rights report with the following conclusion:

ECRI noted that changing patterns of migration had also brought new challenges, but that Poland remained a society in which the issues of racism, xenophobia, antisemitism and intolerance were still relatively unacknowledged: the legislation in the field was insufficiently implemented, and the introduction of legislative provisions dealing explicitly with national and ethnic minorities was proving slow to realise. The general attitude of society seemed rather closed, towards difference, and feelings of antisemitism remained pervasive. The report adds that there appeared to be little concrete knowledge or monitoring of the extent and manifestations of racism and discrimination within society, which in turn meant that specific measures to combat these phenomenon were often lacking in various fields.

Great, anti-semitism is present as I have written BEFORE several times, but present in the margin of the society.
The facts are pretty simple - you have no anti-semitic attacks in Poland (about one year ago there was one with the head rabbi sprayed by some moron, but it is something virtually unknown), skinhead movement is very weak, fascist undeground (are illegal as communists) can hardly mobilise themselves for anything .

Simply Polish society now is virtually unified, the ethnic and national minorities are very small.
It is more xenophobia channelled by some populism traits than anything.

Anti-semitism itself is reduced to verbal forms and those getting fewer.

A notable recent incident concerns the Catholic radio station Radio Maryja (approximately 3 million listeners) with links to the governing Law and Order party. One of its commentators called restitution efforts by Polish Jews 'extortion', he belittled the Holocaust and accused 'Judeans' of 'sneaking up from the back, trying to force our government to pay protection money, concealing that fact by calling it a compensation.'

Ehh, great Radio Maryja. This is trylly extreme wing of the church, though represents a small minority.
I am not sure what you are talking about, but it is either one of the listeners who are free to call the radio ( as far as the USA - some are extreme...) or one of the people who works for that bastion of ignorance.

Actually it is more complicated - the links to the Law and Justice are such that the leaders of the party ( who are suprisingly philo-semites...) played the card of the radiostation to undermine extreme-conservative ( anti-EU etc) LPR its coalition partner and the latest 'breakfast'.

The radio is not even under the controll of the Polish church, but of the redemptionists Order which responds directly to Vatican. About one year ago it was brough under the surveillance of a special commision and the as far as I know any anti-semitic remarks were ended.
I remember trying to listen to this once to find out what the hell is it and I really was dismayed with the level of ignorance and anti-EU sentiments, through the remarks of the preachers of hatred present in German press are exaggerated and simplified - it is adressed to extreme-conservative parts of the society, mostly old people who belive that the EU is the nest of moral degeneration.
If I was not for the total freedom (except riot preaching) of expression I would say it should be banned, but for now it is good it is under constant controll, its super-conservative rhetoric faded and will continue to do so, the EU is not the 'great satan' some listeners were made to believe.

This is why the supposed case against Mr Morel is so highly politicised. Let us face it, my friend. Many Poles would love to get their hands on Mr Morel, guilty or not, in order to be able to say: 'Look, Jews were mass-murderers, too. Our father in heaven, are we absolved now?'
Israel, of course, will not play along.

Disgusting.
You are calling Poles anti-semitic bigots now.

May I remind you that Polish courts are not run by skinheads ? Yes, some judges are bald, but it is hardly voluntary...

For now you have thrown some wacky arguments of Polish anti-semitism, one extreme radiostation, verbal anti-semitism present in some circles, cases of denial or too stubborn defense + some purges and pogroms which happened somewhere in the past.

Tell me how the case could be politicised if I have learnt about it from Krook's initial post. I am reading newspapers 3 times per week and so far I have't seen a single remark, at least I don't remmeber any...

Finally how a country with apparently so biased courts can be in the EU, European Council, UN and other organisations ?
I am working in Human Rights area and I don't remember anyone questioning that... how strange...

If Poland is the nest of anti-semitism, bigotry, extreme nationalism and run by skinheaded KKK witchhunters how could it be that we are together with the Netherlands in the EU ?:laugh4:

Fragony

11-27-2006, 14:21

If Poland is the nest of anti-semitism, bigotry, extreme nationalism and run by skinheaded KKK witchhunters how could it be that we are together with the Netherlands in the EU ?:laugh4:

Must be the lufka's. God I love it when AdrianII makes friends, annoy a pole, mention Jedwabne, always works :laugh4:

cegorach

11-27-2006, 14:30

Hmmm poles are hard to annoy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:SIF-Overhead-Wires-1-Cropped.jpg

Fragony

11-27-2006, 14:43

Hmmm poles are hard to annoy...

Mind if I try?

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP7.HTM

All that genocide, you guys never thought about quiting? :laugh4:

CrossLOPER

11-27-2006, 14:47

Posting in thread that, in any other forum on the internets, would have broken into one of the most awesome bouts of insult.

Stig

11-27-2006, 14:52

Aye we had a discussion about it before Tarrak closed it because of clear nationalism and hate.
And because someone (a Pole, obviously) called me a nazi, because I disagreed to him ~D

But good link Fragsy
*applauds*
I must remember that one, might come in use some time ~D

cegorach

11-27-2006, 15:08

Mind if I try?

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/SOD.CHAP7.HTM

All that genocide, you guys never thought about quiting? :laugh4:

Totally useless. The number of deaths among the 'expelled' is (according to the German state commision) around 40 000 ( I would have to check the last Saturday 'Rzeczpospolita' for the name of that commision) , if that is all what you can throw... it is... amusing...

@Stig

Aye we had a discussion about it before Tarrak closed it because of clear nationalism and hate.
And because someone (a Pole, obviously) called me a nazi, because I disagreed to him

In this thread ? I can't see such remarks...

Fragony

11-27-2006, 15:12

if that is all what you can throw... it is... amusing...

No, it's annoying. Told you I could do it.

cegorach

11-27-2006, 15:27

No it is not annoying because

you said:

God I love it when AdrianII makes friends, annoy a pole, mention Jedwabne, always works

and I said:

Hmmm poles are hard to annoy...

presenting this link

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:S...-1-Cropped.jpg

because

poles are generally solid cylindrical objects with length greater than its diameter

So much about the right spelling and witty answers... :laugh4:

Fragony

11-27-2006, 15:31

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2a/SIF-Overhead-Wires-1-Cropped.jpg/450px-SIF-Overhead-Wires-1-Cropped.jpg

What are these shoes doing there? Don't you think electrocutation is a pretty cruel method?

I mean killing ok, but at least be a little human about it.

Redleg

11-27-2006, 15:33

While I often disagree with Adrian's opinion on many things - the one thing I do know about his posting style is that his historical information is some of the most accurate. It seems that he has struck a nerve of some ultra-nationalists. If one has a problem with dealing with the history of one's nation - then there is a demonstration of a problem - a failure to learn from the past normally dooms the people to repeat the past. American History is full of such exambles, just as many other nations are even more full of such sad repeats of history. The Worms massacre comes to mind.

Are the two polish patrons attempting to deny that an event in history did indeed happen because it paints a picture of assisting the Nazi's in the destruction of the Jews?

http://www.ceu.hu/jewishstudies/yb03/16shafir.pdf

Doesn't paint a rosy picture of Poland concerning anti-semantism.

Stig

11-27-2006, 15:37

In this thread ? I can't see such remarks...
nope, as I said, in another thread

Fragony

11-27-2006, 15:40

nope, as I said, in another thread

A clear case of anti-semanticism :laugh4: :laugh4: :laugh4:

cegorach

11-27-2006, 15:51

[QUOTE]It seems that he has struck a nerve of some ultra-nationalists. If one has a problem with dealing with the history of one's nation - then there is a demonstration of a problem - a failure to learn from the past normally dooms the people to repeat the past.

Perhaps you should read the discussion before offendig me with this term ?

Are the two polish patrons attempting to deny that an event in history did indeed happen because it paints a picture of assisting the Nazi's in the destruction of the Jews?

Not history paints such picture. We are talking about isolated events which are used to frame the entire nation.
No, Poles didn't assist in Holocaust - except the mob lynching in Podlasia there are no comparable events.

I repeat again - even the crews of the death camps couldn't find the simpliest workers among the apparently anty-semitic Poles in sufficient numbers, why ?

Other nations cooperated (collaboration in general, Waffen SS, puppet partoes, local nazis etc) in organised form - Poles were the only ones who didn't, yet are said to be responsible more than e.g. Americans who did NOTHING to stop the killing. Was a single bomber plane sent to stop the transports ?

http://www.ceu.hu/jewishstudies/yb03/16shafir.pdf

Doesn't paint a rosy picture of Poland concerning anti-semantism.

I will definetely read that and answer the accusations of the author.
Of course some, since I am not going to write a book concerning the topic.

In general I would be greateful if the discussion was read before insulting.

CrossLOPER

11-27-2006, 15:57

I think the issues here are that cegorach is trying to argue that Poland is not an evil anti-semitic state, and Adrian is throwing out a bunch of websites that pertain to something that happened sixty years ago. Also, Redleg believes that cegorach is trying to cover up or at least deny his nation's historical misgivings.

Someone should pin this thread in the entrance hall (...and be immediately expelled, as a noble sacrifice, of course.) as an example of a total breakdown of communication that should be avoided.:dizzy2:

Stig

11-27-2006, 16:01

It's not a breakdown of communications, it's the same as in this thread:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=70844

Fragony

11-27-2006, 16:01

wow, So much aboutfor the right spelling and witty answers...

just breathe mia muca

Adrian II

11-27-2006, 16:18

You are calling Poles anti-semitic bigots now.Read carefully now.

I did not accuse the entire Polish nation, the entire Polish Catholic Church or the entire Cegorach family of antisemitism. I merely established that antisemitism is still a serious problem in Polish society. I have pointed out that Kwasniewski and Walesa have done their share to fight antisemitism.

But I have also pointed to the likes of Cardinal Glemp, who are still twisting the issue of Jedwabne and the wider issue of Polish-Jewish relations this way and that in order to escape the unpalatable truths about Polish antisemitism.

On 27 May, 2001, at All Saints Church in Warsaw as mass was held to commemorate the Jedwabne massacre. Afterwards Glemp destroyed the whole effect by stating that the Jews also owed Poland an apology for siding with the Soviets in WWII!

I understand that a nation accustomed to seeing itself as a victim of history has trouble understanding and accepting that it is implicated in mass murder and persecution itself. But that does not change the facts. The unwillingness to face the facts of the Jedwabne massacre constantly leads to attempts to blame the nazi's, the communists, the Jews themselves - anyone really, as long as they are not Poles.

Apparently you have done your share to fight antisemitism as well and you are to be praised for it, even though your posts do not show the will to come to any deeper understanding of the problem. And it really does not help your case to throw around so many innuendos and accusations.

CrossLOPER

11-27-2006, 16:19

It's not a breakdown of communications, it's the same as in this thread:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=70844
So, some Org members like to compare whose country committed the greatest atrocity? Brilliant form of cultural exchange, I say.

wow, So much aboutfor the right spelling and witty answers...

just breathe mia muca

Rediculus?:inquisitive:

Fragony

11-27-2006, 16:28

Rediculus?:inquisitive:

Oh don't mind me having fun with the Pole, it's great fun. I think I am going to order a bride from there and annoy her all day.

Seamus Fermanagh

11-27-2006, 16:28

Historical anti-semitism (anti-jewish-ism) in Europe is a demostrated fact with lots of evidence.

This is true, historically, of virtually all European nations (with the possible exception of Ireland, probably as a lack of opportunity). Pogroms were a sad fact of this past. While many were probably localized, it is known that some, at least, were state policy. The largest such pogrom was, of course, latterly named the Holacaust.

Sadly, people of many European nations, for a myriad of reasons -- one of which was, no doubt, racism -- participated in the Holacaust. Other nations failed to consider the Holacaust as real and/or refused to alter political and military strategy to address it (again, for numerous reasons, probably including racism). Germans, Poles, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Russians, French and others participated, though only among the Germans and Soviets was this a matter of national policy.

Our Polish orgah's are quite right to suggest that the events of 1956 and before may not represent the current state of affairs very well. On the other hand, Adrian has raised a much more modern points of context including: 1968 -- a whacky year that is college-age for many of our current national leaders and therefore relevant, and events in the 1980's, which are during the active/aware lifespans of many current orgahs.

I am interested in this issue, as modern anti-semitism/andti-jewish-ism/racism is one of the aspects of humanity that is still shaping poitics and violence around the world. I would love to hear our Polish orgahs comment more on the current state of affairs -- with a bit more detail and sourcing if possible -- and would like to have Adrian put up some more info on the incidents he's put forward -- again sources/links appreciated.

Don't let the discussion ruffle feathers too much -- its a surprisingly salient issue about which we could all learn more.

CrossLOPER

11-27-2006, 16:49

Oh don't mind me having fun with the Pole, it's great fun. I think I am going to order a bride from there and annoy her all day.
Fragony, you just marched into a ghetto with cocaine strapped to your nude body. :beam: :whip:

cegorach

11-27-2006, 17:11

Read carefully now.

[QUOTE]I did not accuse the entire Polish nation, the entire Polish Catholic Church or the entire Cegorach family of antisemitism. I merely established that antisemitism is still a serious problem in Polish society.

And this is a case where I partly agree and disagree, because I do see the political reality of Poland and I did observe it for pretty many years in general.

The movements which tried to use anti-semitism are nowhere. NOP candidates in elections last time gathered about 200 votes in one ( 200 000 large) city and that was their best result, some other movements which were mainly populist, but exploited anti-semitism too such as Party X vanished perhaps in X Files 'out there', so in general anti-semitism though it does exist is like racism in the USA or even weaker - present in some circles, but with NONE influence.

Poland is an old democracy only considering its heritage, but the political situation is changing.
Only now apparently 3 major blocks are formed - conservative (with populist trait) Law and Justice and its 'breakfast' parties (almost consumed), conservative-liberal Civic Platform allied with the Peasants' Party (not the exact translation) and left-centric LiD ( Socialdemocrats + centric Democrats).

Even populists traits are moderated. Anti-semitism is seen as stupid and rude, though in verbal form it still exists.
I cannot be happier that the situation is changing this way.

But I have also pointed to the likes of Cardinal Glemp, who are still twisting the issue of Jedwabne and the wider issue of Polish-Jewish relations this way and that in order to escape the unpalatable truths about Polish antisemitism.

I agree, but there is one problem which is the fact that 'Solidarity' and the Church fought the Communism and included rather strange people amongst themselves such as the terrible chaplain Jankowski who did marvellous job in helping Solidarity members in the 80s, but is narrow-minded and vain anti-semite.

In a way some former heroes had hidden vices which were revealed.

Actually only thanks to the things done in the past these men are still present during some events, but only in the margin of the political reality.

On 27 May, 2001, at All Saints Church in Warsaw as mass was held to commemorate the Jedwabne massacre. Afterwards Glemp destroyed the whole effect by stating that the Jews also owed Poland an apology for siding with the Soviets in WWII!

That is why I am thinking about. He never should do that, that was stupid and false, but the sort of generalisation was present in some minds and still is.
The important thing that such men have little or no influence - cannot affect any decision and someimes are present, but only as guests.

I must admit that it was rather a sort of desperate defense coming directly from the 'victim complex' but in addition there are clearly some myths in this area which should be treated with care and eliminated, but it will take some time.

I understand that a nation accustomed to seeing itself as a victim of history has trouble understanding and accepting that it is implicated in mass murder and persecution itself. But that does not change the facts. The unwillingness to face the facts of the Jedwabne massacre constantly leads to attempts to blame the nazi's, the communists, the Jews themselves - anyone really, as long as they are not Poles.

I agree, but there is one problem - the tendency to widen the range of those responsible for the crimes of the few.

Poland didn't experience wide ranged collaboration, yet for about 50 years was accused for that.
This must be changed.

Communist authorities didn't care, actually seen the accusations as much to their advantage instilling animosities, but also the anger towards the West for the betrayal during the war - I believe the particular feeling of being abandoned was described well in latest Grosse's work well, the rest is far worse, unfortunatelly.

Apparently you have done your share to fight antisemitism as well and you are to be praised for it, even though your posts do not show the will to come to any deeper understanding of the problem. And it really does not help your case to throw around so many innuendos and accusations.

I guess I lack patience in this particular are since I made much effort in challeging some anti-semitic voices in the margin of the TW (and other) communities, but what really spurred my outburst of anger was the statement that
Poland cannot be trusted to judge a man simply because he is Jewish !

The second thing is that countering people who use the stereotypes - latest work of Gross - is always easy.
If a myth is well established - the myth of popular support for the Holocaust, collaboration and even of large scale purges targeting the Jews it is never easy to face that.

I do realise it will take at least 20-30 years of work to make the things straight i.e. accept the crimes done by some Poles against the Jews, but it will NOT be done by accepting those offending myths.

Both Polish and Jewish side have their myths and extremists ready to die in their defence, but the fact that there ARE books in English which spread and support corrupted point of view of one side gain support as well-established and proven is what I really despise.

In Poland we are especially concerned about the way we are perceived abroad, I guess it is a national trauma started when during the difficult times of mid XVIIIth century biased point of view of our enemies gained wide-spread acceptance in the world with little (though valuable - from Rousseau to Orwell and Davies) or none opposition.
It is pretty exhausting to finish fighting one lie only to see more coming...

Of course since we are in the EU at least we are listened to more than before, but it is a generation long work ahead.

Personally I am damn PROUD of newer events such as Israel's army commemorating the Warsaw Uprising of 1944 or the military cooperation of our countries - slowly, but surely the picture of Poland is changing in Israel's media too, but still quite recently there were pictures of 'Polish fascists beating Jews before war' who in fact were French collaborators....:whip:

Adrian II

11-27-2006, 17:15

Historical anti-semitism (anti-jewish-ism) in Europe is a demonstrated fact with lots of evidence. This is true, historically, of virtually all European nations (with the possible exception of Ireland, probably as a lack of opportunity).The more interesting fact I think is not its prevalence, but the different shapes and forms it took in each.

In The Netherlands there has never been a single act of organised violence against Jews in modern history, bar the various pogroms perpetrated by the Germans during 1941-1945. Not a single lynching like that of Leo Frank in Marietta in the U.S. in 1915. There certainly has never been a large, militant antisemitic movement such as the Ku Klux Klan, a movement with hundreds of thousands of members and a popular film, The Birth of a Nation, as its main inspiration.

The first large German pogrom in Amsterdam in October 1941 was met with a mass public transport strike which the German authorities had to suppress. Later they managed to harness or intimidate part of the Dutch transport personnel into aiding and abetting the deportation of Dutch Jews.

The real blemish on Dutch society, apart from the political and economic collaboration of sectors of society and the indifference of others to the fate of the Jews, was the fact that the Dutch provided the largest contingent for the Waffen SS for the East Front: 20.000 men.

I don't know what this says about our variety of antisemitism, except that it was apparently of the law-abiding kind. Which does not make it the slightest bit more acceptable, in case anyone wonders.

cegorach

11-27-2006, 17:20

Oh don't mind me having fun with the Pole, it's great fun. I think I am going to order a bride from there and annoy her all day.

It is mutual, it reminds me a TWC member who was permanently suspended because I made him desperate to counter my arguments which he couldn't achieve because lacked any knowledge related to the topic. So he repeatedly offended me with the grace and skill of a wounded elephant.

But some people have a better purpose, argue with them and you will gain friends ehh Fragony ? :yes:

cegorach

11-27-2006, 17:33

I don't know what this says about our variety of antisemitism, except that it was apparently of the law-abiding kind. Which does not make it the slightest bit more acceptable, in case anyone wonders.

True, there were many cases like this.
It actually might happen in Poland if not the totally anti-Polish stance of the Nazis which was one of the many reasons why there was pretty much unified anti-Nazi refusal to cooperate.
Those who did, pretty much doomed themselves, at least in most cases.

True the general rule was somehow breached in some areas when it comes to the relations with the Jews, but remained small scale and pretty much isolated cases
from 'szmalcownicy' ( the exact translation do not exist, though the best would be 'dirt') the people who denounced Jews, but also underground members and other and were sentenced for death by the underground courts to the ordinary people - still as the former leader of the Israeli parliament Simon Weiss said one scum could doom 30 Jews, 30 Poles were necessary to hid one Jew...:book:

Seamus Fermanagh

11-27-2006, 17:42

In The Netherlands there has never been a single act of organised violence against Jews in modern history, bar the various pogroms perpetrated by the Germans during 1941-1945. Not a single lynching like that of Leo Frank in Marietta in the U.S. in 1915. There certainly has never been a large, militant antisemitic movement such as the Ku Klux Klan, a movement with hundreds of thousands of members and a popular film, The Birth of a Nation, as its main inspiration.

While the USA has never launched a pogrom against Jews, you are quite correct that the Klukkers and our own Aryan Nation folks are virulently anti-semitic. I was not trying to suggest that the USA lacked our quota of demonstrated numbskulls. Our efforts vis-a-vis pogroms were focused on our own indigenous Amerinds.

The first large German pogrom in Amsterdam in October 1941 was met with a mass public transport strike which the German authorities had to suppress. Later they managed to harness or intimidate part of the Dutch transport personnel into aiding and abetting the deportation of Dutch Jews.

Bully for them. The Dutch have had, historically, a better record for tolerance than many.

Fragony

11-27-2006, 17:54

It is mutual, it reminds me a TWC member who was permanently suspended because I made him desperate to counter my arguments which he couldn't achieve because lacked any knowledge related to the topic. So he repeatedly offended me with the grace and skill of a wounded elephant.

But some people have a better purpose, argue with them and you will gain friends ehh Fragony ? :yes:

I guess it's settled then, your cave or mine :laugh4:

Where do you see me having arguments? You really think too highly of me, just here for the snappy remarks and good looks. Why do you know how a wounded elephant moves by the way? I do agree they have a big nose, must have deserved it :laugh4:

cegorach

11-27-2006, 19:50

Our Polish orgah's are quite right to suggest that the events of 1956 and before may not represent the current state of affairs very well. On the other hand, Adrian has raised a much more modern points of context including: 1968 -- a whacky year that is college-age for many of our current national leaders and therefore relevant, and events in the 1980's, which are during the active/aware lifespans of many current orgahs.

Actually many people from the current Polish political parties were shaped either by the events of 1968 (some, generally retired ) or 1980s, however there is little BUT before 1989 Poland was still communist controlled regime with the presence of the Red Army for our protection... Events of late 80s and after 1989 eliminated the hardline communist leadership with the exception of their trials and gave the power either to the youngest generation of communist members ( post-communist parties) or of course to the whole crowd of former opposition leaders and activists.
'Solidarity' though a massive 10 million large organisation had as we know now little or no anti-semitic loonies, perhaps more in local areas. Most if not all present anti-semitic crazies were not present either in the opposition or in the Party, some were even imported such as the peruvian/canadian/american Tyminski of the laughable X Party.
In general only the wave in 1968 can be called important enough since before the Jews who escaped were often of those employed in communist security and in 1980s it was only propaganda campaign with little or no results.
The disgraceful events of 1968 were quite complicated - student protests against Soviet presence (after an important Polish theater play was banned as anti-Soviet) and the results of the war between Israel and the (Soviet backed) Arab states. Israel was targeted as the Syonist, imperialist state and the crisis in the Party was exploited by the 'guerillas' ( often former WW2 communist People's Army members) of Moczar, generally described as nationalist communists, anti-intellectual and brutal faction similar to Romanian Caucescu or Korean Kim Ir Sen communists.
The anti-semitic wave was spurred against higher educated, targeting students first, but when the campaign of hate intensified it reached wider areas of country.
You could describe it to the Jakobinite purges in France, but more civilised, though more shameful.
In a way it affected leftist intellectuals in the world - especially the way they perceived Poland, confirming some anti-Polish prejudices.
Nonetheless it marks the beginning of first domestic anti-communist movements which started in response to this primitive campaign - people like Michnik, Modzelewski, Kuron etc started their work at that time.

From historian's point of view I can compare that to the riots in 1668 led by the ruling king of Poland against the opposition leader Jan Sobieski- he also used the dimmest and easiest to exploit populist slogans to attack his foe and ruin his position. As in 1968 it ended in a failure.
In the 20th century it was also changed after the worker's protests in 1970 which were bathed in blood.
I think that the side-effects of the events in 1968 are still felt, though rather abroad - T.Gross is one of the people who escaped the wave of discrimination. In Poland for sure this anti-intellectual in general and anti-semitic especially wave affected the situation for a couple of years, though events of 1970 changed it much and when in 1976 the same slogans were used to attack KOR which supported strikes ( alliance of workers with the 'brains') branding those leaders as Jews it had little if none effect at all. In 1980 KOR was essential imput to the first victories of the new massive 'Solidarity'.

That is the general summary.:book:

Redleg

11-27-2006, 19:50

Perhaps you should read the discussion before offendig me with this term ?

Maybe you should read your answer. You are indeed coming off just like an ultranationalist. If you believe that is offense, then report the post. But then again you should read Adrain's posts with a little more clearly without the glasses of ultranationalism on.

Adrian II

11-27-2006, 20:07

[QUOTE=Adrian II]The movements which tried to use anti-semitism are nowhere.The marginalisation of these overtly antisemitic movements is a fine achievement of Polish intellectuals, politicians, trade unionists, newspapermen and clergy, no doubt about that.

Crude antisemitism may have been banned to the Internet, but antisemitism (like other forms of racism) has many disguises. There is more to antisemitism than the extreme variety of 'I hate Jews, all Jews must die'. This exterminatory antisemitism, a term coined by Jonathan Goldhagen, is found mostly in the Middle East these days.

There are many less extreme varieties. One of them is the denial of previous episodes of antisemitism. This is the Glemp variety that tries to deny Poland has a history of virulent, even exterminatory antisemitism. It is akin to Le Pen's remark that the gas chambers were only a 'detail' of the Second World War.

Another variety is antisemitism by association. It does not speak its name, yet it speaks in a clear voice. This is the variety of some right-wing ministers in the present Polish government.

The Polish Minister of Education for instance, Giertych, is honorary chairman of the All-Polish Youth, an ugly skinhead gang. The All-Polish Youth go back to the 1930's when they spearheaded attacks against Jewish students and Jewish businesses. These days they present the nazi salute during their meetings. The youth movement indoctrinates its members with the use of American Henry Ford’s The International Jew and other literary gems.

Members of Mr Giertych's party, the League of Polish Families, appear on Radio Maryja to denounce 'Jewish sabotage' of the nation, the plunder of Poland by the 'Holocaust industry' and plots to turn Poland into a 'Jewish reservation'.

A member of Mr Giertych's party, Marcin Libicki, who is a Member of the European Parliament for Poland, recently demanded the destruction of Poznan's historic synagogue. In his words (in Gazeta Wyborcza, 12 January, 2006) the synagogue 'has no aesthetic value' and its construction is 'an anti-Polish act' and 'part of a Kulturkampf against Polish and Catholic influence in the city.'

Need I go on?

Mr Giertych will probably not be caught in some antisemitic discourse, at least not publicly. But if Mr Giertych does not dissociate himself from his party, his youth movement, his fascist family members and his fascist friends, I think the Polish government should dissociate itself from Mr Giertych.

cegorach

11-27-2006, 20:08

Redleg

11-27-2006, 20:26

He questioned the abilities of Polish courts and the general political situation branding that as anti-semitic.
M8 what are you talking about ? The fact that I disagree is something which defines me as untra-super-hyper-mega-nationalist ?
Ehh joys of internet forums...

nope the disagreement does not define you as such, the method of your discourse is what does. When one states that comments about their country are insulting when they are historical truths leads one to conclude that one is arguing from an ultra-nationalistic viewpoint. Shall we review some of your comments that fall in that category. For instance this one.

"Other nations cooperated (collaboration in general, Waffen SS, puppet partoes, local nazis etc) in organised form - Poles were the only ones who didn't, yet are said to be responsible more than e.g. Americans who did NOTHING to stop the killing. Was a single bomber plane sent to stop the transports ?"

This is especially damning toward the ultra-nationalistic view since the thread itself is about a Pole who committed war crimes. That historical evidence shows that Poles were involved in all the areas mentioned in your statement, shows that you are using the blinder's of ultranationalism to cloud the actually history - to filter out the errors of the past.

cegorach

11-27-2006, 20:49

[QUOTE=cegorach]

[QUOTE]There are many less extreme varieties. One of them is the denial of previous episodes of antisemitism. This is the Glemp variety that tries to deny Poland has a history of virulent, even exterminatory antisemitism. It is akin to Le Pen's remark that the gas chambers were only a 'detail' of the Second World War.

Rather too remote link. It is not Holocaust denial, but too stubborn defence of 'victimhood' or rather 'cult of suffering' (a sort of 'chosen nation' ideology somehow sanctified in the Polish culture at least from the XVIIIth century - a kind of romantist vision of history.

Another variety is antisemitism by association. It does not speak its name, yet it speaks in a clear voice. This is the variety of some right-wing ministers in the present Polish government.

Nope. Currently even hidden remarks give you a headache if you are in politics , especially since the open remarks generally qualify as a crime according to the penal code. Generally anyone blamed does really everything that it is not true - apparently not in fashion amongst so many anti-semitic Poles.

The Polish Minister of Education for instance, Giertych, is honorary chairman of the All-Polish Youth, an ugly skinhead gang. The All-Polish Youth go back to the 1930's when they spearheaded attacks against Jewish students and Jewish businesses. These days they present the nazi salute during their meetings. The youth movement indoctrinates its members with the use of American Henry Ford’s The International Jew and other literary gems.

They clearly are a band of morons, but if the organisation was anti-semitic before the war, through fought by the police at that time, there are a couple of points which should be answered:

1. as the organisation it was re-created after 1989, have no idea when,
2. skinheads are not present there, they are connnected to semi-fascist NOP which is over the edge not only of the political arena, but also of the sanity itself.
3. The nazi salute - they are not using that , there was one well-known case when 3 drunken members of it shown the bloody Hail Hitler in a restaurant and it was all over the news and the 'poor' Mr.Giertych had to explain that everywhere. It was one of the factors to the fall of the party of Giertych.
4. The anti-semitic books are present not only there, but I guess are not soe difficult to get, same with extreme-left press and similar.
It is rather the matter of freedom of speech and inactivity of public persecution - in both areas, there is no acceptance to these works.

Members of Mr Giertych's party, the League of Polish Families, appear on Radio Maryja to denounce 'Jewish sabotage' of the nation, the plunder of Poland by the 'Holocaust industry' and plots to turn Poland into a 'Jewish reservation'.

They did spread such rubbish, but since LPR is in the ruling coalition the kind of remarks, even hiddedn are virtually non-existent.

A member of Mr Giertych's party, Marcin Libicki, who is a Member of the European Parliament for Poland, recently demanded the destruction of Poznan's historic synagogue. In his words (in Gazeta Wyborcza, 12 January, 2006) the synagogue 'has no aesthetic value' and its construction is 'an anti-Polish act' and 'part of a Kulturkampf against Polish and Catholic influence in the city.'

???? I must check the case, though it is somehow strange at least, besides at that time LPR wasn't in the government.

I wouldn't be too suprised, one of their parliament members claims that dragons lived in reality couple of centuries ago. Band of nuts which was given support by the Euro-phobes - in the next elections they will disappear, a band of stupid morons, but we have UK Independence party and similar there too. Overall another show of these clowns who bring only shame.

Mr Giertych will probably not be caught in some antisemitic discourse, at least not publicly. But if Mr Giertych does not dissociate himself from his party, his youth movement, his fascist family members and his fascist friends, I think the Polish government should dissociate itself from Mr Giertych.

Fascist is too big word - it is extreme nationalism, but hardly fascism, at least if you see the 4 points above.

You see the big problem is that the presence in the Polish government
seemed to cure the man and the whole party from making any remarks, even hidden.
He actually visited Jedwabne commemorating the victims of the lynching etc and actually all the remarks I could hear from LPR were pro-semitic, pro-Israel etc.
They are populists, they see anti-semitism is hardly a useful tool so don't use that.

Besides the party is a corpse - stupid ideas of its leadership ( to ban Darwin theory, anti-gay slogans etc) made it lose the local elections with the second-in-command of the party grasping the mighty 0,31 % of votes in Warsaw two weeks ago - Wierzejski lost even with 'Morons and Gnomes' spoof party which got 0,71 %...

In general the conservative voters of LPR were absorbed by the Law and Justice, though without its more extreme ideology.

If that is all you can throw at me...
And in what way it proves the Polish justice system and the government are anti-semitic ?

True it is somehow too easy - I am very interested in Polish politics so you are discussing things which are easy to me, but hard to investigate by you, no wonder there are remarks which are little or not true. But you couldn't possibly know it anyway.
BTW What source described the idiotic Youths as skinheads using Nazi greeting ? I must congratulate the author for his 'insightful' and 'detailed' research.:laugh4:

cegorach

11-27-2006, 21:01

nope the disagreement does not define you as such, the method of your discourse is what does. When one states that comments about their country are insulting when they are historical truths leads one to conclude that one is arguing from an ultra-nationalistic viewpoint. Shall we review some of your comments that fall in that category. For instance this one.

"Other nations cooperated (collaboration in general, Waffen SS, puppet partoes, local nazis etc) in organised form - Poles were the only ones who didn't, yet are said to be responsible more than e.g. Americans who did NOTHING to stop the killing. Was a single bomber plane sent to stop the transports ?"

This is especially damning toward the ultra-nationalistic view since the thread itself is about a Pole who committed war crimes. That historical evidence shows that Poles were involved in all the areas mentioned in your statement, shows that you are using the blinder's of ultranationalism to cloud the actually history - to filter out the errors of the past.

Ohh please. Organised cooperation m8. Read my posts and find when and where I denied the usual collaboration, the crimes on the Jewish people of the szmalcownicy scums or the mobs which were killing in Jedwabne or 22 other towns in Podlasia ?
That is why I do not even discuss collaboration of this kind in other states.

Also when did the Poles fight in Waffen SS - any volunteers ? None. All Waffen SS-related books do agree that there were none Polish volunteers despite Nazi recruitment.
Where are the Polish puppet parties which collaborated with the Nazis ? Nowhere ? Strange I thought that:that Poles were involved in all the areas mentioned in your statement.
Where are the Polish Nazis ? Nowhere ? Also strange :since Poles were involved in all the areas mentioned in your statement.

Indeed a damning proof...

That is what I DID address - the organised collaboration. The fact that it didn't exist in Poland is ALL what I said, didn't I ?
In addition I said that one of the reasons was that the Germans destroyed any possibilities to recruit such - how stange for untra-nationalist :laugh4:

Kraxis

11-27-2006, 21:19

My goodness...

Kralizec

11-27-2006, 21:28

Oh my...

Kraxis in the backroom? ~;)

Adrian II

11-27-2006, 21:41

If that is all you can throw at me...Let me see. So far we've had the Primate of the Polish Catholic Church, the Minister of Education, an antisemitic radio station with 3 million listeners.

What more do you want?

If Polish law is so strict about antisemitic propaganda, then how come that charges against the radio station are dropped time and again? Last summer the station broadcast a column about the Holocaust being a 'Jewish ploy' to bleed Poland to death via reparations. The station's head, Father Rydcyk, said he was not responsible for the content of his broadcasts. No prosecution ensued.

The Vatican has tried in vain to silence Radio Marija. The reason it couldn't is that the Polish Bishops refused to cooperate with Rome. After the Pope spoke out publicly against antisemitism last October, Radio Marija countered by insinuating that the Pope, being a German, only spoke because he was afraid 'the Jews' would brand him an antisemite if he didn't. No prosecution ensued.

Of course the European Union is concerned about the present extreme governement of Poland. Last June the European Parliament adopted a resolution condemning 'the general rise in racist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic, and homophobic intolerance in Poland.'

Need I go on?

Shall I give you Polish Deputy Prime Minister, Andrzej Lepper? Mr Lepper (just like American racist David Duke) has an honorary degree from an extreme right-wing private university in Ukraine, the Inter-regional Academy of Personnel Management (MAUP). When asked why he did not sever his ties with this antisemitic hotbed, Mr Lepper answered: 'Alright, call me an anti-Semite.'

You want me to elaborate on the Speaker of the Polish Parliament, Marek Jurek, who is a big friend of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet?

You want me to elaborate on the sibling 'ducks', President Lech Kaczynski and his brother, Prime Minister Jaroslav Kaczynski, who have such close ties to Radio Maryja? Just like Jaroslav's predecessor, Prime Minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, who wanted to construct a highway from Warsaw to Torun for the convenience of the radio station?

Or on President Lech Kaczynski's close friends, such as his campaign adviser Michal Kaminski, former member of a fascist movement, who in 2001 mobilised the population of Jedwabne against a commemoration of the 1941 massacre we spoke of? With Kaminski, we have come full circle to Jedwabne and 1941. That is not a coincidence.

In my previous post I praised Poles who fought antisemitism. But the truth of the matter is that entry into the EU with its strict rules about discrimination was a major influence, wasn't it? In the end, Brussels forced Warsaw to clean up its act. And it has. Antisemitism has disappeared from the discourse of major political leaders in Poland.

But it is there, my friend. And it is up there.

Redleg

11-27-2006, 22:40

Ohh please. Organised cooperation m8. Read my posts and find when and where I denied the usual collaboration, the crimes on the Jewish people of the szmalcownicy scums or the mobs which were killing in Jedwabne or 22 other towns in Podlasia ?
That is why I do not even discuss collaboration of this kind in other states.

You might indeed want to reread your posts

Also when did the Poles fight in Waffen SS - any volunteers ? None. All Waffen SS-related books do agree that there were none Polish volunteers despite Nazi recruitment.
Where are the Polish puppet parties which collaborated with the Nazis ? Nowhere ? Strange I thought that:that Poles were involved in all the areas mentioned in your statement.
Where are the Polish Nazis ? Nowhere ? Also strange :since Poles were involved in all the areas mentioned in your statement.

Indeed a damning proof...

Oh this thread itself seems to discredit your stance here. Is not the individual in this thread a Jew of Polish citizenship whom committed warcrimes in Poland for Nazi Germany....

I am wondering if you are on purpose forgetting about SS Heimwehr "Danzig" - while it was an independent city prior to WW2 - it is now in the terrority of Poland.

That is what I DID address - the organised collaboration. The fact that it didn't exist in Poland is ALL what I said, didn't I ?
In addition I said that one of the reasons was that the Germans destroyed any possibilities to recruit such - how stange for untra-nationalist :laugh4:

I find your postion rather amusing. Denial stacked upon denial.

cegorach

11-27-2006, 22:56

[QUOTE]Let me see. So far we've had the Primate of the Polish Catholic Church, the Minister of Education, an antisemitic radio station with 3 million listeners.

God, again from the beginning. Nope you will not make me to repeat the whole thing about Glemp or the radio of Giertych - I have already spoken and not going to repeat same sentence again and again.
Also 3 million listeners seems interesting, though notetthat in Poland there are 38 million people - that makes less than 10 % of them potentiall anti-semites, potential since the stattion broadcasts much different message for most of the time, but who actually cares it is better to frame them all + add some hints of 'possible' anti-semitism, possible involvement and the 'fascist' taunting to describe extreme-conservatist and populist party.
For the God's sake I would LOVE to call them fascist that would mean they would disappear tomorrow, but wait, they already are dead despite the fact that they are not fascist.

What more do you want?

He, he, he I countered it all, yet you persist.

If Polish law is so strict about antisemitic propaganda, then how come that charges against the radio station are dropped time and again? Last summer the station broadcast a column about the Holocaust being a 'Jewish ploy' to bleed Poland to death via reparations. The station's head, Father Rydcyk, said he was not responsible for the content of his broadcasts. No prosecution ensued.

That is tru from the legal point of view he was right since the listeners are free to call he can't controll everything, though it is close to the edge actually. It was moderated, though it was far worse couple of years ago as I remember form the press.

The Vatican has tried in vain to silence Radio Marija. The reason it couldn't is that the Polish Bishops refused to cooperate with Rome. After the Pope spoke out publicly against antisemitism last October, Radio Marija countered by insinuating that the Pope, being a German, only spoke because he was afraid 'the Jews' would brand him an antisemite if he didn't. No prosecution ensued.

Not true.

One thing the radio is not all around anti-semitic station it commts most of its time to simple praying service and simiar.
So it cannot be silenced completely, though it is still considered an option.
Currently it is under surveillance of a special comitee of the clergy and the redemptorist order.
The event you are talking about - I remember that.
The radio had to apologise for the opinion made by its guests - not an antisemite actually, but very bold and controversial professor. He is brutally honest in what he thinks, but is not anti-semitic. I don't remember the name of the guy, perhaps later I will find that. Some effort and I will dig for his biography. Anyway THERE WAS a prosecution, and was closed this year, recently since it was just an opinion even if highly unpopular and distaseful. It was something about the reasons of Pope's behaviour.

Of course the European Union is concerned about the present extreme governement of Poland. Last June the European Parliament adopted a resolution condemning 'the general rise in racist, xenophobic, anti-Semitic, and homophobic intolerance in Poland.'

That was widely discussed here and judged as too early and too much. It placed Poland with states such as Germany or France, but was funny since this whole 'rise' of anti-semitism was defined by the single, peculiar attack on the chief rabbi of Poland who was attacked with spray (pepper - I think) and was captured after 3 or 4 days.
The whole rest is questionable too, especially this racism accusation. Actually Poland is one of the few countries where the number of those hate crimes is getting fewer.
Xenophobia - is that a joke ? More tourists are visiting the country than ever before, the number of Poles travelling abroad is also high - what could cause such rise, especially since it is NOT true - as I have said the number of such crimes is smaller than a year before or two years before etc.
Homophobia - true LPR is clearly homophobic, but it adds nothing in the are of anti-semitism, unless you claim that most of the Jews are gays or something...

Shall I give you Polish Deputy Prime Minister, Andrzej Lepper? Mr Lepper (just like American racist David Duke) has an honorary degree from an extreme right-wing private university in Ukraine, the Inter-regional Academy of Personnel Management (MAUP). When asked why he did not sever his ties with this antisemitic hotbed, Mr Lepper answered: 'Alright, call me an anti-Semite.'

Another monster among the politics.
And the statement...He was NOT serious ! The guy says various things - the crappy Self-defence leader is known for that, a demagogue, though he doesn't play the anti-semitic card unfortunatelly - because this would kill his party easier... I really regret that.
It is more like 'the EU bleeds us dry' or 'they cheated us all' party.

You want me to elaborate on the Speaker of the Polish Parliament, Marek Jurek, who is a big friend of Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet?

I know that he praised him as anti-communist. Still it is hardly anti-semitic.

You want me to elaborate on the sibling 'ducks', President Lech Kaczynski and his brother, Prime Minister Jaroslav Kaczynski, who have such close ties to Radio Maryja? Just like Jaroslav's predecessor, Prime Minister Kazimierz Marcinkiewicz, who wanted to construct a highway from Warsaw to Torun for the convenience of the radio station?

I explained those 'close ties'. Besides the Kaczynski brothers are those philo-semites whom I mentioned some time ago. Their 'friendship' had only one purpose, what ? 'Consuming' the LPR.
Ha, ha, ha. Also the motorway thing is here ! Ok tomorrow I will announce that we will build a motorway from Warsaw to Tokio. That was some sort of idea, which wasn't even in the news ! If this adds more to anti-semitism in Poland I can't even find it surreal...

Or on President Lech Kaczynski's close friends, such as his campaign adviser Michal Kaminski, former member of a fascist movement, who in 2001 mobilised the population of Jedwabne against a commemoration of the 1941 massacre we spoke of? With Kaminski, we have come full circle to Jedwabne and 1941. That is not a coincidence.

Kaminski is a fascist movement ? First time I heard something like this...

In my previous post I praised Poles who fought antisemitism. But the truth of the matter is that entry into the EU with its strict rules about discrimination was a major influence, wasn't it? In the end, Brussels forced Warsaw to clean up its act. And it has. Antisemitism has disappeared from the discourse of major political leaders in Poland.

Now it is ridiculous. The EU saviour of Poland. Brussels MADE us humane. What about the works of Wyszynski or Karol Wojtyla. What about Bartoszewski, Kuron, Michnik, Geremek, Suchocka, Mazowiecki ?
No notes ? What about Edelman - the last leader of the Ghetto uprising ?
You are ignoring the entire political changes here as if it is all about Polish hyper-nationalist anti-semitism which was TAMED by the EU, what if I said that the people you mentioned either were not in power untill 2006 or simply have no connection to anti-semitism ?

Weird ? Actually populists gained more support only in the last elections. So entering the EU apparently made them MORE popular.
A strange phenomenon, isn't it ?

But it is there, my friend. And it is up there

Ha, ha Now I remember you are quoting the same webpage I was reading lately - wasn't it from 2005 actually ?

The same organisation released a new report 3 days ago. I hope it will soon on their webpage.

Anyway I still don't get it - in what way does it make the Polish courts anti-semitic ?

cegorach

11-27-2006, 23:08

You might indeed want to reread your posts

[QUOTE]Oh this thread itself seems to discredit your stance here. Is not the individual in this thread a Jew of Polish citizenship whom committed warcrimes in Poland for Nazi Germany....

I thought it was done for the Communists, anyway in what way was that organised ? Was he a member of Polish collaboration organisation ? Their name was ? Please tell me.

I repeat organised collaboration - so he is a good example, great...

I am wondering if you are on purpose forgetting about SS Heimwehr "Danzig" - while it was an independent city prior to WW2 - it is now in the terrority of Poland.

Ahh I see. Do you know let's add those units formed in former Breslau, now Wroclaw in Poland or in Stettin, now Szczecin Poland. Or perhaps more let's add all SS units which have EVER been to Poland to your list this way actually SS 'LAH' is first rate Polish SS unit too.
Hitler was in Poland, let's add him to - he clearly was a Polish collaborator.

That is a nonsense. All units coming from Danzig were formed from GERMANS.

Do you know that SS Heimwehr "Danzig" was formed from those SS units which were fighting against Poles in 1939 ? No ? That is a pity.

THERE were NONE POLISH volunteers in Waffen SS, but thank you for the example with SS Danzig - a brilliant joke for my collection. ;)

Please enjoy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Heimwehr_Danzig, brilliant, really good !

I find your postion rather amusing. Denial stacked upon denial.

Mutual, but I would read the post again in your place - perhaps you will find a flaw in your arguments...

Redleg

11-27-2006, 23:42

I thought it was done for the Communists, anyway in what way was that organised ? Was he a member of Polish collaboration organisation ? Their name was ? Please tell me.

I repeat organised collaboration - so he is a good example, great...

Then you might want to read Adrian's posts and my own once again because it seems your having a problem. I have become even more amused...

Ahh I see. Do you know let's add those units formed in former Breslau, now Wroclaw in Poland or in Stettin, now Szczecin Poland. Or perhaps more let's add all SS units which have EVER been to Poland to your list this way actually SS 'LAH' is first rate Polish SS unit too.
Hitler was in Poland, let's add him to - he clearly was a Polish collaborator.

That is a nonsense. All units coming from Danzig were formed from GERMANS.

I stated Poland now didn't I. It seems your are exhibiting a form of ultra-nationalism. Such attempts as above demonstrate a poor form of Rebuttal to the arguement presented

Do you know that SS Heimwehr "Danzig" was formed from those SS units which were fighting against Poles in 1939 ? No ? That is a pity.

THERE were NONE POLISH volunteers in Waffen SS, but thank you for the example with SS Danzig - a brilliant joke for my collection. ;)

Please enjoy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SS_Heimwehr_Danzig, brilliant, really good !

Actually the Wikipedia is limited in its information. You might want to research just a little more.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/64/a2063864.shtml

To keep as many as possible of its better-trained troops available as a mobile striking force to counter Allied landings in Greece, Army Group E had already received a number of "Eastern" battalions, composed of Russians, Ukranians, Poles, and other Slavic groups, to supplement its German security units.

Found in any History about German Divisions serving in the Balkans.

Mutual, but I would read the post again in your place - perhaps you will find a flaw in your arguments...

Oh I know my flaw - however the point that you are responding like an ultra-nationalist is not one of those flaws.

Adrian II

11-27-2006, 23:46

Kaminski is a fascist movement ? First time I heard something like this...I am not surprised. You belittle or ignore most of what I say.

In the 1990's Michal Kaminski was in the National Rebirth of Poland, a fascist and antisemitic movement. It was founded in 1981 and it has campaigned for Holocaust denier David Irving, the expulsion of all remaining Jews from Poland, the bombing of Israel, etcetera.

I leave you with a final example of a fine upstanding Polish citizen who has recently made it to the top. Piotr Farfal, a member of the fascist All-Polish Youth we spoke of, has been appointed deputy head of the state-run Polish television TVP. Gazeta Wyborcza exposed his antecedents. The paper reported that in 1995 Farfal had set up his own racist magazine called Front which called for 'harsh repression against Jews if our nation wishes to develop independently and healthily. It is time we rid ourselves totally of the Jews. Poles bribed by Jewish money and selling to the Jews deserve not only our contempt, but also severe punishment. Our cause is holy, Jews out of Poland!' Farfal also wrote in Holocaust-denying magazines. And lest we forget, Mr Farfal is a political appointee for the League of Polish Families of Mr Giertych, see above.

We have antisemites running the Polish Catholic Church, the Ministry of Education, the largest private radio station in the country, and now public television as well.

Sleep tight.

Redleg

11-27-2006, 23:55

double post

Stig

11-28-2006, 00:24

I'm with Tarrak on this one

oh my goodness, this is really getting out of hand

Zalmoxis

11-28-2006, 03:25

Sounds strange.
In some previous discussions I mentioned Salomon Morel.
Here I found official documents about him - its from IPN - Commision to Detect Crimes Against Polish Nation. IPN is special organ to detect war crimes and communist crimes.

That guy was accused of genocide but Israel don't want neither extradite nor
judge him. Into that article there is official Israel document. What is interesting, that document doesn't tell the truth. In my opinion Israel is protecting that criminal only because he is Jew. And this is nothing than
RACISM.

http://www.ipn.gov.pl/eng/eng_news_high_morel.html

Read and tell....
Ok, I"ve heard from some of my friends that a (significant) number of the officers that committed genocide against the various people killed during the Holocaust were Jewish themselves. How true is this?

Kralizec

11-28-2006, 03:30

Redleg

11-28-2006, 03:54

Ok, I"ve heard from some of my friends that a (significant) number of the officers that committed genocide against the various people killed during the Holocaust were Jewish themselves. How true is this?

From what I have read the number of such individuals is extremely low. Most of the foundation for this arguement was that many of the Jewish Prisoners were put in postions that they either assisted the Germans in the genocide or become victims themselves.

http://www.death-camps.org/occupation/chelmno.html

http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/treblinka.html

cegorach

11-28-2006, 07:57

[QUOTE]Then you might want to read Adrian's posts and my own once again because it seems your having a problem. I have become even more amused...

Good fun.

I stated Poland now didn't I. It seems your are exhibiting a form of ultra-nationalism. Such attempts as above demonstrate a poor form of Rebuttal to the arguement presented

Of course you didn't, besides how can Poles coollaborate with someone who is dead ?

Actually the Wikipedia is limited in its information. You might want to research just a little more.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/ww2peopleswar/stories/64/a2063864.shtml

Found in any History about German Divisions serving in the Balkans.

It is not about Waffen SS, but Wehrmacht m8 ! The difference ?

Compulsory conscription ! Besides nothing such as 'eastern battalions' consisting of Poles did exist. There were units where Poles could be numerous, but they were either volksdeutche or forced to fight, since a large of Poland was ANNEXED into Germany and there was a notable Polish minority before the war already. If people are forces to fight are they collaborators ?

Still there were NO POLISH VOLUNTEERS IN WAFFEN SS.

Oh I know my flaw - however the point that you are responding like an ultra-nationalist is not one of those flaws

Yeah, right, since I don't agree with the statement about the organised collaboration ? Excuse me, but you seem not to notice the difference between organised and voluntary and seldom involvement in form of lynching or simple denouncing.

From your point of view even Jewish Militia from Ghettos would mean that Jews were Nazi...

Zalmoxis

11-28-2006, 08:24

From what I have read the number of such individuals is extremely low. Most of the foundation for this arguement was that many of the Jewish Prisoners were put in postions that they either assisted the Germans in the genocide or become victims themselves.

http://www.death-camps.org/occupation/chelmno.html

http://www.death-camps.org/treblinka/treblinka.html
Thank you a lot for the information! I just realized how gullible me and my friends are.

cegorach

11-28-2006, 08:30

I am not surprised. You belittle or ignore most of what I say.

Nope I am keeping it on the level of reality - not the exaggerated you do.

In the 1990's Michal Kaminski was in the National Rebirth of Poland, a fascist and antisemitic movement. It was founded in 1981 and it has campaigned for Holocaust denier David Irving, the expulsion of all remaining Jews from Poland, the bombing of Israel, etcetera.

That is interesting, though doesn't give him any support. Besides how could it be that such radical anti-semite was the campaign advisor of philo-semitic Kaczynscy is incredible. Unless he wasn't so bad.

Mr Farfal is a political appointee for the League of Polish Families of Mr Giertych, see above.

He is either removed or will be soon, since the fact was discovered recently.

EDUT - the affair is far less serious than I thought. Honestly I have heard about the guy and didn't follow all the news related to that or simply forgot those.
I have another day off today so I managed to investigate the case.
In June 'Gazeta Wyborcza' described the case and immediatelly it was met with uproar, how such person dares to appear in the public TV. Now after 4 weeks of new articles, news and public announcements it looks this way:
The guy apparently did involve himself with some radical movement when he was 16-18, but defends himself that the entire thing with being the publisher of the pamphlet was without his consent, even knowledge.
I don't agree with this line of defence, but still after checking 9 webpages describing the reactions to the case I can say - it is nothing important.
The guy remains the member of the board http://ww6.tvp.pl/3575,20060509339600.strona , but hardly in controll. Besides the chairman of the board is noone else than Bronisław Wildstein who is Jewish ( ehhh I know people claiming that Jews controll the TV - same extreme, biased point of view, though from the other side).
As the Jewish Forum of Poland http://fzp.jewish.org.pl/listy.html describes that - we have little affair of none consequence with the most important people ( president, PM, others) adressing the trivial issue of a teenager getting lost.
Sure it looks great, but only at the first sight. I must admitt I was carried away too. He can stay in my opinion.

We have antisemites running the Polish Catholic Church, the Ministry of Education, the largest private radio station in the country, and now public television as well.

NO.

Glemp is hardly anti-semitic except his stubborn refusal to accept Jedwabne crime, which is denial or a fact which was controversial at that time.
Now it is not. Isn't it ? And there is noone questioning it - at least amongst sane people...

Radio Maryja IS NOT the largest private station. RMF and Radio Zet are far larger. It is the margin and as I say they do not spent most of their time preaching anti-semitic phobies.
See here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radio_Maryja
especially this:
[QUOTE]Radio Maryja attracts a large audience, whose size isn't exactly clear. The station frequently claims that it has "millions of listeners", but market research usually shows lower numbers: approx. 1.2 million people daily. The audience peaked in 1998 and was estimated to be around 2 million listeners. The station claims that it is listened to by well over 10% of adults in Poland[1], but the most comprehensive market research by Radio Track [2] for the whole of Poland (June-July 2005) shows a 2.5% "share of listening time". [3]

the share of the audience report

https://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b356/cegorach/polska.jpg

yeah 'the largest private station'...:laugh4:

And for a couple of months they even don't dare.
The third is a joke ? Not running, but appointed from the particular party - one of MANY.
THe fact he was spreading anti-semitic messages in the past makes his 'life expetancy' rather low - since the fact was discovered recently I am not sure if he was thrown away or will be soon.
Anyway Giertych condemmned that and promised to investigate the question.
EDIT : Actually everyone investigated the affair - from the president to the chairman and numerous newspapers, NGOs etc. A trivial affair, even though seemed to be important.

I had checked some respected HR organisation reports and anti-racism webpages.

Here are some results - I will look for more.

Amnesty International

http://web.amnesty.org/library/eng-pol/index

check

01/05/2006 2006 Elections to the Human Rights Council: Background information on candidate countries

How many cases of racism and anti-semitic attacks have you found ?

Human Rights Watch

http://www.hrw.org/doc?t=europe&c=poland

Any wide-spread anti-semitism ? None ? Weird...

Simon Wiesenthal Center

That is all which I found marked as anti-semitic

http://www.wiesenthal.com/site/apps/s/content.asp?c=fwLYKnN8LzH&b=253162&ct=2315595

US Department of State - the newest report I could find.

http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/40258.htm

Coordination Forum for countering anti-semitism

http://www.antisemitism.org.il/frontend/english/searchUI.asp

I have searched for Poland from 1st January 2005 to now and I got:

1. August&nbsp30 ,2006
Poland – A Polish Court Exonerated the Commentator of "Radio Marija" of Charges of Antisemitism

2. August&nbsp12 ,2006
Poland – Skinheads Shouted Antisemitic Epithets at a Boat Party in Agustow

3. July&nbsp25 ,2006
Britain – A Member of Parliament Compared Israel's Action in Lebanon to the Nazi's Actions in Poland

4. June&nbsp30 ,2006
Poland – A Memorial Erected in Memory of the Victims of the Pogrom in Kielce.

5. June&nbsp14 ,2006
Poland – The Polish Authorities are Taking Strong Measures against Websites Purveying Hate and Racism

6. May&nbsp28 ,2006
Poland – A Death Threat to a Member of the Jewish Community in Warsaw

7. May&nbsp28 ,2006
Poland – An Unidentified Person Attacked the Chief Rabbi of Poland

8. May&nbsp25 ,2006
Poland – Antisemitic Text Messages Sent to Jewish Students

9. May&nbsp11 ,2006
Poland – The Leader of an Antisemitic Party Named Minister of Education

10. May&nbsp1 ,2006
Poland – Union of the Conservative Party and the Radical Right Parties

11. April&nbsp28 ,2006
Poland – Antisemitic Elements in a Parade near Auschwitz

12. April&nbsp5 ,2006
Poland - Antisemitics remarks

13. March&nbsp13 ,2006
Poland – Threats against a Teacher of Holocaust Studies in Bialystok

14. February&nbsp23 ,2006
Austria – Holocaust Denier David Irving: "Auschwitz is the Biggest Tourist Site in Poland

15. February&nbsp17 ,2006
Poland – The Polish Foreign Minister Denounces the Iranian's Denial of the Holocaust

16. January&nbsp29 ,2006
Poland – Antisemitic Graffiti at the Warsaw Airport

17. October&nbsp2 ,2005
Poland – An Antisemitic Letter Received at the Israeli Embassy in Poland

18. September&nbsp16 ,2005
Poland – Jewish Organizations Present an Award to the Polish President

19. August&nbsp16 ,2005
Poland – The Anti-Defamation League Has Demanded the Dismissal of an Antisemitic Priest

20. August&nbsp11 ,2005
Poland – The Polish Foreign Ministry Protested Against an Antisemitic Advertisement

21. March&nbsp25 ,2005
Poland – Request for the Extradition of the Former Polish Honorary Consul in Uruguay Because of his Ties with the Nazis

22. February&nbsp1 ,2005
Poland – Antisemitic Letters Received at the Israeli Embassy in Warsaw

22 cases

But it includes everything, even this

The Polish Foreign Ministry has issued at protest against the distribution of an advertisement for a party that satirizes the Auschwitz extermination camp. The Polish authorities are now awaiting the response of their Dutch counterparts.

Ironic ?

Now let's type the Netherlands

Your total search results: 18

and the USA

Your total search results: 15

and France

Your total search results: 295

see the difference ?

If there is rise of anti-semitism or even a high level of that there should be much more than 22 messages with the word 'Poland'. Or not ?:thumbsdown:

Am I belittling or you are exaggerating ?:book:

I will check for more later.

I have checked - Poland is generally in the middle - Greece got 5 results, Germany 50, Ukraine 90, Latvia 8 and what I found with disbelief Czech Republic got 35 !

ADL side reports only this

Poland

May 27, 2006 – Warsaw – Poland's Chief Rabbi was shoved and attacked with mace in downtown Warsaw. The perpetrator yelled “Poland for Poles!,” an old anti-Semitic slogan. The Rabbi, en route to Sabbath lunch, challenged the man after he approached, and was attacked.
forgot to add - with a pepper spray and was found after a couple of days.

Check other states you will see more in Norway...

Antisemitism and racism report of 2005

But you know that already

http://www.tau.ac.il/Anti-Semitism/asw2005/poland.htm

Changes nothing, though 2006 report as I have heard is far less critical

But still Poland is a raging anti-semitic country where the Church, media and the governemnt is dominated by the anti-semites ? Earth is calling - come back and stop dreaming.

Adrian II

11-28-2006, 15:53

Besides how could it be that such radical anti-semite was the campaign advisor of philo-semitic Kaczynscy is incredible.Indeed, how could it be? Once you start adressing that question, you may actually get to the core of antisemitism in Poland.

It exists even in circles that profess good-will. I recall Lech Walesa, of all people, protesting in 2000 that President Kwasniewski should not participate in a Polish visit to the Vatican because he was rumoured to be Jewish. Walesa later apologised, saying he had always wanted to be a Jew himself because 'then I would be richer'. And this from someone who, when called upon, eventually had the courage to make a public stand against antisemitism.

You discard every case I cite as 'isolated', 'local', just an 'incident' or 'not really antisemitic'. But Glemp denying the massacre of Jedwabne c.q. explaining it away with accusations of Jewish collaboration, is a clear case of antisemitism. And Lech Walesa playing the 'Jews are rich' card is a clear case of antisemitism. And these are top-dogs in Polish public life.
RMF and Radio Zet are far larger.Radio Muzyka Fakty and Zet ('More music on Radio Zet!') are foreing-owned music stations. RMF belongs to German media group Bauer, Eurozet is owned by French group Lagardère. The other two in your list are public stations.

Maryja, being the largest Polish private station, is also the officially preferred radio station. Successive right-wing Polish cabinets have privileged it's director, Father Rydzyk. They have appeared in hour-long discussions and given press conferences on Radio Maryja, thereby legitimizing the station's extremist message. They have given Rydzyk exclusive coverage of official events for Radio Maryja and his tv station Trwam, to the point where they have become the quasi-official voice of the Polish government. Earlier this year a reporter from the Polish tabloid Fakt phoned the Minister for Agriculture, Jurgiel. The reporter posed as Father Rydzyk's assistant and informed the minister that Rydzyk's car had broken down. Within the hour Rydzyk was sent an official government car.

If you fail to understand why this cozy relationship between the Polish government and an extremist media outfit is totally wrong, I think we will never agree on any related issues.
Check other states you will see more in Norway...Sure, that is because Norway as well as France and other countries register hate crimes. A common complaint of all the human rights organisations you mention is that Polish authorities habitually fail to prevent, register or prosecute hate speech and violence against minorities. I have given you example upon example of antisemitic statements by people in positions of authority. None were prosecuted.

The reason why physical violence against Jews in Poland is low is that there are practically no Jews left in the country. Antisemitism is mostly a verbal exercise in the service of extreme Catholic and nationalist propaganda. Maybe you can explain the following phenomenon discovered by the Polish bureau of public opinion research (CBOS). According to CBOS 75% of Poles indicate they have never come into contact with Jews. Yet 45% of Poles say they dislike Jews, which is slightly less than the percentage that dislikes Roma (53%).

Redleg

11-28-2006, 16:04

[QUOTE=Redleg]
Of course you didn't, besides how can Poles coollaborate with someone who is dead ?

Off on a tangent I see.

It is not about Waffen SS, but Wehrmacht m8 ! The difference ?

You might want to check the history of the Balkan occupation just a tad more.

Compulsory conscription ! Besides nothing such as 'eastern battalions' consisting of Poles did exist. There were units where Poles could be numerous, but they were either volksdeutche or forced to fight, since a large of Poland was ANNEXED into Germany and there was a notable Polish minority before the war already. If people are forces to fight are they collaborators ?

Your desire to contradict war historians has been noted.

Still there were NO POLISH VOLUNTEERS IN WAFFEN SS.

Incorrect. There were several that fought on the Eastern front. Not as units but individuals. Reading the rolls of some of the units will provide proof that a few poles fought in the Waffen SS. When one makes a quantifable statement as No Polish Volunteers they can be shown to be incorrect. A review of any military roll of enlisted soldiers in the Waffen SS will normally indicate a name or three of polish decent.

There were poles that wanted to destroy the soviets far more then the germans during WW2. Several did indeed enlist into the SS to accomplish just that. Especially the ones that suffered under the Soviet Occupation of Poland. There is a infamous commander of polish decent that did just that, however he wasn't born in Poland, but his father was Polish. If your not wanting to acknowledge that those people that were born within the borders of Poland, but were considered Germanic were not Poles fighting in the German Army then your discounting one major historical point.

Yeah, right, since I don't agree with the statement about the organised collaboration ? Excuse me, but you seem not to notice the difference between organised and voluntary and seldom involvement in form of lynching or simple denouncing.

LOL, a poor rebuttal once again. Is not the disagreement its the method of disagreement. Screaming that your insulted because someone points out a historical point is the primary method of rebuttal of the ultra-nationalist, when faced with a negative historical discussion of events.

From your point of view even Jewish Militia from Ghettos would mean that Jews were Nazi...

Incorrect - try again.

cegorach

11-28-2006, 18:09

Indeed, how could it be? Once you start adressing that question, you may actually get to the core of antisemitism in Poland.

I adress the question for the last 15 years m8. The problem is to do this with knowledge and care, because exaggerating is only slightly better than underestimating, especially if it is done that everyone is watching - ebven those without slightest knowledge.

It exists even in circles that profess good-will. I recall Lech Walesa, of all people, protesting in 2000 that President Kwasniewski should not participate in a Polish visit to the Vatican because he was rumoured to be Jewish. Walesa later apologised, saying he had always wanted to be a Jew himself because 'then I would be richer'. And this from someone who, when called upon, eventually had the courage to make a public stand against antisemitism.

That is a form of primitive, working-class anti-semitic stereotypes - you should have heard the laugher here...
Walesa is often seen as the man who embarrasses Poland, though in recent years it is far better, apparently retired from his more extravagant ideas.

You discard every case I cite as 'isolated', 'local', just an 'incident' or 'not really antisemitic'. But Glemp denying the massacre of Jedwabne c.q. explaining it away with accusations of Jewish collaboration, is a clear case of antisemitism.

And Lech Walesa playing the 'Jews are rich' card is a clear case of antisemitism.
And these are top-dogs in Polish public life.Radio Muzyka Fakty and Zet ('More music on Radio Zet!') are foreing-owned music stations.RMF belongs to German media group Bauer

RMF - not yet. It was formally sold on 28th October 2006 - so 4 weeks ago, but the process will take at least 2 months. The owner of the company redirects his interests to web services.

Maryja, being the largest Polish private station, is also the officially preferred radio station. Successive right-wing Polish cabinets have privileged it's director, Father Rydzyk. They have appeared in hour-long discussions and given press conferences on Radio Maryja, thereby legitimizing the station's extremist message. They have given Rydzyk exclusive coverage of official events for Radio Maryja and his tv station Trwam, to the point where they have become the quasi-official voice of the Polish government. Earlier this year a reporter from the Polish tabloid Fakt phoned the Minister for Agriculture, Jurgiel. The reporter posed as Father Rydzyk's assistant and informed the minister that Rydzyk's car had broken down. Within the hour Rydzyk was sent an official government car.

You have't said it needs to be fully Polish, did you ?
Besides the fact that foreign investment in media of Poland is rather high doesn't mean that Radio Maryja is the most important Polish station. Public stations are irrelevant too ?
Besides you knwo that radio in general is getting less and less popular - internet is the new massmedia thus the old age of the Maryja's listeners.
The 1,8 % of the listener's time and up to 1,2 million of people listening to the radio ( in 38 million country) hardly justify your vision of
We have antisemites running the Polish Catholic Church, the Ministry of Education, the largest private radio station in the country, and now public television as well. i.e. a country run by antisemites !
Don't you feel you have exaggerated it too little ?

If you fail to understand why this cozy relationship between the Polish government and an extremist media outfit is totally wrong, I think we will never agree on any related issues.

I am more than aware of this.
Of course it is wrong, though that is the result of the anti-media attitude of Kaczunscy. They seem to preferr - 'Dziennik' and 'Fact' papers ( Bauer owned), public TV and the Maryja radio as opposed to the media which criticise them very often: TVN and Polsat TV station, 'Gazeta Wyborcza' and 'Rzeczpospolita' papers and RMF and Radio Zet stations.

Why do we have this relationship ?

Simple the long political crisis after the elections of 2005, long campaign before and after ( local elections) and the 'consumption' of LPR which was done by diverting less radical of its voters.
Law and Justice used more populist slogans, though NONE were/are anti-semitic.
Why LPR and Self-defence are still in the government ? Simply the Civic Platform wasn't eager to be dominated and the left wing parties are the only ones not accepted by Law and Justice. Law and Justice needs votes in the parliament so the disgusting alliance exists.
Still antisemitism is fought by Law and Justice - also in the radio.

You see antisemitism is pushed even further - LPR doesn't use that since in the government it can't and it virtually is dead in case of earlier elections.
Self-defence doesn't use it - I would be greateful if it did, believe me - since I HATE this party - the only one I do.
Law and Justice doesn't tolerate the attitude, but the direct attack on Radio maryja woyld cost them some votes since the 'hard core' listeners are paranoid about it and would react somehow, and the party needs votes.

Currently only NOP uses antisemitism - but they are really nowhere.

Sure, that is because Norway as well as France and other countries register hate crimes. A common complaint of all the human rights organisations you mention is that Polish authorities habitually fail to prevent, register or prosecute hate speech and violence against minorities.

However the sort of events are very loudly presented in the news, especially of the 'opposition' medias. Also NGOs are registering such cases and you have them on the list too. We have prety large number of such organisations and their number is still rising.
Very good it is, of course. You would be amazed how many black politicians are elected here for example.
People generally do not care anymore.

I have given you example upon example of antisemitic statements by people in positions of authority. None were prosecuted.

Nope. You have given two examples - one was, one wasn't.

The reason why physical violence against Jews in Poland is low is that there are practically no Jews left in the country.

Remember that the hate crimes include also antisemitic graffiti, demolishing Jewish cementaries or synagoges and of course the monumets and other places of rememberance.
There are MANY of those,

Also the lists include antisemitic speeches, gatherings etc - you will not find too many here.

I can say that antisemitism, though present as before is a weak shadow of itself and even in the area of verbal abuses is seldom or non-existent.

Note that there is none 'new' antisemitism - I mean this connected to Israeli-Arab relationship.
There were no demonstrations I could speak of, though a suprise there was something like this

http://warsaw.mfa.gov.il/mfm/Web/Main/pic.asp?pic=99200.jpg

A demonstration of solidarity with Israel, add that to the picture of Poland together with much earlier facts like WW2 cooperation with Israeli Haganah while the Polish 2nd Corps was in Palestine.

According to CBOS 75% of Poles indicate they have never come into contact with Jews. Yet 45% of Poles say they dislike Jews, which is slightly less than the percentage that dislikes Roma (53%).

Arabs are disliked much too.
Simply because they haven't met those... It is antisemitism without Jews + the perception that Jews are anti-Polish.
There were similar polls in Israel and Poles were seen as universally antisemitic. There are anti-Polish extremists too, the best way is to support the contacts more. See what have happened with the distrust and dislike of the Germans - in Germany Poles are disliked in general - though very few Germans met a Pole.

Please address the earlier statement of yours - are the Polish courts antisemitic, is Poland antisemitic too.
Because since the beginning of the thread you are trying to defend your point of view using less and less important facts, exploiting all possible arguments etc.
We are reaching the point when an extreme minority will be described and here I cannot possibly win the discussion unless we portrait that the way it should be - that we are talking about a small group of people who cannot affect the general policy of the country, cannot change decisions of courts of law or affect the media.

There is antisemitism as I said in the beginning, but statements such as

We have antisemites running the Polish Catholic Church, the Ministry of Education, the largest private radio station in the country, and now public television as well.

are sooo far away from the truth that it is distorting the general picture, isn't it ?
You see lets assume I will analise the politics of for example the USA and I will start digging = for sure I will find politicians who have spoken against black or yellow people, racist media and people of not very interesting origin, but it is pointless - they do not affect US policy, are in the margin of such and so on.

In Poland it is less stable and less refined, since we have left the communist 'fridge' only 17 years ago and at that time - there was official, state fuelled run antisemitism, crappy economy, vassal relations with the SU, Germany, Israel and many other states were enemies + no freedom of speech, gatherings, free media, private companies.

Generally during the last 17 years we have gone through dramatical changes making Poland stable democracy not an antisemitic, fundamentalistic dictatorship.

So do you support your earlier statements ?

Ok, now the funny part.

@Redleg

[QUOTE]It is not about Waffen SS, but Wehrmacht m8 ! The difference ?

You might want to check the history of the Balkan occupation just a tad more.

Again there were NO Polish volunteers in Waffen SS because:

1. Poles were sub-human so initially (to 1943) noone called for any, anyway and the universal front of refusal to cooperate was very strong, as later actually.

2. There were attempts to create:
a) Kashubian SS Legion
b) Highland so called 'Goralen' SS Legion
Both on the ground that these ethnic groups are NOT Polish. The Nazis tried to convince the people that they are of german blood and were later polonised.
Both projects were a failure, especially the second one.

3. When the Germans were really desperate they tried to find some ways to cooperate, but it assumed in general that Polish underground would fight for them in units of their own. There were some tactical anti-Soviet alliances in places where Polish resistance was attacked by Soviet guerillas. Yes attacked because they considered anything non-Soviet as the enemies.

4. When Himmler and the rest finally appealed for volunteers ( e.g. in summer 1944) it was far too late, besides from 1939 Hitler called for the extermination of the Poles. Even in most desperate sitiations there were no volunteers.

So ? Do you have better answers than SS Danzig division Polish this time ?

Compulsory conscription ! Besides nothing such as 'eastern battalions' consisting of Poles did exist. There were units where Poles could be numerous, but they were either volksdeutche or forced to fight, since a large of Poland was ANNEXED into Germany and there was a notable Polish minority before the war already. If people are forces to fight are they collaborators ?

Your desire to contradict war historians has been noted.

So you haven't heard about the annexion or is the source of yours so crappy ?

Still there were NO POLISH VOLUNTEERS IN WAFFEN SS.

Incorrect. There were several that fought on the Eastern front. Not as units but individuals. Reading the rolls of some of the units will provide proof that a few poles fought in the Waffen SS. When one makes a quantifable statement as No Polish Volunteers they can be shown to be incorrect. A review of any military roll of enlisted soldiers in the Waffen SS will normally indicate a name or three of polish decent.

You do realise that there were :

Volksdeutsche - people of 'german blood' who were accepted, but didn't consider themselves Polish.

Germanised Poles - who did have Polish names (voluntary and unvoluntary germanisation of XIXth century) , but numerous people with Polish names DID appear in Soviet army ( e.g. Rokossowski, Poplawski etc), US army, French, British, Yugoslavian, Greek and the German armies - but they had surnames of Polish origin. Simply Poles had large emigration during the earlier century and many people were absorbed, got married with local people and had children which didn't consider themselves Polish.
Since the animosity between Germans and Poles was so great at that time you couldn't be both - Polish and loyal member of SS - it wasn't possible - reasons are above.
One of the worst warcriminals (e.g. in Warsaw in 1944) von den Bach-Zalwski was of XIXth century Polish ancestry, but it doesn't make him a POLISH VOLUNTEER !

People of Polish origin who have do not have any Polish identity are everywhere, even the American candidate for the president in the last election Kerry has half-Polish ancestry from a family living in Polish populated Upper Silesia in the XIXth century. Later they have changed their names into more 'american'. I can direct you to the local archives of the little town where were his ancestors.

There were poles that wanted to destroy the soviets far more then the germans during WW2. Several did indeed enlist into the SS to accomplish just that. Especially the ones that suffered under the Soviet Occupation of Poland. There is a infamous commander of polish decent that did just that, however he wasn't born in Poland, but his father was Polish. If your not wanting to acknowledge that those people that were born within the borders of Poland, but were considered Germanic were not Poles fighting in the German Army then your discounting one major historical point.

I assume you know the difference between a Polish citizen and a person of Polish nationality ?

I assume you mean Kaminski ? He commanded RONA ( Russian) units which were famous for... crimes during the Warsaw Uprising of 1944 - do you call him Polish ?

That is absurd to call all people of non-Polish nationality, but born in Poland as Polish ! You have units such as SS Galizien consisting of Ukrainian fascists and nationalists who did fight against Poles and Soviets - an utter, terrible mistake.

You have the summary of the Polish collaboration here

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-German_cooperation_with_Nazis_during_World_War_II#Poland

Death penalty for the full of double agents police and tactical alliances - still none organised collaboration, since the Jewish Police of Ghettos are not collaborators too, especially.

Yeah, right, since I don't agree with the statement about the organised collaboration ? Excuse me, but you seem not to notice the difference between organised and voluntary and seldom involvement in form of lynching or simple denouncing.

LOL, a poor rebuttal once again. Is not the disagreement its the method of disagreement. Screaming that your insulted because someone points out a historical point is the primary method of rebuttal of the ultra-nationalist, when faced with a negative historical discussion of events.

Great, but you have challenged THAT exactly the fact of the lack of organised collaboration, which indeed didn't appear.
Didn't you ?
Ultra-nationalists do deny the facts - I don't. I speak for the historical accuracy and that states there was NO organised collaboration with Germans in Poland during the 2nd WW.

You have challenged that, and that exactly.:thumbsdown:

I don't enjoy the kind of jokes...:smash:

Redleg

11-28-2006, 19:40

@Redleg

Again there were NO Polish volunteers in Waffen SS because:

1. Poles were sub-human so initially (to 1943) noone called for any, anyway and the universal front of refusal to cooperate was very strong, as later actually.

Yes indeed that was the initial reason - as the war progress and the Germans began needing men - many of the defined sub-humans were allowed into all branches of the german military.

2. There were attempts to create:
a) Kashubian SS Legion
b) Highland so called 'Goralen' SS Legion
Both on the ground that these ethnic groups are NOT Polish. The Nazis tried to convince the people that they are of german blood and were later polonised.
Both projects were a failure, especially the second one.

Both were failures as organizations - but that does not equate to no polish volunteers enlisting now does it.

3. When the Germans were really desperate they tried to find some ways to cooperate, but it assumed in general that Polish underground would fight for them in units of their own. There were some tactical anti-Soviet alliances in places where Polish resistance was attacked by Soviet guerillas. Yes attacked because they considered anything non-Soviet as the enemies.

Hmm did I not say that some poles decided that the Soviets were to be fought over the Germans. Oh I guess you missed that statement.

4. When Himmler and the rest finally appealed for volunteers ( e.g. in summer 1944) it was far too late, besides from 1939 Hitler called for the extermination of the Poles. Even in most desperate sitiations there were no volunteers.

Ah back to the no volunteer statement.

So ? Do you have better answers than SS Danzig division Polish this time ?

The comment was that the SS Danzig demonstrated that the comment of no polish volunteers is inaccurate. It seems your still having some issues with historical facts.

So you haven't heard about the annexion or is the source of yours so crappy ?

The annexations does not equate to defending the postion that no polish volunteers.

You do realise that there were :

Volksdeutsche - people of 'german blood' who were accepted, but didn't consider themselves Polish.

Yes indeed but they lived within the borders of Poland - making them by definition citizens of Poland - which makes them polish. I reject definitions of national identity based upon an ethnic definition. Especially since most ethnic groups are a intermixing of even older ethnic groups.

Germanised Poles - who did have Polish names (voluntary and unvoluntary germanisation of XIXth century) , but numerous people with Polish names DID appear in Soviet army ( e.g. Rokossowski, Poplawski etc), US army, French, British, Yugoslavian, Greek and the German armies - but they had surnames of Polish origin. Simply Poles had large emigration during the earlier century and many people were absorbed, got married with local people and had children which didn't consider themselves Polish.
Since the animosity between Germans and Poles was so great at that time you couldn't be both - Polish and loyal member of SS - it wasn't possible - reasons are above.
One of the worst warcriminals (e.g. in Warsaw in 1944) von den Bach-Zalwski was of XIXth century Polish ancestry, but it doesn't make him a POLISH VOLUNTEER !

I didn't claim that now either did how. Gemanized Poles are still Polish if your arguement is based upon the ethnic makeup of the individual.

People of Polish origin who have do not have any Polish identity are everywhere, even the American candidate for the president in the last election Kerry has half-Polish ancestry from a family living in Polish populated Upper Silesia in the XIXth century. Later they have changed their names into more 'american'. I can direct you to the local archives of the little town where were his ancestors.

Kerry is not the issue now is he?

I assume you know the difference between a Polish citizen and a person of Polish nationality ?

I reject arguements based upon ethnic race - its a defense of the ultranationalist.

I assume you mean Kaminski ? He commanded RONA ( Russian) units which were famous for... crimes during the Warsaw Uprising of 1944 - do you call him Polish ?

Read what was written - if your basing your argument on an ethnic grouping then he by default is Polish. If your basing your arguement on where the individual is born he is definitily not Polish. My arguement has been soley geographical location not some racist ultranational definition of ethnic identidity.

That is absurd to call all people of non-Polish nationality, but born in Poland as Polish ! You have units such as SS Galizien consisting of Ukrainian fascists and nationalists who did fight against Poles and Soviets - an utter, terrible mistake.

Were they citizens of Poland before the Invasion. See I am not an ultranationalist nor am I a racist. If your born in a nation your a citizen of that nation.

Death penalty for the full of double agents police and tactical alliances - still none organised collaboration, since the Jewish Police of Ghettos are not collaborators too, especially.

Never stated the Jewish Police of the Ghettos were collaborators now did I.

Great, but you have challenged THAT exactly the fact of the lack of organised collaboration, which indeed didn't appear.
Didn't you ?

Nope - you misread

Ultra-nationalists do deny the facts - I don't. I speak for the historical accuracy and that states there was NO organised collaboration with Germans in Poland during the 2nd WW.

Good thing I didn't argue the organized collaboration - just that there was collaboration during WW2. The anti-semantism of Poland initially helped the Germans in their program. It was not an organized attempt by the citizens of Poland - just a historical seperation was done - and it made it easier for the Germans.

I however have seen you deny several facts both presented by Adrain on the present and even on WW2 facts. I have become rather amused by this.

No Polish units volunteered to fight for the Germans, that is partially correct (non-partisans fighting against the Soviets should not be counted as fighting for the Germans, because they were primarily fighting against the Soviets) - however that is not the same as saying that No Poles volunteered since there were several that are listed in the rolls of the German Army to include the Waffen SS.

I don't enjoy the kind of jokes...:smash:

And I enjoy shooting down ultra-nationalists who defend their arguements by screaming those who disagree are insulting them.

CrossLOPER

11-28-2006, 20:42

And I enjoy shooting down ultra-nationalists who defend their arguements by screaming those who disagree are insulting them.
With your powers combined, I am Captain Ultra Anti Ultra Nationalist!~D

Sorry, carry on.

cegorach

11-28-2006, 21:22

@Redleg

[QUOTE]Both were failures as organizations - but that does not equate to no polish volunteers enlisting now does it.

The failure was the result of no Polish ( can you spell it correctly for once ?) volunteers willing to join or actually Kashubian and Goralen as the Nazis wanted them to believe to be.

Hmm did I not say that some poles decided that the Soviets were to be fought over the Germans. Oh I guess you missed that statement.

Tactical cooperation for a short time without any further consequences. Not collaboration you imply naming Kaminski brigade in the last post.

Ah back to the no volunteer statement.

Of course.

Yes indeed but they lived within the borders of Poland - making them by definition citizens of Poland - which makes them polish. I reject definitions of national identity based upon an ethnic definition. Especially since most ethnic groups are a intermixing of even older ethnic groups.

I am all to aware of the difference in the definition of the nation in English language countries ( Anglo-saxon actually) i.e. that a state makes a nation, since the intermixing and melting pot effect and others.

HOWEVER - in Europe in general the definition is different.

Defining a nation

Nations are defined by a limited number of characteristics, which apply to both the individual members, and the nation. The first requirement for the definition is that the characteristics should be shared - a group of people with nothing in common, can not be a nation. Because they are shared, the national population also has a degree of uniformity and homogeneity. And finally, at least some of the characteristics must be exclusive - to distinguish the nation from neighbouring nations. All of the characteristics can be disputed, and opposition to secessionist nationalism often includes the denial that a separate nation exists.

[edit] Common descent

The etymology of the word nation implies ancestry and descent. Almost all nationalist movements make some claim to shared origins and descent, and it is a component of the national identity in most nations. The fact that the ancestry is shared among the members of the nation unites them, and sets them apart from other nations, which do not share that ancestry.

The question is: descent from whom? Often, the answer is simply: from previous generations of the same nation. More specifically:

* the nation may be defined as the descendants of the past inhabitants of the national homeland
* the nation may be defined as the descendants of past speakers of the national language, or past groups which shared the national culture.

Usually, these factors are assumed to coincide. The well-defined Icelandic nation is assumed to consist of the descendants of the island of Iceland in, say, 1850. Those people also spoke the Icelandic language, were known as Icelanders at that time, and had a recognised culture of their own. However, the present population of Iceland cannot coincide exactly with their descendants: that would imply complete endogamy, meaning that no Icelander since 1850 ever had children by a non-Icelander. Most European nations experienced border changes and, migration over the last few centuries, and intermarried with other national groups. Statistically, their current national population can not coincide exactly with the descendants of the nation in 1700 or 1500, even if was then known by the same name. The shared ancestry is more of a national myth, than a genetic reality - but still sufficient for a national identity.

[edit] Common language

A shared language is often used as a defining feature of a nation (that is, apart from its value in facilitating communication among the members). In some cases the language is exclusive to the nation, and may be central to the national identity. The Basque language is a unique language isolate, and prominent in the self-definition of the Basque people, and in Basque nationalism, although not all Basques speak it. In other cases, the national language is also spoken by other nations (shared among the nation, but not exclusive to the nation). Some nations, such as the Swiss nation, self-identity as multilingual. Papua New Guinea promotes a 'Papuan' national identity, despite having around 800 distinct languages. No nation is defined solely by language: that would effectively create an open membership (for anyone who learnt the language).

[edit] Common culture

Most nations are partly defined by a shared culture. Unlike a language, a national culture is usually unique to the nation, although it may include many elements shared with other nations. Additionally, the national culture is assumed to be shared with previous generations, and includes a cultural heritage from these generations, as if it were an inheritance. As with the common ancestry, this identification of past culture with present culture may be largely symbolic. The archaeological site of Stonehenge is owned and managed by English Heritage, although no 'English' people or state existed when it was constructed, 4 000 to 5 000 years ago. Other nations have similarly appropriated ancient archaeological sites, literature, art, and even entire civilisations as 'national heritage'.

[edit] Common religion

Religion is sometimes used as a defining factor for a nation, although some nationalist movements de-emphasize it as a divisive factor. Again it is the fact that the religion is shared, that makes it national. It may not be exclusive: several nations define themselves partly as Catholic although the religion itself is universalist. Irish nationalism traditionally sees Catholicism as a Irish national characteristic, in opposition to the largely Protestant British colonial power. (It usually recognized the Protestant minority in Ireland as Irish). Some religions are specific to one ethnic group, notably Judaism. Nevertheless, the Zionist movement generally avoided a religious definition of the 'Jewish people', preferring an ethnic and cultural definition. Since Judaism is a religion, people can become a Jew by religious conversion, which in turn can facilitate their obtaining Israeli citizenship. Jews in Israel who convert to other religions do not thereby lose Israeli citizenship, although their national identity might then be questioned by others.

[edit] Voluntary definitions (will)

Some ideas of a nation emphasise not shared characteristics, but rather on the shared choice for membership. In practice, this has always been applied to a group of people, who are also a nation by other definitions. The most famous voluntarist definition is that of Ernest Renan. In a lecture in 1882, Qu'est-ce qu'une nation? he rhetorically asked "What is a Nation?", and answered that it is a 'daily plebiscite'. Renan meant, that the members of the nation, by their daily participation in the life of the nation, show their consent to its existence, and to their own continued membership. Renan spoke in the context of the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine by the German Reich. At the time, the region was ethnically more German than French, and the Alsatian language is a west German language: Renan opposed such 'objective' criteria for a nation. Like Renan, most voluntarist definitions appeal to consent for existing nations, rather than promote explicit decisions to found new ones. Renan saw the nation as a group "having done great things together and wishing to do more" ("avoir fait de grandes choses ensemble, vouloir en faire encore").

So a nation is defined as a group of people of the same, shared national culture, living in certain area and often using the same language.
It is a community of same values, beliefs, culture and feeling the same identity - i.e. so called national identity - certain stance towards the common culture and traditions.
In general it is based on consent.

I reject arguements based upon ethnic race - its a defense of the ultranationalist.

Great, so we all in Europe are untra-nationalists...

Read what was written - if your basing your argument on an ethnic grouping then he by default is Polish. If your basing your arguement on where the individual is born he is definitily not Polish. My arguement has been soley geographical location not some racist ultranational definition of ethnic identidity.

It cannot be based on that - not in most of Europe. Consider the nations without a state - Slovaks for example. Now Kurds are the excellent one.

Were they citizens of Poland before the Invasion. See I am not an ultranationalist nor am I a racist. If your born in a nation your a citizen of that nation.

Not in a nation - you do not inherit the nationality by being born - because you can abandon your nationality ( 'przeniewierstwo' in Polish). There are numerous cases in history, millions of those - that is why we have assimilation to certain nations.

Germans used race as the rule, though in some cases it was much more complicated. However the loyalty is built not only on the etnic links e.g. in Poland the language is very important too.

Good thing I didn't argue the organized collaboration - just that there was collaboration during WW2. The anti-semantism of Poland initially helped the Germans in their program. It was not an organized attempt by the citizens of Poland - just a historical seperation was done - and it made it easier for the Germans.

antisemitism not anti-semantism.

In what way the antisemitism made it so easy if the collaboration with Germans was seldom and reduced to minor cases in general.

You forget the fact that archives were used, IDs and similar to make the difference. The people in general didn't expect anything so bad - especially massive genocide.
Since helping Jews was punished by death penalty, so was hiding and not obeying the order to re-settle most of the people have chosen uncertain future instead of certain death.
Later it was far different, but most of the people had no such knowledge...

I however have seen you deny several facts both presented by Adrain on the present and even on WW2 facts. I have become rather amused by this.

Good, since you might want to do some research in this area. I welcome that for sure.

No Poles volunteered since there were several that are listed in the rolls of the German Army to include the Waffen SS.

Because you clearly base your statement on the anglo-saxon definition of the nationhood.

Yes, call it ultra-nationalism if you can't accept the simple difference between European and Anglo-saxon definition....

That is why there were no Polish volunteers in Waffen SS. Nationality - not citizenship or some weird race-ethnic link.
You might tomorrow decide to be Norwegian, but you have to do some work in that area, identify yourself with the nationality abandoning your old, though in some cases we have dual nationalities - be happy that it is not the 2nd WW life or death situation...

In Poland during the 2nd WW there were Polish nationals, Polish citizens loyal to the state, Polish citizens who abandoned their Polish (or Ukrainian etc) nationality, those who were of Polish citizenship, but other nationality ( like in all multi-national states) and didn't feel any loyalty towards the occupied country.
In addition we have either other stranger situations - foreigners who became Polish nationals during the war ( a Canadian American Native for example) without the citizenship or Russians or Soviets in general who were appointed as P.O.P Pretending to be Polish - in the People's Army - mainly as officers who returned just after the war or as far as 1956 to the SU.

Since the nationhood is based on consent (at least here) as it was in the past you are free to change your mind - the effort, the loyalty and the growing connection is what counts not race, citizenship or the fact of birth in the area.

I hope it is finally clarified.:2thumbsup:

If not we have nothing to talk about in regarding nationality - it is impossible to discuss any sort of collaboration or its lack without the common understanding in the most basic area...

Adrian II

11-28-2006, 22:35

We have antisemites running the Polish Catholic Church, the Ministry of Education, the largest private radio station in the country, and now public television as well. i.e. a country run by antisemites!
Don't you feel you have exaggerated it too little ?Not only are you distorting my views - now you start adding your own words to my quotes to make them look exaggerated. That is not cricket, my friend.

My point is not that all Poles or all Polish leaders are antisemitic.

My point is that antisemitism in Poland is not marginal, but mainstream, both among the population and among the ruling elite. Not a majority maybe, but certainly a sizeable minority. The fact that it dare not speak its name, for fear of Poland's image, does not make it more acceptable.

And it really doesn't matter that Poles dislike Muslims more than they dislike Jews. For someone who pretends to combat antisemitism, that is a very lame excuse.

cegorach

11-28-2006, 23:18

Not only are you distorting my views - now you start adding your own words to my quotes to make them look exaggerated. That is not cricket, my friend.

So here are the EXACT quotes

[QUOTE]And I think Israel will not deliver a single Jew into the hands of a Polish government under the present circumstances. Polish cabinet ministers openly declare themselves antisemites and speak of 'Jewish Communist plots' intended to turn Poland into a 'Jewish reservation'. For that reason the Polish authorities can not be trusted, for the umpteenth time in modern history, to give a Jew a fair trial.

Given this history and the present unstable state of affairs, I can easily understand why the Israeli government has declined the request to extradite Mr Morel.

We have antisemites running the Polish Catholic Church, the Ministry of Education, the largest private radio station in the country, and now public television as well.

So ? Are they running that or not ?

BTW I have researched the whole thing here -

In the 1990's Michal Kaminski was in the National Rebirth of Poland, a fascist and antisemitic movement. It was founded in 1981 and it has campaigned for Holocaust denier David Irving, the expulsion of all remaining Jews from Poland, the bombing of Israel, etcetera.

Kaminski (born in 1972) joined NOP in 1989 (when was 17) and left it in the same year founding ZCHN - i.e. Christian Democrats which are now present in both Law and Justice and the Civic Platform.

Jedwabne case - quote from "Gazeta Wyborcza"

Do Jedwabnego rusza Michał Kamiński. Zachęca mieszkańców do powołania komitetu obrony dobrego imienia miasta. Proponuje podpisanie listu wyrażającego oburzenie zapowiedzią prezydenta, że przeprosi Żydów za mord w Jedwabnem „w imieniu całego narodu". W liście można przeczytać:„Stanowczo potępiamy tych rodaków, którzy dobrowolnie wzięli udział w paleniu Żydów, jednak protestujemy przeciw rozciąganiu ich niewątpliwej winy na wszystkich mieszkańców Jedwabnego. (...) Za szczególnie skandaliczne uznajemy wypowiedzi niektórych dostojników państwowych, którzy przed zakończeniem śledztwa IPN ferują wyroki, w dodatku » przepraszając «za zbrodnie w Jedwabnem w imieniu całego narodu". Członkowie komitetu domagają się m.in. ustalenia dokładnej liczby ofiar zbrodni. Uważają, że liczba 1600 zabitych jest zawyżona.

- Nie wolno ukrywać mrocznej historii narodu - tłumaczy wówczas dziennikarzom Michał Kamiński. - Ale nie wolno oskarżać całego społeczeństwa Jedwabnego i Polaków o Holocaust. To służy ogólnoświatowej nagonce na Polskę.

Translation of mine
- Michal Kaminski travells to Jedwabne. He encourages the local people to found a committee to defend the good name of the town. Asks to sign a letter expressing anger for the president's announcement to apologise 'in the name of the whole nation'. In the letter we can read: ' We strongly condemn the countrymen who voluntary joined the killing of the Jews, but we protest against blaiming all the citizens of Jedwabne (...) For the most offending we consider the statements of some officials, who before the end of IPN investigation make statements about the responsibility apologising 'in the name of the whole nation'. The members of the committee demand among others investigating the exact number of the victims. We do believe the number - 1600 dead is too large'

which was taken from this side

http://serwisy.gazeta.pl/wyborcza/1,34443,2973805.html

As you see calling him antisemitic is somehow too much. That is why I was suprised so much...

Currently in the Euro Parliament - the viceleader of the Union for Europe of the Nations with parties like Fianna Fail.

http://www.uengroup.org/home.html

He was the first Polish EP member to make a speech - after the accession.

One of the most active supporters of democratic changes in the Ukraine ( was there during the Orange Revolution) and Belorus - that is why I respect that man and that is why I found the fascist thing with much disbelief.

e.g.

Michał Tomasz KAMIŃSKI (UEN, PL) asserted that the only reason that the government of President Alexander Lukashenko is still in power is because he has "friends in the Kremlin who support it". He called on the Union to make it clear that this situation entirely unacceptable, and that President Lukashenko's regime "exists purely because he's brainwashing his fellow citizens".

from here

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/expert/briefing_page/6625-082-03-12-20060322BRI06601-23-03-2006-2006/default_p001c005_en.htm

I hope it clears this accusation as well.

I must admit I am quite tired to explain accusations like that - I hope you found that informative. :2thumbsup:

My point is that antisemitism in Poland is not marginal, but mainstream, both among the population and among the ruling elite. Not a majority maybe, but certainly a sizeable minority. The fact that it dare not speak its name, for fear of Poland's image, does not make it more acceptable.

And here is where I disagree. We have debris of antisemitism and verbal antisemitic stereotypes here and there, but in the politics it is non-existent.

Find me a single anti-semitic remark from Polish government - especially lately since only now the nationalist-populist LPR is in the government.
If it is mainstream you will not have to search for long.

If virtually noone uses antisemitic rethoric, any form of suspected antisemitism are widely addressed ( the guy from TV's case ) and it is met with public uproar it can't be called mainstream.

And it really doesn't matter that Poles dislike Muslims more than they dislike Jews. For someone who pretends to combat antisemitism, that is a very lame excuse.

My rule nr 1 in discussion like that is total honesty, that is why I have said so - you could see that it is based on stereotypes and lack of contact - combated starting from early age at schools, but there is still the mutual distrust and in my opinion it is the actual reason of 'stubborn defense of unique martyrdom' on both sides, antisemitic and antipolish prejudices and similar.
It has virtually the same reason - lack of real knowledge, that is why it is easier to find support among elderly, worse educated people than amongst the scientists or students.

I actually used the same explanation which is used by sociology scientists...

And thanks for 'pretending' remark - I really appreciate that...

Redleg

11-29-2006, 00:25

@Redleg The failure was the result of no Polish ( can you spell it correctly for once ?) volunteers willing to join or actually Kashubian and Goralen as the Nazis wanted them to believe to be.

polish is the correct spelling for the ethnic group. Polish is the correct spelling if one is speaking of the nation. Worried about capitialization of an ethnic grouping is a sign of racism.

Tactical cooperation for a short time without any further consequences. Not collaboration you imply naming Kaminski brigade in the last post.

The implation of using Kaminiski is that he had a polish father making him polish. Now if I wanted to imply Kaminski was a collaborator I would of actually stated that.

Of course.

Which is an error since it deals in absolutes.

I am all to aware of the difference in the definition of the nation in English language countries ( Anglo-saxon actually) i.e. that a state makes a nation, since the intermixing and melting pot effect and others.

HOWEVER - in Europe in general the definition is different.

Defining a nation

Nations are defined by a limited number of characteristics, which apply to both the individual members, and the nation. The first requirement for the definition is that the characteristics should be shared - a group of people with nothing in common, can not be a nation. Because they are shared, the national population also has a degree of uniformity and homogeneity. And finally, at least some of the characteristics must be exclusive - to distinguish the nation from neighbouring nations. All of the characteristics can be disputed, and opposition to secessionist nationalism often includes the denial that a separate nation exists.

[edit] Common descent

The etymology of the word nation implies ancestry and descent. Almost all nationalist movements make some claim to shared origins and descent, and it is a component of the national identity in most nations. The fact that the ancestry is shared among the members of the nation unites them, and sets them apart from other nations, which do not share that ancestry.

The question is: descent from whom? Often, the answer is simply: from previous generations of the same nation. More specifically:

* the nation may be defined as the descendants of the past inhabitants of the national homeland
* the nation may be defined as the descendants of past speakers of the national language, or past groups which shared the national culture.

Usually, these factors are assumed to coincide. The well-defined Icelandic nation is assumed to consist of the descendants of the island of Iceland in, say, 1850. Those people also spoke the Icelandic language, were known as Icelanders at that time, and had a recognised culture of their own. However, the present population of Iceland cannot coincide exactly with their descendants: that would imply complete endogamy, meaning that no Icelander since 1850 ever had children by a non-Icelander. Most European nations experienced border changes and, migration over the last few centuries, and intermarried with other national groups. Statistically, their current national population can not coincide exactly with the descendants of the nation in 1700 or 1500, even if was then known by the same name. The shared ancestry is more of a national myth, than a genetic reality - but still sufficient for a national identity.

[edit] Common language

A shared language is often used as a defining feature of a nation (that is, apart from its value in facilitating communication among the members). In some cases the language is exclusive to the nation, and may be central to the national identity. The Basque language is a unique language isolate, and prominent in the self-definition of the Basque people, and in Basque nationalism, although not all Basques speak it. In other cases, the national language is also spoken by other nations (shared among the nation, but not exclusive to the nation). Some nations, such as the Swiss nation, self-identity as multilingual. Papua New Guinea promotes a 'Papuan' national identity, despite having around 800 distinct languages. No nation is defined solely by language: that would effectively create an open membership (for anyone who learnt the language).

[edit] Common culture

Most nations are partly defined by a shared culture. Unlike a language, a national culture is usually unique to the nation, although it may include many elements shared with other nations. Additionally, the national culture is assumed to be shared with previous generations, and includes a cultural heritage from these generations, as if it were an inheritance. As with the common ancestry, this identification of past culture with present culture may be largely symbolic. The archaeological site of Stonehenge is owned and managed by English Heritage, although no 'English' people or state existed when it was constructed, 4 000 to 5 000 years ago. Other nations have similarly appropriated ancient archaeological sites, literature, art, and even entire civilisations as 'national heritage'.

[edit] Common religion

Religion is sometimes used as a defining factor for a nation, although some nationalist movements de-emphasize it as a divisive factor. Again it is the fact that the religion is shared, that makes it national. It may not be exclusive: several nations define themselves partly as Catholic although the religion itself is universalist. Irish nationalism traditionally sees Catholicism as a Irish national characteristic, in opposition to the largely Protestant British colonial power. (It usually recognized the Protestant minority in Ireland as Irish). Some religions are specific to one ethnic group, notably Judaism. Nevertheless, the Zionist movement generally avoided a religious definition of the 'Jewish people', preferring an ethnic and cultural definition. Since Judaism is a religion, people can become a Jew by religious conversion, which in turn can facilitate their obtaining Israeli citizenship. Jews in Israel who convert to other religions do not thereby lose Israeli citizenship, although their national identity might then be questioned by others.

[edit] Voluntary definitions (will)

Some ideas of a nation emphasise not shared characteristics, but rather on the shared choice for membership. In practice, this has always been applied to a group of people, who are also a nation by other definitions. The most famous voluntarist definition is that of Ernest Renan. In a lecture in 1882, Qu'est-ce qu'une nation? he rhetorically asked "What is a Nation?", and answered that it is a 'daily plebiscite'. Renan meant, that the members of the nation, by their daily participation in the life of the nation, show their consent to its existence, and to their own continued membership. Renan spoke in the context of the annexation of Alsace-Lorraine by the German Reich. At the time, the region was ethnically more German than French, and the Alsatian language is a west German language: Renan opposed such 'objective' criteria for a nation. Like Renan, most voluntarist definitions appeal to consent for existing nations, rather than promote explicit decisions to found new ones. Renan saw the nation as a group "having done great things together and wishing to do more" ("avoir fait de grandes choses ensemble, vouloir en faire encore").

Your about to lead yourself astray - there are multiple definitions for nation.

So a nation is defined as a group of people of the same, shared national culture, living in certain area and often using the same language.
It is a community of same values, beliefs, culture and feeling the same identity - i.e. so called national identity - certain stance towards the common culture and traditions.
In general it is based on consent.

That is only one of the definitions of a Nation. The nationality is also all the people that fall within the geographic borders of that nation.

Great, so we all in Europe are untra-nationalists...

Only those that focus on the ethnic makeup of a particlur group.

It cannot be based on that - not in most of Europe. Consider the nations without a state - Slovaks for example. Now Kurds are the excellent one.

Those are a people without a state.

Not in a nation - you do not inherit the nationality by being born - because you can abandon your nationality ( 'przeniewierstwo' in Polish). There are numerous cases in history, millions of those - that is why we have assimilation to certain nations.

Incorrect - you inherient nationality by where you are born. For instance I am an American, because I was born in the United States of America. My ethnic making consists of several different ethnic groups from Europe and even Native Americans.

Germans used race as the rule, though in some cases it was much more complicated. However the loyalty is built not only on the etnic links e.g. in Poland the language is very important too.

Germans are not the only ones - I see race being applies as a rule by yourself in this thread.

antisemitism not anti-semantism.

correcting spelling again I see.

In what way the antisemitism made it so easy if the collaboration with Germans was seldom and reduced to minor cases in general.

Oh you should be able to read the relative histories for that. Give you a hint, most of the Jews were alreadly located in set areas by the policies and practices of Poland.

You forget the fact that archives were used, IDs and similar to make the difference. The people in general didn't expect anything so bad - especially massive genocide.
Since helping Jews was punished by death penalty, so was hiding and not obeying the order to re-settle most of the people have chosen uncertain future instead of certain death.
Later it was far different, but most of the people had no such knowledge...

See the above statement. I didn't forget how the Polish antisemitism enabled the German geonicide of the Jews.

Good, since you might want to do some research in this area. I welcome that for sure.

Oh I have done a bit of research on several different aspects of WW2. A little weak on the concenration camps - but not on the actions and nationalities serving in the Wafen SS.

Because you clearly base your statement on the anglo-saxon definition of the nationhood.

Which is a valid definition of nationality - one that is not focused on ultranationalism and racism.

Yes, call it ultra-nationalism if you can't accept the simple difference between European and Anglo-saxon definition....

Tsk tsk - a reaching arguement - a reject the definition because its one of race not nationality.

That is why there were no Polish volunteers in Waffen SS. Nationality - not citizenship or some weird race-ethnic link.

Again if your going with your definition you have to accept all of polish decent as being in that grouping - something you seem to be unwilling to accept.

You might tomorrow decide to be Norwegian, but you have to do some work in that area, identify yourself with the nationality abandoning your old, though in some cases we have dual nationalities - be happy that it is not the 2nd WW life or death situation...

If I decide to move to Norway and take citizenship within that Nation - then yes one becomes a Norwegian.

In Poland during the 2nd WW there were Polish nationals, Polish citizens loyal to the state, Polish citizens who abandoned their Polish (or Ukrainian etc) nationality, those who were of Polish citizenship, but other nationality ( like in all multi-national states) and didn't feel any loyalty towards the occupied country.
In addition we have either other stranger situations - foreigners who became Polish nationals during the war ( a Canadian American Native for example) without the citizenship or Russians or Soviets in general who were appointed as P.O.P Pretending to be Polish - in the People's Army - mainly as officers who returned just after the war or as far as 1956 to the SU.

Of course - never argued against that postion at all. It seems your wanting two different definitions based upon who the pole fought for.

Since the nationhood is based on consent (at least here) as it was in the past you are free to change your mind - the effort, the loyalty and the growing connection is what counts not race, citizenship or the fact of birth in the area.

Nationality is based upon citizenship - same standard is applied in the United States regardless of what color or ethnic group one belongs to.

I hope it is finally clarified.:2thumbsup:
[quote]

Oh I knew your were stuck on the ethnic making of the polish people not the Nation of Poland. That is why I went this route in this discussion.

[quote]
If not we have nothing to talk about in regarding nationality - it i
s impossible to discuss any sort of collaboration or its lack without the common understanding in the most basic area...

Which only goes to prove my earlier point. Must be real fun to only identify yourself by a race of people versus a nation of all the people.

cegorach

11-29-2006, 01:02

polish is the correct spelling for the ethnic group. Polish is the correct spelling if one is speaking of the nation. Worried about capitialization of an ethnic grouping is a sign of racism.

???? WHAT ? Is there a thing which is NOT a sign of racism to you ?

Which is an error since it deals in absolutes.

Which is the closest to the truth in the matter of organised collaboration in Poland and volunteers in Waffen SS. The absolute refusal...

Your about to lead yourself astray - there are multiple definitions for nation.

Yes. That is why I do imply. But consider the difference - here it is based on consent and other factors different than simple citizenship or ethnic origin.
Especially in Poland where we had multinational-state for most of our history.
That is why the CONSENT is so important in the definition.

That is only one of the definitions of a Nation. The nationality is also all the people that fall within the geographic borders of that nation.

In America for sure, but not here in general. I never in my life used the definition you propose - it simply doesn't work for this part of Europe.

Those are a people without a state.

Slovaks DIDN'T have a state for most of their history. Kurds - is there any - am I missing something in the Middle East ?

Incorrect - you inherient nationality by where you are born. For instance I am an American, because I was born in the United States of America. My ethnic making consists of several different ethnic groups from Europe and even Native Americans.

True for the USA, wrong for Europe (at least most of it). Here you inherit the citizenship, nationality is only inherited with your consent.

That is Americano-centric point of view.

Germans are not the only ones - I see race being applies as a rule by yourself in this thread.

WHERE ?

Oh you should be able to read the relative histories for that. Give you a hint, most of the Jews were alreadly located in set areas by the policies and practices of Poland.

Stupid remark, German army was there. Do you imply that Poles did herd the Jews to Ghettos ? That is obvious lie.

Oh I have done a bit of research on several different aspects of WW2. A little weak on the concenration camps - but not on the actions and nationalities serving in the Wafen SS.

If everyone who lived in Poland is Polish for you it clearly means you have not realistic point of view in this matter.

[QUOTE]Because you clearly base your statement on the anglo-saxon definition of the nationhood.

Which is a valid definition of nationality - one that is not focused on ultranationalism and racism.

And the one based on consent is not valid ? Again you are using American-centred definition as the only one valid making everything else radical ultra-nationalism... nonsense.

Again if your going with your definition you have to accept all of polish decent as being in that grouping - something you seem to be unwilling to accept.

Because I cannot treat people who didn;t want to be Polish as Polish, can I ?
That is even weirder.
Were the IRA terrorists British or Irish to you in the term of their nationality ?

If I decide to move to Norway and take citizenship within that Nation - then yes one becomes a Norwegian.

Nope, you get Norwegian citizenship, but if you do not consider yourself Norwegian you do not become a Norwegian national.

In Poland during the 2nd WW there were Polish nationals, Polish citizens loyal to the state, Polish citizens who abandoned their Polish (or Ukrainian etc) nationality, those who were of Polish citizenship, but other nationality ( like in all multi-national states) and didn't feel any loyalty towards the occupied country.
In addition we have either other stranger situations - foreigners who became Polish nationals during the war ( a Canadian American Native for example) without the citizenship or Russians or Soviets in general who were appointed as P.O.P Pretending to be Polish - in the People's Army - mainly as officers who returned just after the war or as far as 1956 to the SU.

Of course - never argued against that postion at all. It seems your wanting two different definitions based upon who the pole fought for.

Noep it was a description of the general situation, the example how it was and how it is understood here.

Nationality is based upon citizenship - same standard is applied in the United States regardless of what color or ethnic group one belongs to.

I am not in the USA.

Not here. Nationality is based on your consent regardles of the colour or ethnic origin. You can declare e.g. French nationality, though you can have Polish citizenship.
That is how it works here and in the large part of Europe - that is why there are national minorities - according to your point of view there are NONE such.

Oh I knew your were stuck on the ethnic making of the polish people not the Nation of Poland. That is why I went this route in this discussion.

I never used the word Polish to discribe simple ethnic origin or making - but nationality based on consent - the legal definition here in Poland and in many other states of Europe and not only...

Which only goes to prove my earlier point. Must be real fun to only identify yourself by a race of people versus a nation of all the people.

:inquisitive: ??? Again you imply racism - this is absurd. Poles de facto are one of most diverse nation when it comes to the race - a mixture of semitic, slavic and other factors. That is why the consent in the definition means so much.
This means that I could tomorrow become Japanese in the term of nationality based on consent - through with much effort - learnign the language, absorbing the culture, various customs etc BUT the consent is the most important thing.
In any office where nationality is required to be described you are using your free will here in Poland. If you say you are Icelandic you will be if Russian here you go, German fine, Egyptian ok - should I describe it further or are we clear at least with THIS ?:whip:

KrooK

11-29-2006, 01:21

Ok here I have to reveal unpoken truth into previous Post.

THere are 2 definitions of citizenship into International Law

1)European - citizen is someone who is being borned from citizen and member of nations is someone who is being born from member of nation.
2)aMERICAN(as you see rEDLEG) - citizen is someone borned into country.

All Europe uses 1st definition. So during ww2 we can't tell about Poles (i respect my country rEDLEG) as citizens of Poland but about Poles as members of Polish Nation. Other definition would lead to joke - Germans living in Poland would be called Poles).

And according to one of the post on side 2 (ones with Jewish guardians forced to that job into concentration camps). I'm not telling about situation when you have 2 options - you will be guardian or you will be killed. Into this situation Salomon Morel wasn't forced to that job, he did it happy. Furthermore he did more than his communist friends asked him to do. His order was to guard suspected (or just looking bad) peoples and he keep killing suspected peoples just for his fun.
Have you checked article I mentioned? Even communist stopped Morel because they couldn't stand situation.

There is problem that most of writers here can't see. Why Israel let this man walking free. If they don't trust polish courts, they can judge him into Israel. Crimes against humanity are punishable everywhere. I want show you sight on similar case. There were war criminal accused of similar cases into same territory (mostly Auschwitz) into similar time.....
Israel wanted judge war criminal and other country didn't want extradite him. So happy, lawful Jews hijacked that man. It was Eichman. It was ok, criminal should be punished, but .....

For me hunting german criminal and letting jewish criminal walking free is proof of RACISM. For people who are doing like that some nations should have better rights than others. So by it's behavior Israel is racist country.

BTW Can someone tell me what are french muslims telling about Jews?
Or what are people of tEXAS thinking about Mexicans?
Before accusing Poland, clean your own territory.

Redleg

11-29-2006, 01:53

BTW Can someone tell me what are french muslims telling about Jews?
Or what are people of tEXAS thinking about Mexicans?
Before accusing Poland, clean your own territory.

using other bad behavior to justify one's bad behavior is a sign of weakness in one's postion and demonstrates that you know the behavior is wrong...

Husar

11-29-2006, 02:07

polish is the correct spelling for the ethnic group. Polish is the correct spelling if one is speaking of the nation. Worried about capitialization of an ethnic grouping is a sign of racism.
I am inclined to agree there and Krook may want to stop making jokes about it since his english isn't that great either...:juggle2:
Apart from that, I don't want to get into this discussion, but some parts are interesting to read.

Redleg

11-29-2006, 02:18

[QUOTE=Redleg]

???? WHAT ? Is there a thing which is NOT a sign of racism to you ?

Lots of things - to bad you keep walking yourself into the ultra-nationalist trap of your own making. Rather amusing isn't.

Which is the closest to the truth in the matter of organised collaboration in Poland and volunteers in Waffen SS. The absolute refusal...

I never said it was wholesale - your attempting to deal in absolutes which is a false arguement from the very beginning.

Yes. That is why I do imply. But consider the difference - here it is based on consent and other factors different than simple citizenship or ethnic origin.
Especially in Poland where we had multinational-state for most of our history.
That is why the CONSENT is so important in the definition.

Never said it wasn't.

In America for sure, but not here in general. I never in my life used the definition you propose - it simply doesn't work for this part of Europe.

Then your stuck in a rute of your own making. Ethnic background is just ethnic background.

Slovaks DIDN'T have a state for most of their history. Kurds - is there any - am I missing something in the Middle East ?

Which is why they are a people, an ethnic grouping based upon a common theme.

True for the USA, wrong for Europe (at least most of it). Here you inherit the citizenship, nationality is only inherited with your consent.

True for many nations - I know several that view it exactly the way described. Describe how many people's have migrated and assimlated into the geographical region that is Poland. I know of three cultures - and I am sure there are others when one reviews all of history.

WHERE ?

Many places

Stupid remark, German army was there. Do you imply that Poles did herd the Jews to Ghettos ? That is obvious lie.

Oh misreading again - Most of the Ghettos alreadly existed according to the histories I have read. The Jews were alreadly segrated into their own sections because of the anti-sementism of the polish people and the other non-jewish peoples within the Polish nation.

If everyone who lived in Poland is Polish for you it clearly means you have not realistic point of view in this matter.

Its a non-racist view. Its purely a geographical designation based upon where one was born.

And the one based on consent is not valid ? Again you are using American-centred definition as the only one valid making everything else radical ultra-nationalism... nonsense.

Weak rebuttal, where is the meat. Where did I state it was the only valid definition? What I am saying is your arguement in its use makes it ultra-nationalism, not the definition itself.

Because I cannot treat people who didn;t want to be Polish as Polish, can I ?
That is even weirder.

So your back to using the definition of a geographical area not just a people?

Were the IRA terrorists British or Irish to you in the term of their nationality ?

Tsk Tsk - a easy postion to figure out.

Nope, you get Norwegian citizenship, but if you do not consider yourself Norwegian you do not become a Norwegian national.

Incorrect.

Noep it was a description of the general situation, the example how it was and how it is understood here.

It is an application of a double standard.

I am not in the USA.

So, that is not a rebuttal.

Not here. Nationality is based on your consent regardles of the colour or ethnic origin. You can declare e.g. French nationality, though you can have Polish citizenship.

And you would be Polish because that is where your citizenship is.

That is how it works here and in the large part of Europe - that is why there are national minorities - according to your point of view there are NONE such.

That is why there is more racism in Europe then the United States or any place in the Americas.

I never used the word Polish to discribe simple ethnic origin or making - but nationality based on consent - the legal definition here in Poland and in many other states of Europe and not only...

And your inconsistent with your application of it. There were Polish volunteers in the German Army to include the Wafen SS. There were however no poles in the Wafen SS.

:inquisitive: ??? Again you imply racism - this is absurd. Poles de facto are one of most diverse nation when it comes to the race - a mixture of semitic, slavic and other factors. That is why the consent in the definition means so much.
This means that I could tomorrow become Japanese in the term of nationality based on consent - through with much effort - learnign the language, absorbing the culture, various customs etc BUT the consent is the most important thing.
In any office where nationality is required to be described you are using your free will here in Poland. If you say you are Icelandic you will be if Russian here you go, German fine, Egyptian ok - should I describe it further or are we clear at least with THIS ?:whip:

Not implying it at all. You have used race as a definition several times in this discussion to claim no polish volunteers several times. However when it suits your needs you use the "consent" claim for nationality which by the way is the same one that applies to all geographically based national identification.

Its been fun - rather amusing to see your attempts to spin away from the basic flaw in your postion of absolutes.

cegorach

11-29-2006, 08:43

So we will spend more time arguing about the existing in Europe definition of nationality... well if it has to be so... How useless.

Lots of things - to bad you keep walking yourself into the ultra-nationalist trap of your own making. Rather amusing isn't.

By repeatedly saying this you will not change the reality.

Quote:

Which is the closest to the truth in the matter of organised collaboration in Poland and volunteers in Waffen SS. The absolute refusal...

I never said it was wholesale - your attempting to deal in absolutes which is a false arguement from the very beginning.

Why ? If there were no volunteers of Polish NATIONALITY in Waffen SS how can't I reply that there were none volunteers of Polish NATIONALITY in Waffen SS.
It is simple no means no.

Yes. That is why I do imply. But consider the difference - here it is based on consent and other factors different than simple citizenship or ethnic origin.
Especially in Poland where we had multinational-state for most of our history.
That is why the CONSENT is so important in the definition.

Never said it wasn't.

But you have used repeatedly the definision based on pure citizenship or on ethnic roots alone. That I never did, also answering your arguments, but why should I ? It is never used here anyway and you should be well aware that the American legal definition is not valid here.

So what is it all about ?

Quote:

In America for sure, but not here in general. I never in my life used the definition you propose - it simply doesn't work for this part of Europe.

Then your stuck in a rute of your own making. Ethnic background is just ethnic background.

It is not ethnic background, but the nationality based on consent and other factors - NO ethnic background ALONE and surely NOT on citizenship or race.
Not using the American definition is no mistake - give me one reason why I should used that ?

Slovaks DIDN'T have a state for most of their history. Kurds - is there any - am I missing something in the Middle East ?

Which is why they are a people, an ethnic grouping based upon a common theme.

No. Before they gained their state they DID exist as a nation - based o consent and other links - there are numerous other examples in history.

True for the USA, wrong for Europe (at least most of it). Here you inherit the citizenship, nationality is only inherited with your consent.

True for many nations - I know several that view it exactly the way described. Describe how many people's have migrated and assimlated into the geographical region that is Poland. I know of three cultures - and I am sure there are others when one reviews all of history.

There is a difference of geographical region and the nation which is based on links of consent and other factors, geographical region is NOT all. See the shifting borders and the voluntary and unvoluntary resettlement and simple immigration.
Answering your question - numerous, but it depends on your definition which is ?

Stupid remark, German army was there. Do you imply that Poles did herd the Jews to Ghettos ? That is obvious lie.

Oh misreading again - Most of the Ghettos alreadly existed according to the histories I have read. The Jews were alreadly segrated into their own sections because of the anti-sementism of the polish people and the other non-jewish peoples within the Polish nation.

Rubbish. People were free to buy a flat/house anywhere. The constitutions ( 1921 and 1935) both allowed that.
That is why Jews were moved from various sectors of cities everywhere the ghettos were created. If you claim otherwise I demand proving that !

If everyone who lived in Poland is Polish for you it clearly means you have not realistic point of view in this matter.

Its a non-racist view. Its purely a geographical designation based upon where one was born.

You imply that the definition of a nationality based primary on consent i.e. the one I am using all the time is racist ?
Second when using your geographical designation - you might find yourself in big trouble
- people like Guderian lived in territory which was a part of the Republic of Poland in 1918 does it make their nationality Polish ?
- if someone ws born in the area of the Republic, but moved to Germany or elsewhere was he still of Polish nationality ?
- if someone was born in the territory of the Republic but hated it all his life joining the Nazis as soon as he could was his nationality still Polish ?
- what about the people born before 1918 could they call their nationality Polish ?
- where is the geographical Poland ?
Yes that needs to be answered as well since the borders DID change and even the geographical names were changed. Describe that too, please.

And the one based on consent is not valid ? Again you are using American-centred definition as the only one valid making everything else radical ultra-nationalism... nonsense.

Weak rebuttal, where is the meat. Where did I state it was the only valid definition? What I am saying is your arguement in its use makes it ultra-nationalism, not the definition itself.

???? Because ? It is legal definition in the state of Poland (and others) why its use makes me ultra-nationalist ?

Because I cannot treat people who didn;t want to be Polish as Polish, can I ?
That is even weirder.

So your back to using the definition of a geographical area not just a people?

What ?

Nope, you get Norwegian citizenship, but if you do not consider yourself Norwegian you do not become a Norwegian national.

Incorrect.

If the definition is based on consent why is that incorrect ?

Quote:

Noep it was a description of the general situation, the example how it was and how it is understood here.

It is an application of a double standard.

What double standard ? I never used any other definition of the nationality than Polish, why should I ? American one is not used here - unless when compared to the Polish one.
But it is a huge difference !

I am not in the USA.

So, that is not a rebuttal.

????

Not here. Nationality is based on your consent regardles of the colour or ethnic origin. You can declare e.g. French nationality, though you can have Polish citizenship.

And you would be Polish because that is where your citizenship is.

Not in Poland because citizenshipt doesnt equal nationality here, how otherwise there could there be national minorities ?

That is how it works here and in the large part of Europe - that is why there are national minorities - according to your point of view there are NONE such.

That is why there is more racism in Europe then the United States or any place in the Americas.

Rubbish. You assume that the nationality based on consent (regardless of race, ethnics etc ) is more racist than the one based on citizenship (regardless of race, ethnics etc) ?
Absurd. In what way ?

I never used the word Polish to discribe simple ethnic origin or making - but nationality based on consent - the legal definition here in Poland and in many other states of Europe and not only...

And your inconsistent with your application of it. There were Polish volunteers in the German Army to include the Wafen SS. There were however no poles in the Wafen SS.

There is NO inconsistency - I always use the definition of nationality based on consent. If it is otherwise when I use the term Polish I describe that as Polish citizenship or Polish ethnics - but it is not nationality here or in many european countries.

??? Again you imply racism - this is absurd. Poles de facto are one of most diverse nation when it comes to the race - a mixture of semitic, slavic and other factors. That is why the consent in the definition means so much.
This means that I could tomorrow become Japanese in the term of nationality based on consent - through with much effort - learnign the language, absorbing the culture, various customs etc BUT the consent is the most important thing.
In any office where nationality is required to be described you are using your free will here in Poland. If you say you are Icelandic you will be if Russian here you go, German fine, Egyptian ok - should I describe it further or are we clear at least with THIS ?

Not implying it at all. You have used race as a definition several times in this discussion to claim no polish volunteers several times. However when it suits your needs you use the "consent" claim for nationality which by the way is the same one that applies to all geographically based national identification.

What ? I never used the race ! And I DO NOT use the consent when it suits me, but always unless I describe pure ethnic origin or the citizenship, but it is where I use the words ethnics or citizenship.

Consent is NOT the same ! Why is the nationality declared in addition to citizenship ? Why there are national minorities ? If it all is the same to you it is all wrong !:wall:

P.S.

Here is the legal definition of the nationality in Poland

"Narodowość jest deklaratywną (opartą na subiektywnym odczuciu) cechą indywidualną każdego człowieka, wyrażającą jego związek emocjonalny (uczuciowy), kulturowy lub genealogiczny (ze względu na pochodzenie rodziców) z określonym narodem"

which means

Nationality is voluntary, individual feature of each human expressing his emotional, cultural or genealogical (the origin of his parents) relationship with a certain Nation *

* in this meaning it is the whole community of all Polish citizens.

According to the latest poll there are the following nationalities in Poland (except the Polish) :

* 173148 silesian *
* 152897 German
* 48737 Belorussian
* 30957 Ukrainian
* 12855 Roma
* 6103 Russian
* 5863 Lemka ( Rusyn)
* 5846 Lithuanian
* 5062 Kashubian *
* 2001 Slovak
* 1808 Vietnamese
* 1633 French
* 1541 American
* 1404 Greek
* 1367 Italian
* 1133 Jewish
* 1112 Bulgarian
* 1082 Armenian

* Silesian - are judged to be ethnics not nationalities.
Many Kashubians do count themselves as a group insid the Polish nationality.

Some people didn't chose any specific, some refused to answer (was voluntary), some felt dual nationality, but Polish was the primary.

Redleg

11-29-2006, 15:17

So we will spend more time arguing about the existing in Europe definition of nationality... well if it has to be so... How useless.

Well digging yourself deeper into the trap of ultra-nationalism is rather amusing.

Nationality

Some countries use nationality to define ethnicity. However, many of the disadvantages and other experiences associated with minority status continue long after migrants have qualified for citizenship.

Oh before you attempt the arguement the definition comes from a European nation not the United States. It seems that not all of Europe agrees with the definition you use. ITs been amusing but there were Polish Nationals in the Waffen SS, just no polish ethnic group from Poland, (very possible given the Nazi statement).

Adrian II

11-29-2006, 16:06

And thanks for 'pretending' remark - I really appreciate that...Yes, I really believe it is just pretense. You seem to be more concerned with polishing the image of Polish nationalism than with combatting antisemitism.

I am really disappointed that you try to explain away every instance of antisemitism I mentioned. In my view, if someone walks like an antisemite and quacks like an antisemite, than he is an antisemite. If you can't accept that elementary notion, further discussion is fruitless.

cegorach

11-29-2006, 16:51

@Redleg

Quote:

Originally Posted by cegorach
So we will spend more time arguing about the existing in Europe definition of nationality... well if it has to be so... How useless.

Well digging yourself deeper into the trap of ultra-nationalism is rather amusing.

Great I could as well talk to an iPod...

Anyway, happy that it keeps you amused. Since in recent answers you either deny the legality of the existing definition of nationality I explained several times or 'are amused' I have some doubts if you are able to continue that at all.
Presenting none credible responses, especially in the area of definition is hardly a good way to discuss anything.

Quote:

Nationality

Some countries use nationality to define ethnicity. However, many of the disadvantages and other experiences associated with minority status continue long after migrants have qualified for citizenship.

Oh before you attempt the arguement the definition comes from a European nation not the United States. It seems that not all of Europe agrees with the definition you use. ITs been amusing but there were Polish Nationals in the Waffen SS, just no polish ethnic group from Poland, (very possible given the Nazi statement).

Ha, ha, ha and what answer it is ? You imply something I do not even use - the nationality based on CONSENT is NOT the same as nationality built on ethnic origins... There are people who came to Poland only recently and have NONE ethnic links to the country, but still they have all the rights to call themselves Polish nationals - this directly comes from their consent the voluntary link to the Polish nationality.

The second thing is that you are quoting something obvious, but regardless of the definition of nationality the 'disadvantages and other experiences' do continue since you have to adopt the language, some basic customs and other aspects of the society you are living in.
If tomorrow I would travell to Canada I would have to improve my language skills, learn some customs and other things if you assume that the quoted 'disadvantages and other experiences' are the result of the nationality based on ethnics or consent you are wrong.
It is especially tru for more unified communities which exist everywhere.

And there were no Polish nationals in the Waffen SS - nationality defined by the subject's consent of course.

Finally - I never claimed the nationality is based on consent in the whole Europe - in some, in most or in a couple of states - it changes nothing, unless you prove that the Polish legal definition is not... legal or valid.
But this thing is impossible even if it is 'amusing' to you.

@Adrian II

You might be interested that two antisemitic incidents were found in Poland lately.

1. During the recent local elections (over 50-80 000 candidates) in Zakopane someone put antisemitic remarks about the candidate for a mayor screaming 'Poles ! Do not vote for a Jew !' - police investigates the affair.
The person who was attacked this way won the elections nonetheless.

There are no further incidents reported - maybe something else will appear, but it is unlikely since the elections are even more calm than 4 years ago.

Note - ONE incident. For mainstream antisemitism it is hardly a notable thing, especially for 38 million country and comparing that to other states.

2. This was revealed today. 'Dziennik' daily described a neonazi meeting in Silesia in summer 2004, somewhere in a forest.
There were nazi salutes and shouting in German. Torches were burnt, even one as a big swastika...
There are accusations that there were some members of LPR's youth organisation, though that is unconfirmed for now.

Surely a scandal ! In fact the greatest I remember...

The problem is that the neonazi movement is the most hated organisation in Poland - after all the Nazis are responsible for more than 5 million of deaths of Polish citizens during the 2nd WW.

I can either consider bad luck for my stance attacking the picture of the mainstream antisemitism or... quite the opposite.

The affair was disclosed today in the morning and from that time we have:

LPR's response that if anyone from the youth was between these people he will be thrown away. In addition LPR's leadership contacted the public prosecution to investigate the affair and found the perpetrators.
They condemned the event calling it abhorrent and shocking.

All other party leaders condemned the event, some directly called for banning the LPR's youth, even the party itself if responsible in any way.

The last commander of the Ghetto Uprising Marek Edelman advised that too, so did the senior judge of the Constitutional Court.

I am sure there will be more responses during the rest of the day.

I would call that all a normal response of a democratic state and its leaders. I am sure you do agree.

Note it was a secret meeting somewhere in a forest - not in the open as in some countries, even Germany which is especially careful with such hate-mongers.

I have a proposal to you - read the notes in Dutch newspapers and see how the events will be described. The same with the TV. And later describe that, please.

I am curious if they will comment that as another 'proof' of the rise of antisemitism in Poland or use other similar statement.

Of course it will further damege the image of Poland, which is another problem - the prejudice, the false stereotype is so strong that any event like this confirms the false description despite the reality where the antisemitic incidents are getting rarer and more seldom every year.:yes:

It really makes the work of people like me much more difficult...:wall:

KrooK

11-29-2006, 17:06

rEDLEG - your agruments are agruments ad personam - totally banned into normal discussion. You attackd cegorach by repeating same thing. Please show your evidence to proove that there were polish organised units into Wermacht, SS.
Sorry but we are Europeans and we will be using European meaning of citizenship, different than meaning of nation. If you don't agree on this - your problem. Germans use same meaning, French use same meaning and most of Europe.
If you are telling about polish racists - here you can see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States
aMERICAN racist organisation. Looks like here we can see only bigger.
Please don't forget that racist behavior is into USA called national defense.
You claim that every man is equal but you are building great wall on Mexican border to stop these men from being "equal". KuKluxKlan exist safety, same like nazis organisations. You are hunting muslims.

Dear Adrian. If you are so sure about antisemism in Poland, please come here and fight with it. You can go with your friends from Waffen SS. I'm sure that instead of fighting with communists you will be happy to fight with antisemitists. I even found special poster for you
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/4SSNL-PGDA1.jpg

But could you tell me something about antisemism into Holland. Why Holland had highest percentage of killed Jews from all western countriens into WW2. Why you didn't protect Jews?
Maybe this is answer
In their preparations for the extermination of the Jews living in The Netherlands, the Germans could count on the assistance of the greater part of the Dutch administrative infrastructure. The occupiers had to employ only a relatively limited number of their own. Dutch policemen rounded up the families to be sent to their deaths in Eastern Europe. Trains of the Dutch railways staffed by Dutch employees transported the Jews to camps in The Netherlands which were transit points to Auschwitz, Sobibor, and other death camps. Van der Zee writes that with respect to Dutch collaboration, Eichmann later said "The transports run so smoothly that it is a pleasure to see."

it's from WARTIME AND POSTWAR DUTCH ATTITUDES TOWARD THE JEWS: MYTH AND TRUTH
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp412.htm

I have read about that Dutch SS Division. And as a conclusion - you are accusing me of that I'm antisemism and your homies did such a things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_SS_Volunteer_Panzergrenadier_Brigade_Nederland
That Dutch legion fought mostly with patizans, which on eastern front means nothing more than war crimes. Sorry but you should apologise here.

In the end. Don't listen to propaganda. Before accusing others, clean yourselves. Morel is criminal and should be punished. Jews don't want punish him, because he is Jew. And it means RACISM.

cegorach

11-29-2006, 17:19

Yes, I really believe it is just pretense. You seem to be more concerned with polishing the image of Polish nationalism than with combatting antisemitism.

I am really disappointed that you try to explain away every instance of antisemitism I mentioned. In my view, if someone walks like an antisemite and quacks like an antisemite, than he is an antisemite. If you can't accept that elementary notion, further discussion is fruitless.

Not it is about the elementary truth.

If you need links to my discussions with antisemites I can give you such, but I am not gong to accept your claims of the widespread antisemitism or mainstream antisemitism and its large part in the current situation of Poland...

I am really disappointed and certainly offended - for last 15 years I do very often argue with antisemites, comparing to those this thread is completely nice and friendly chat about weather.

You frame me as an antisemite - I cannot forgive that, the only thing I am not able to forget...:wall: :wall: :wall:
Not that I will revenge for that - it is too shallow, but it is a big disappointment to me.

See the problem from my point of view - you have certain, exaggerated and partly not true image of your country knowing the situation first hand since you have spent half of your life destroying antisemitism wherever possible and suddenly you do have to oppose the statement
- first about the popularity of antisemitism in politics and not only,
- next about the important part played by antisemites in Polish church or media,
- about the 'obvious' prejudice of the whole state - since you question the very neutrality of the Polish courts of law, its persecution and state organisations responsible for catching and accusing nazi and communist crime perpetrators,
- examples of dubious activities of certain people who either didn't (Michal Kaminski), most likely don't ( the guy in TV) or simply don't ( LPR leaders, Law and Justice leaders) use antisemitic remarks, not even hidden ones.

If you cannot accept the information from the Polish media, international NGOs or from me how can I possibly defend or simply describe the real situation of my country ?

This way the only situation when you are willing to agree is my total and absolute 'yes' to your arguments !

Despite the several arguments, numerous examples, answering ALL your critical points I can't even see the least change in your stance towards the entire problem. But that requires some effort and changing at least a little the deeply rooted opinion of my country.

Perhaps you should talk to people who know the subject, but are not Polish, nor have any links to the country.
But is there a one who knows the subject and has no links to Poland ? No, since some level of knowledge is required which is impossible without researching Polish sources, knowing the situation and similar...

It seems I have suffered a defeat in the effort to correct one man's perception of Poland and the antisemitism.

Hopefully other people who had read the thread were more willing to accept that...

Anyway it will take at least about 20 years to correct the false image...:book:

@Krook

I understand you are angry, but it is not the way to comapre someone to Waffen SS soldiers.

Adrain II should rather be invited to Poland, speak with the members of the local Jewish community, discuss with other people combating antisemitism, meet with some great people kile Bronislaw Geremek ( Jewish origin), Adam Michnik (Jewish origin) or Marek Edelman ( Jewish), read more Norman Davies works (except the last one which is full of mistakes), watch movies like 'the Pianist' fo Roman Polanski ( Jewish) etc.

I will tick one place on my list of unsuccesfull 'conversions' and drink something, that is really depressing moment...

I hope there are some people who enjoyed the discussion and started thinking at least A LITTLE differently...

CrossLOPER

11-29-2006, 17:24

OMG ENOUGH WITH THE QUOTE FUNCTION RAPE!!!!

It seems I have suffered a defeat in the effort to correct one man's perception of Poland and the antisemitism.
Yes... I suppose this is a bad time to tell you they were screwing with you?

cegorach

11-29-2006, 17:34

OMG ENOUGH WITH THE QUOTE FUNCTION RAPE!!!!

Yes... I suppose this is a bad time to tell you they were screwing with you?

I say what I believe.

Perhaps it is naive, but I believe everyone can be convinced... I managed to change for more biased points of view...

Redleg obviously wasn't serious, but it only helps me in the entire effort, Adrian II - somehow a person with 'historian' award can be seen as more responsible...

Anyway if at least one person changed his mind regarding the suject or at least one will assume the wrong picture of Poland is not real it is ALWAYS worth the effort.

CrossLOPER

11-29-2006, 17:38

Adrian II - somehow a person with 'historian' award can be seen as more responsible...
???

I think you are going to be very disappointed....

Redleg

11-29-2006, 17:55

@Redleg

Great I could as well talk to an iPod...

Anyway, happy that it keeps you amused. Since in recent answers you either deny the legality of the existing definition of nationality I explained several times or 'are amused' I have some doubts if you are able to continue that at all.

Tsk tsk - claiming nationality as a definition of ethnic background does not equate to what you are claiming. I find that rather amusing.

Presenting none credible responses, especially in the area of definition is hardly a good way to discuss anything.

Actually the definition of Nationality that I use is very crediable - one that is recongized by many nations beside the United States. But then I am not stuck on ethnic makeup or ultra-nationalism to justify my prejudices either. To claim that its not credible is lacking nor is it a valid rebuttal to the postion I have taken.

Ha, ha, ha and what answer it is ? You imply something I do not even use - the nationality based on CONSENT is NOT the same as nationality built on ethnic origins... There are people who came to Poland only recently and have NONE ethnic links to the country, but still they have all the rights to call themselves Polish nationals - this directly comes from their consent the voluntary link to the Polish nationality.

Your falling into the same ultranationalist trap - you first speak of ethnic nationality - in the claim of no polish volunteers in the Wafen SS, but when faced with the facts that yes indeed their were Polish nationals in the Wafen SS, you revert back to the pure ethnic definition. A lovely little trap that one falls into.

The second thing is that you are quoting something obvious, but regardless of the definition of nationality the 'disadvantages and other experiences' do continue since you have to adopt the language, some basic customs and other aspects of the society you are living in.

Yes indeed its an obvious definition - one that you have just claimed is not credible. Rather amusing isn't.

If tomorrow I would travell to Canada I would have to improve my language skills, learn some customs and other things if you assume that the quoted 'disadvantages and other experiences' are the result of the nationality based on ethnics or consent you are wrong.

Ah a change in direction. This is different then what has been discussed about the ultranational trap of defining nationality by ethnic makeup.

And there were no Polish nationals in the Waffen SS - nationality defined by the subject's consent of course.

Incorrect - there were Polish nationals in the Waffen SS - not many but not the absolute that your claiming. A check of the rolls of the Waffen SS reveal several enlistments out of Poland.

Finally - I never claimed the nationality is based on consent in the whole Europe - in some, in most or in a couple of states - it changes nothing, unless you prove that the Polish legal definition is not... legal or valid.
But this thing is impossible even if it is 'amusing' to you.

Again making a false claim about my statements. I did not claim the Polish legal definition is not legal, I claim that the definition is the ultranationalist trap that it is. Nationality is based upon the geographical boundries in which one is a citizen of. Nationality is indeed based upon consent - where one activitily pursues the course of citizenship for that nation, regardless of what ethnic groups one is born into.

Louis VI the Fat

11-29-2006, 17:58

Cegorach, I remember a brief discussion I had with you a few months ago about Polish conservatism and the influence of the Catholic church. You managed to convince me - with reason and a slightly less excited tone than here - that my ideas about Poland were, well not necessarily false, but single-sided at least. I became aware that I previously saw but one side of the coin.

In this thread, as you yourself noted, indeed you have been less succesful. Adrian is correct in noting that you seem to be more concerned with polishing the image of Polish nationalism than with combatting antisemitism.

For one thing, how can you in one post claim that you've been fighting anti-semitism in Poland for fifteen years, only to claim in the next that there is hardly any antisemitism in Poland in the fist place?
What, you've been fighting figments of foreign imagination all these years?

I know you as an educated man and trust your opinion on all things Polish - but your all too defensive stance and hurt nationalistic pride in this thread has done little to aid your cause . Maybe - well, probably - you are right that anti-semitism is on the wane in Poland. However, if anything, this thread, it's very subject and some replies have convinced me Poland has a long way to go yet.

@Krook - you may want to consider editing some parts of your last post.

Redleg

11-29-2006, 18:03

rEDLEG - your agruments are agruments ad personam - totally banned into normal discussion. You attackd cegorach by repeating same thing. Please show your evidence to proove that there were polish organised units into Wermacht, SS.

Tsk Tsk - incorrect. Repeating the same thing does not equate to an attack. That is the first error. The second error is making a claim that I did not make. There were several Polish units in the Wermacht - ie they were formed in the nation of Poland by Polish nationals - they were primarily concripted units of germanic ethnic individuals who lived in Poland - making them Polish. Second was that there were polish individuals that did indeed enlist into the Wermacht, and yes indeed there are even polish names on the roles of the Wafen SS.

Sorry but we are Europeans and we will be using European meaning of citizenship, different than meaning of nation. If you don't agree on this - your problem. Germans use same meaning, French use same meaning and most of Europe.

Not completely correct - several nations in Europe use the definition that that removes ethnic makeup from the defintion of nationality.

If you are telling about polish racists - here you can see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States
aMERICAN racist organisation. Looks like here we can see only bigger.
Please don't forget that racist behavior is into USA called national defense.
You claim that every man is equal but you are building great wall on Mexican border to stop these men from being "equal". KuKluxKlan exist safety, same like nazis organisations. You are hunting muslims.

Arguing that racism does not exist in the United States is not my claim. Pointing out the bad behavior of racists in the United States does not equate to a valid defense of bad behavior of racism in Poland. In fact it counters your arguement nicely since it demonstrates that you understand that your postion is incorrect because it is one of racism - not Nationality.

cegorach

11-29-2006, 18:17

[QUOTE]In this thread, as you yourself noted, indeed you have been less succesful. Adrian is correct in noting that you seem to be more concerned with polishing the image of Polish nationalism than with combatting antisemitism.

For one thing, how can you in one post claim that you've been fighting anti-semitism in Poland for fifteen years, only to claim in the next that there is hardly any antisemitism in Poland in the fist place?
What, you've been fighting figments of foreign imagination all these years?

Because the antisemitism IS present, it was pressent too, but not as Adrian II claims.
It is not mainstream, nor widespread. With every passing year it is weaker and less important - it is noticable in things like politics - no remarks, antisemitism spells certain death in elections, the number of antisemitic press which is virtually none ( I mean the hidden remarks in some magazines of the extremists present in some places) and the quick response to the problem everywhere.

Combating the prejudice will never end, I am sure and I DO enjoy that.

Now it is weak and reduced to crude stereotypes here and there, but does not affect anything - in fact the lack of the 'new' antisemitism is the easiest result to spot and there are others too.

I have proven before that many accusations are either totally wrong or have little importance - this is the main thing.

Another problem is the size of the Polish collaboration during the war which is minimal in disorganized way and non existent in organised structures, that is still NOT assumed by many historians who repeat old habits, images as some always do...

Redleg

11-29-2006, 18:34

[QUOTE=Louis VI the Fat]

Another problem is the size of the Polish collaboration during the war which is minimal in disorganized way and non existent in organised structures, that is still NOT assumed by many historians who repeat old habits, images as some always do...

Denying it existed however is also a problem.

The polish collaboration with the Nazi Regime was indeed very limited in scope, and definitily not organized. But some of the unorganized collaboration was very damning.

Before World War Two three million, three hundred thousand Jewish people lived in Poland, ten percent of the general population of thirty-three million. Located mostly in urban areas, large Jewish communities had flourished in Poland since the Middle Ages, maintaining their own language, culture, religious and social institutions, distinct and separate from the Polish culture around them. Despite their long history on Polish soil, many Poles regarded Jews as foreigners living in their midst.
By the 1920's and '30's the majority of Polish Jews were living in varying degrees of poverty, the result of the overall poor economy of the newly independent Polish state, compounded by government sanctioned anti-Jewish measures such as a 1938 law revoking the citizenship of Polish Jews living abroad. Jews had limited access to Polish universities and professions. They lived in a general climate of anti-semitism which not infrequently flared into violent pogroms. So even before the Nazi occupation, Jews in Poland were isolated from the mainstream and in a poor position to defend themselves against the extremely severe measures that were to follow.

http://www.humboldt.edu/~rescuers/book/Makuch/conditionsp.html

This is something that the Polish people have to come to gribs with and face their own anti-jewish past. This also is very damning of the definition of nationality based upon ethnic groups born in Poland but not welcomed into the society.

If the Jews were thought of as Polish first and Jews second - maybe history would of been different, but then again maybe not - Poland was not adequately prepared to face a war with Germany in 1939. The Polish Army put up a heroic defense considering they held off two vastly superior armies for about 30 days before the final collaspe.

This post is about the only serious post I have made in this thread. Poland and others in Europe need to face the fact that defining nationality based upon ethnic makeup sets the conditions for disenfrancement (SP) which allows a group to be abused based solely upon race. If no other lesson from WW2 is learned this one should.

When you don't treat every citizen as part of the Nation - the minority is prone to abuse.

Stig

11-29-2006, 18:39

In their preparations for the extermination of the Jews living in The Netherlands, the Germans could count on the assistance of the greater part of the Dutch administrative infrastructure.
Krook do you know what this even means:
it means that we Dutch had something called a databank. With the name of every person in it. In that persons file it said name, age, sex ... etc etc, and too religion. The resistance did a wonderfull job in destroying some of the databanks but you can't destroy everything can you.

Now you insulted me and my country 3 times. If you do it again, I'm going to ask some mod or admin to take steps ... and I know a mod who will fully agree to me

and edit:
in this spoiler I stored your entire last post, so a mod can see it, even if you try to edit it all out:
rEDLEG - your agruments are agruments ad personam - totally banned into normal discussion. You attackd cegorach by repeating same thing. Please show your evidence to proove that there were polish organised units into Wermacht, SS.
Sorry but we are Europeans and we will be using European meaning of citizenship, different than meaning of nation. If you don't agree on this - your problem. Germans use same meaning, French use same meaning and most of Europe.
If you are telling about polish racists - here you can see
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States
aMERICAN racist organisation. Looks like here we can see only bigger.
Please don't forget that racist behavior is into USA called national defense.
You claim that every man is equal but you are building great wall on Mexican border to stop these men from being "equal". KuKluxKlan exist safety, same like nazis organisations. You are hunting muslims.

Dear Adrian. If you are so sure about antisemism in Poland, please come here and fight with it. You can go with your friends from Waffen SS. I'm sure that instead of fighting with communists you will be happy to fight with antisemitists. I even found special poster for you
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/6b/4SSNL-PGDA1.jpg

But could you tell me something about antisemism into Holland. Why Holland had highest percentage of killed Jews from all western countriens into WW2. Why you didn't protect Jews?
Maybe this is answer
In their preparations for the extermination of the Jews living in The Netherlands, the Germans could count on the assistance of the greater part of the Dutch administrative infrastructure. The occupiers had to employ only a relatively limited number of their own. Dutch policemen rounded up the families to be sent to their deaths in Eastern Europe. Trains of the Dutch railways staffed by Dutch employees transported the Jews to camps in The Netherlands which were transit points to Auschwitz, Sobibor, and other death camps. Van der Zee writes that with respect to Dutch collaboration, Eichmann later said "The transports run so smoothly that it is a pleasure to see."

it's from WARTIME AND POSTWAR DUTCH ATTITUDES TOWARD THE JEWS: MYTH AND TRUTH
http://www.jcpa.org/jl/vp412.htm

I have read about that Dutch SS Division. And as a conclusion - you are accusing me of that I'm antisemism and your homies did such a things.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4th_SS_Volunteer_Panzergrenadier_Brigade_Nederland
That Dutch legion fought mostly with patizans, which on eastern front means nothing more than war crimes. Sorry but you should apologise here.

In the end. Don't listen to propaganda. Before accusing others, clean yourselves. Morel is criminal and should be punished. Jews don't want punish him, because he is Jew. And it means RACISM.

You already called me a nazi, and now you call Adrian a member of the Waffen SS, I could also pm a mod so that he can take steps immediatly, but I'm being nice to you here ... sort of

cegorach

11-29-2006, 18:42

Tsk tsk - claiming nationality as a definition of ethnic background does not equate to what you are claiming. I find that rather amusing.

What a suprise...

Actually the definition of Nationality that I use is very crediable - one that is recongized by many nations beside the United States. But then I am not stuck on ethnic makeup or ultra-nationalism to justify my prejudices either. To claim that its not credible is lacking nor is it a valid rebuttal to the postion I have taken.

But not everywhere. And you need to accept that it is made for a reason - the different history and reality of much part of Europe. Consider the shifting borders, nations without states etc - this is the main reason.

Your falling into the same ultranationalist trap - you first speak of ethnic nationality - in the claim of no polish volunteers in the Wafen SS, but when faced with the facts that yes indeed their were Polish nationals in the Wafen SS, you revert back to the pure ethnic definition. A lovely little trap that one falls into.

No I don't speak about the ethnic nationality - it DOESN'T exist here after all. How can I speak of something I don't consider really valid here ?

[QUOTE]The second thing is that you are quoting something obvious, but regardless of the definition of nationality the 'disadvantages and other experiences' do continue since you have to adopt the language, some basic customs and other aspects of the society you are living in.

Yes indeed its an obvious definition - one that you have just claimed is not credible. Rather amusing isn't.

Not credible in Poland, but credible in anglo-saxion circle. That is why I must remember it does exist there, but not here.

If tomorrow I would travell to Canada I would have to improve my language skills, learn some customs and other things if you assume that the quoted 'disadvantages and other experiences' are the result of the nationality based on ethnics or consent you are wrong.

Ah a change in direction. This is different then what has been discussed about the ultranational trap of defining nationality by ethnic makeup.

Read that again. Think. Post after thinking.

Incorrect - there were Polish nationals in the Waffen SS - not many but not the absolute that your claiming. A check of the rolls of the Waffen SS reveal several enlistments out of Poland.

Not of Polish nationals - since nationality is based on consent here it cannot be seen as enlistment of people of Polish nationality.

In other words back to the beginning...

Again making a false claim about my statements. I did not claim the Polish legal definition is not legal, I claim that the definition is the ultranationalist trap that it is. Nationality is based upon the geographical boundries in which one is a citizen of. Nationality is indeed based upon consent - where one activitily pursues the course of citizenship for that nation, regardless of what ethnic groups one is born into.

No nationality is based on consent here.

Consent cannot be limited to the state you are living - in Europe - especially if there is NO state.

An example.

A man is born in geographical territory of Poland, but from German parents - it happens in 1880 in the state of Germany.
Still he is fascinated by the Polish culture and even joins Polish underground movements in 1905. He learns Polish and Polish customs. He thinks of himself as Polish and in 1914 joins the Pilsudski's Legions. and dies for the Polish cause.

What is his nationality ?

According to the Polish (and not only Polish) definition he is Polish - it is based on his consent after all.

According to the american one he would be seen as German, but which one is the right answer ?

This post is about the only serious post I have made in this thread. Poland and others in Europe need to face the fact that defining nationality based upon ethnic makeup sets the conditions for disenfrancement (SP) which allows a group to be abused based solely upon race. If no other lesson from WW2 is learned this one should.

When you don't treat every citizen as part of the Nation - the minority is prone to abuse.

First - good you have finally announced that.

Second not true. Nationality based on citizenship 'melts' the unique features of some peoples.
The whole idea of the nationality based on consent and not equal to the one based on citizenship is to PROTECT the rights of the minorities

It means that someone who has the voluntary link (based on consent) to a nationality different than his citizenship can demand certain rights such as the right to learn his national language, or to get dual-citizenship .

If all those people were treated the same regardless of their consent ( not citizenship) it would spell the doom fo numerous cultures sach as Sorbian from German Lusatia or Lamka (Rusyn) in Poland.
That in effect means the destruction of those people.

Redleg

11-29-2006, 19:04

What a suprise...

Consistency

But not everywhere. And you need to accept that it is made for a reason - the different history and reality of much part of Europe. Consider the shifting borders, nations without states etc - this is the main reason.

Ah the reasoning for ethnic based definitions. Prejudice at its very beginning.

No I don't speak about the ethnic nationality - it DOESN'T exist here after all. How can I speak of something I don't consider really valid here ?

That is exactly what you are speaking of. You negate the Polish poeple of germanic decent in your defining no polish enlisted volunteerily.

Not credible in Poland, but credible in anglo-saxion circle. That is why I must remember it does exist there, but not here.

Then claiming it is a non-credible postion is false.

Read that again. Think. Post after thinking.

No need - the thought is a trap in itself. It allows for preconvieced prejudice based upon ethnicity not actual behavior of the individual.

Not of Polish nationals - since nationality is based on consent here it cannot be seen as enlistment of people of Polish nationality.

And that would be a false conclusion anywhere outside of Poland. You claim historians neglect certain information, but in doing so you refuse to understand the preception of the historian because they are not using what you believe to be a valid definition. Once again a trap in the making of the individual not the historian.

No nationality is based on consent here.

Consent is based upon where one lives and takes citizenship in. Ehtnic Identy has nothing to do with consent.

Consent cannot be limited to the state you are living - in Europe - especially if there is NO state.

Ethnic makeup does not equate to state.

An example.

A man is born in geographical territory of Poland, but from German parents - it happens in 1880 in the state of Germany.
Still he is fascinated by the Polish culture and even joins Polish underground movements in 1905. He learns Polish and Polish customs. He thinks of himself as Polish and in 1914 joins the Pilsudski's Legions. and dies for the Polish cause.

What is his nationality ?

According to the Polish (and not only Polish) definition he is Polish - it is based on his consent after all.

According to the american one he would be seen as German, but which one is the right answer ?

Incorrect his nationality is Polish because that is where born and where he chose to live. That he chose to die for Poland shows that was a true patriot of Poland. He remains because of the ethnic backgound of german ethnicity. Which is why the claim that no Polish volunteered for the Werhamnt and Waffen SS is false, and is seen by most historians as Polish did indeed volunteer and were drafted into the German Military.

If that same individual moved back to Germany and gained German citizenship - but chose to fight for Poland because of the evil he saw in the german regime - he would of been a German fighting for the Poles.

Redleg

11-29-2006, 19:11

Second not true. Nationality based on citizenship 'melts' the unique features of some peoples.

Only to the prejudice of those who value ethnicity as an identification of nationality. This is the basic trap of racism.

The whole idea of the nationality based on consent and not equal to the one based on citizenship is to PROTECT the rights of the minorities

And history shows this to be false. It leads to the abuse of minorities as evident during WW2, and yes even in the United States as it regards blacks.

It means that someone who has the voluntary link (based on consent) to a nationality different than his citizenship can demand certain rights such as the right to learn his national language, or to get dual-citizenship .

:no:

If all those people were treated the same regardless of their consent ( not citizenship) it would spell the doom fo numerous cultures sach as Sorbian from German Lusatia or Lamka (Rusyn) in Poland.
That in effect means the destruction of those people.

:no: You have definitily gone into the definition of racism.

Racism is prejudice or discrimination based on the belief that race is the primary factor determining human traits and abilities. Racism includes the belief that genetic or inherited differences produce the inherent superiority or inferiority of one race over another. In the name of protecting their race from "contamination," some racists justify the domination and destruction of races they consider to be either superior or inferior. ...

All people regardless of where, shape, culture, color, or sex are to be treated the same - to do otherwise is to fall into the trap of racism.

cegorach

11-29-2006, 19:38

[QUOTE]Only to the prejudice of those who value ethnicity as an identification of nationality. This is the basic trap of racism.

But I don't use ethnicy, but consent - if bordrs change, countries are occupied or disappear only the consent ( in a way loyalty) is the strongest link which allows survival of a nation.

Remember that there are countries which intentionally attack nationalities which are conquered by those e.g. Tibet case for example.

And history shows this to be false. It leads to the abuse of minorities as evident during WW2, and yes even in the United States as it regards blacks.

It doesn't because consent - i.e. free will is used.

If a country disappears should a nationality chose to die ?

All people regardless of where, shape, culture, color, or sex are to be treated the same - to do otherwise is to fall into the trap of racism.

But nationality based on consent doesn't infringe the rights coming from the citizenship !
You can be a citizen of a country and keep your nationality this way - otherwise national minorities cannot claim any special rights such as those to learn their own language.
The definition based on citizenship hurts such people who have no ethnic link to the nationality they believe they are in.

The nationality based on consent is necessary to ensure survival of some nations. Remember that not everyone is democratic and treats everyone in the same way - nationality based on consent allows surviving such bad times without any need to use ethnical or race links.
It is especially important for multinational ( in this sanse multi-ethnical actually) communities which consist of various race and ethnical groups, but treat themselves as a single nation.
Example e.g. Polish nationality after 1795 - it consisted of Polish ethnic , German, Jewish, Lithuanian etc ethnical groups of various races too and different languages, but still sharing the same consent - voluntary llink to the wider Polish nationality.
You see for example in the USA you have the situation of various peoples living together and defined by the citizenship which equals here the nationality, but in some countries there are people who live in a country, have its citizenship but feel certain bond with something else - a community based on consent and declare themselves a different nationality. It has no negative effect since all the rights they have as the citizens of a country are unaffected, but the different nationality allows them to claim certain rights which are protected by international agreements.
The voluntary community is better than analising ethnical or race bonds.

For example we have a blackman in Slovakia who considers themselves Polish and as such has the right to speak to the local consul of Poland, to learn Polish etc.
No special advantages, only the single one - to keep the link with the nationality he loves which is thanks to the definition based on consent is protected by some international treaties.

I hope it is possible to understand, I can clarify what is not.:book:

Redleg

11-29-2006, 19:52

[QUOTE=Redleg]

But I don't use ethnicy, but consent - if bordrs change, countries are occupied or disappear only the consent ( in a way loyalty) is the strongest link which allows survival of a nation.

Consent to citizenship is indeed the only way for a nation to survive

Remember that there are countries which intentionally attack nationalities which are conquered by those e.g. Tibet case for example.

I must ask are you attempting to excuse racism? In all seriousness this statements reads very much like a justification for racism.

And history shows this to be false. It leads to the abuse of minorities as evident during WW2, and yes even in the United States as it regards blacks.

It doesn't because consent - i.e. free will is used.

If a country disappears should a nationality chose to die ?

If a country disappears the ethnic group does not. Unless of course as with the Jews in 1930's to 1940's Europe you face both a organized attempt at your destruction and the unorganized collabration of racism. Or how abut the gyspies?

But nationality based on consent doesn't infringe the rights coming from the citizenship !
You can be a citizen of a country and keep your nationality this way - otherwise national minorities cannot claim any special rights such as those to learn their own language.
The definition based on citizenship hurts such people who have no ethnic link to the nationality they believe they are in.

The nationality based on consent is necessary to ensure survival of some nations. Remember that not everyone is democratic and treats everyone in the same way - nationality based on consent allows surviving such bad times without any need to use ethnical or race links.
It is especially important for multinational ( in this sanse multi-ethnical actually) communities which consist of various race and ethnical groups, but treat themselves as a single nation.
Example e.g. Polish nationality after 1795 - it consisted of Polish ethnic , German, Jewish, Lithuanian etc ethnical groups of various races too and different languages, but still sharing the same consent - voluntary llink to the wider Polish nationality.
You see for example in the USA you have the situation of various peoples living together and defined by the citizenship which equals here the nationality, but in some countries there are people who live in a country, have its citizenship but feel certain bond with something else - a community based on consent and declare themselves a different nationality. It has no negative effect since all the rights they have as the citizens of a country are unaffected, but the different nationality allows them to claim certain rights which are protected by international agreements.
The voluntary community is better than analising ethnical or race bonds.

For example we have a blackman in Slovakia who considers themselves Polish and as such has the right to speak to the local consul of Poland, to learn Polish etc.
No special advantages, only the single one - to keep the link with the nationality he loves which is thanks to the definition based on consent is protected by some international treaties.

I hope it is possible to understand, I can clarify what is not.:book:

You know I tried to read that with no prejudice on my part trying to understand what and where you are coming from - but all I see is an attempt to defend what is basically a prejudice based upon ones ethnic makeup. Which equates to the basic form of racism. It's not an active destructive form - but still nevertheless it is.

Where does the government have to spell out what language one learns. One can learn any language they wish. All the government can do is define which language it will use for its official business.

drone

11-29-2006, 20:04

Using ethnicity to define a "Nation" or nationality may be how some Europeans do it, but this line of thinking can become dangerous. It automatically creates divisions within a State (a geographical/political/economic region), which is never healthy for that State. It also opens the door to nationalistic idealogues, who can use this line of thinking for their own gain, both within the State and externally. Should people of a "nation" (ethnicity) have the right to be governed or treated differently than others who share the same State? If no, then what is the point of the "nation"? If yes, the State is discriminatory and rascist (think Apartheid). Israel could be considered a State like this. If the overall goal of the "nation" is to be one State, then you get situations like Nazi Germany annexing Austria, the Sudentenland, and Poland all under the guise of uniting the "Greater German Reich".

Assuming that Israel uses a combination of ethnicity and religion to determine "nationality", and also confers special priviledges to people of a certain "nationality", is there any surprise that Morel is not going to be extradicted? Of course not.

It has no negative effect since all the rights they have as the citizens of a country are unaffected, but the different nationality allows them to claim certain rights which are protected by international agreements.Could you clarify this please? Examples? What "certain rights" do people of certain "nationalities" get? And why should they get rights that others don't get? Confering rights based in "nationality" is inherently discriminatory.

cegorach

11-29-2006, 20:07

And that would be a false conclusion anywhere outside of Poland. You claim historians neglect certain information, but in doing so you refuse to understand the preception of the historian because they are not using what you believe to be a valid definition. Once again a trap in the making of the individual not the historian.

Consent is based upon where one lives and takes citizenship in. Ehtnic Identy has nothing to do with consent.

Here it is called National Identity - which is wider than ethnic, but smaller than citizenship.

Incorrect his nationality is Polish because that is where born and where he chose to live. That he chose to die for Poland shows that was a true patriot of Poland. He remains because of the ethnic backgound of german ethnicity. Which is why the claim that no Polish volunteered for the Werhamnt and Waffen SS is false, and is seen by most historians as Polish did indeed volunteer and were drafted into the German Military.

If that same individual moved back to Germany and gained German citizenship - but chose to fight for Poland because of the evil he saw in the german regime - he would of been a German fighting for the Poles.

But he is in German state ! There is only a territory called Poland some time ago which is no more.
He has no Polish ethnical origin, German citizenship - so according to the US definition he is not Polish.

The difference is based by the difference of the definition of the nationality which doesn't care about consent, but only about the ethnical origin.

In fact the definition obased on consent equals to some degree a true patriot, though he doesn't have to love his nationality, he only thinks of himself as a member of this nationality.

That is why if you change the direction of your consent you do change the nationality. There are people of Polish ethnics and citizenship, but indifferent to the nationality e.g. they consider themselves Tartar. He might even like Poland, but speaks of himself as Tartar.
His choice- he is free to chose without any need to change citizenship or prove he his ethnics.

The big difference can be seen in the Nazi approach to the Jews - they treated them all as Jewish because of some racist link - e.g. a protestant, a German patriot with grandfather who was Jewish was treated as a Jew. He could even be a Nazi. That is racist of course.

More realistic is ethnical approach, but that also means you are bound by your parents and their origin till the rest of your life.

Nationality based on consent however gives you the choice based on your voluntary approval and doesn't require asking for a citizenship or changing that.
All you need is to declare yourself as for example Rusyn and you will have the right to study the Rusyn language in a school payed by the state, not in private paying from your own wages.

You will also have the right to get re-settlement funds if you want to join the country of your nationality, get a special visa and so on.

In general you get the rights helping you to grow as e.g. Serbian in Bulgaria. Some special support from the state and that is all.
No disadvantages, same rights + a bonus.:idea2:

cegorach

11-29-2006, 20:16

[QUOTE=cegorach]

Consent to citizenship is indeed the only way for a nation to survive

But if the state is opressive ? If your country was just conquered with no hope of coming back - you should give up and die ?

[QUOTE]I must ask are you attempting to excuse racism? In all seriousness this statements reads very much like a justification for racism.

But it is not based on race, nor on ethnics - only the consent - you can be whatever race you want, or of whatever ethnic origin.

If a country disappears the ethnic group does not. Unless of course as with the Jews in 1930's to 1940's Europe you face both a organized attempt at your destruction and the unorganized collabration of racism. Or how abut the gyspies?

Gypsies i.e. Roma - are a nationality here according to the Polish definition.

You know I tried to read that with no prejudice on my part trying to understand what and where you are coming from - but all I see is an attempt to defend what is basically a prejudice based upon ones ethnic makeup. Which equates to the basic form of racism. It's not an active destructive form - but still nevertheless it is.

But there is nothing about ethnic ! Nor race -just the consent, the belief you are Slovak of Polish or other citizenship.

Where does the government have to spell out what language one learns. One can learn any language they wish. All the government can do is define which language it will use for its official business.

But it is supposed to help to learn a language of your nationality based on consent. You declare you are Czech and if you are in Poland you have the right to learn Czech in a special, state founded school !
Also it might mean there will be Czech used in offices in the area where the Czech nationals are in large numbers.

cegorach

11-29-2006, 20:29

Using ethnicity to define a "Nation" or nationality may be how some Europeans do it, but this line of thinking can become dangerous. It automatically creates divisions within a State (a geographical/political/economic region), which is never healthy for that State. It also opens the door to nationalistic idealogues, who can use this line of thinking for their own gain, both within the State and externally.

Can become, but shouldn't be since the idea is to help people to keep their culture easier.

There are always divisons - the state should respect the minorities and those should respect the state.

Should people of a "nation" (ethnicity) have the right to be governed or treated differently than others who share the same State? If no, then what is the point of the "nation"? If yes, the State is discriminatory and rascist (think Apartheid).

But the definition is not based on ethnicy and works to the benefit in cultural areas of the minorities not the major nationality.

Could you clarify this please? Examples? What "certain rights" do people of certain "nationalities" get? And why should they get rights that others don't get? Confering rights based in "nationality" is inherently discriminatory.

I mentioned those above, but will keep it clear here too

- the right to learn the language of their nationality in state funded schools - often helped by the state of their nationality e.g. Polish schools in Ukraine for Polish nationals there,

- the right to have second official language in the areas where a certain nationality is the majority,

- the right to for example get special visas to the country of their nationality,

- support for cultural activities of the nationality and often TV and radio programms for the minority.

It was generally created to make all borders more stable and save some communities.

Can the mods merge the three posts into one ? Thanks !

Adrian II

11-29-2006, 21:16

There is problem that most of writers here can't see. Why Israel let this man walking free. If they don't trust polish courts, they can judge him into Israel. Israel wanted judge war criminal and other country didn't want extradite him. For me hunting german criminal and letting jewish criminal walking free is proof of RACISM.No racism. Just ignorance on your part.

1) Israel does not extradite its citizens unless it has an extradition treaty with the requesting nation. There is no such treaty between Poland and Israel. The Polish Constitution has the exact same stipulation in Article 55, 1-3.

2) Israel has a statute of limitations, the limit has passed and Mr Morel can not be prosecuted in Israel.

Redleg

11-29-2006, 21:22

Consent to citizenship is indeed the only way for a nation to survive

But if the state is opressive ? If your country was just conquered with no hope of coming back - you should give up and die ?

Not at all - consent to citizenship to an oppressive nation - nope I would fight against the oppression to my last breath.

But it is not based on race, nor on ethnics - only the consent - you can be whatever race you want, or of whatever ethnic origin.

Then I must point out once again the inconsistent application of the standard based upon the arguement of No Polish volunteer's, The ethnic germans in the south of Poland were still Polish before the war.

Gypsies i.e. Roma - are a nationality here according to the Polish definition.
They are primarily a ethnic groups of people.

But there is nothing about ethnic ! Nor race -just the consent, the belief you are Slovak of Polish or other citizenship.

Which goes back to the fallacy of stating that there were no Polish volunteers. I reject definitions that have double standards based upon the desires of the individual's argument. You claim consent as a base for nationality - but refuse to accept it when it comes to the fact that yes indeed their were Polish nationals that enlisted into the German Military during WW2. So unless you can better explain the postion - I will remain convinced that yes indeed the historian view of the majority of the histories I have read concerning Poland, and the subsequent Polish volunteers in the the German Military.

But it is supposed to help to learn a language of your nationality based on consent. You declare you are Czech and if you are in Poland you have the right to learn Czech in a special, state founded school !
Also it might mean there will be Czech used in offices in the area where the Czech nationals are in large numbers.

That is not consent - that is cultural/ethnic identification. A major difference. Consent to the nationality implies that you consent to be governed by the state in which you reside in. One can not consent to what ethnic group one is born into. For instance I can only consent to be governed by the United States Government since I declare I am an American.

I can not consent to my ethnic background of Navajo because of a past ancestor being Navajo. I can not consent to an ethnic background of english because an ancestor was english. I can not consent to being irish because of an ancestor being from Ireland. And so forth for the other 6 ethnic groups that make up my ancestorial tree.

Soulforged

11-29-2006, 21:41

What the man seems to be guilty of does not in any way fulfill the definition of "genocide", far as I can tell. That one has fairly strict definitions by what I know of it.

Plus his foul deeds would have happened after the war unless I've got my dates entirely messed up, so he's not exactly a war criminal either.

The charges against him, held that he:

. starved the prisoners by introducing glaringly low food rations;

· he deprived the prisoners of elementary health care and hygienic-sanitary conditions, allowing the emergence and spread of pediculosis, dysentery, typhus and typhoid;

· he personally applied, and permitted the officials under his authority to apply, various forms of torture to prisoners, involving:

- beating them all over their bodies, including on the head and hands; kicking and beating them with the aid of various objects: sticks, wooden stool legs, rubber truncheons, tubes sheathed in rubber, metal rods and wooden stools, which in many cases caused extensive injuries and, on many occasions, death;

- Placing prisoners in cells for several hours with water reaching up to their chests, which, in some cases caused death by drowning;

- Making prisoners lie on top of each other in layers, resulting in a so-called pyramid consisting of over a dozen men, which caused extensive internal injuries to the men in the lower layers and, consequently, death;

- Making prisoners lie on the ground and treading upon them, which caused extensive injuries and, in some cases, death;

The second charge involves various forms of physical and mental torment of prisoners, including:

* beating,
* forcing them to lick coal dust off the floor,
* forcing them to beat each other – this includes two documented cases of fathers and sons being forced to beat each other;
* forcing them to stand in the camp square without food and drink for many hours, sometimes in adverse weather conditions;

· forcing them to sing Nazi sons and giving them additional beatings if they did not know the words.There's always the problem of retroactivity in penal law, but that subject aside...

Many of this charges are considered to fullfil the type of genocide of the UN and the "Convention on the non-applicability of statutory limitations to war crimes and crimes against humanity": This includes putting a group of people in a situation wich will logically carry them to their "total or partial physical destruction". I've bolded wich of this charges belongs to this type. However there has to be a result of dead people, otherwise there is no causality related to any possible genocide.

About the war crimes, the Conventions of 1949 in Ginebra, state that the treaty is international and has effects on the future, as such it applies to any space belonging to the signatories and any time after it was signed.

In conclusion he belongs to both categories.

EDIT: Accidentally some of those charges also apply to the activities of Mother Teresa...

EDIT 2: Unfortunatelly Israel has not ratified the treaty on non-applicability of statutory limitations.

cegorach

11-29-2006, 22:39

[QUOTE]Consent to citizenship is indeed the only way for a nation to survive

But if the state is opressive ? If your country was just conquered with no hope of coming back - you should give up and die ?

Not at all - consent to citizenship to an oppressive nation - nope I would fight against the oppression to my last breath.

A quoting nightmare LOL.

Here we are back again. So in your words the only way is to fight - even if you are for example crippled or unable to do so because of something else ?
I am lost here...

But it is not based on race, nor on ethnics - only the consent - you can be whatever race you want, or of whatever ethnic origin.

Then I must point out once again the inconsistent application of the standard based upon the arguement of No Polish volunteer's, The ethnic germans in the south of Poland were still Polish before the war.

It is not inconsistent. It is based on consent so the Germans in Poland before the 2nd WW could declare themselves of German nationality with any need to leave the Polish citizenship.

It is a part of Versailles agreement as well - the additional treaty about the national minorties.
The consent was so important since you declared you nationality and additional ethnic or especially race factor was not necessary or even asked for. Thus some Germans chose to declare themselves of German nationality, most likely most of them, some declared themselves of Polish nationality despite of the German ethnic origin. BOTH were Polish citizens.

When 1939 Poland was occupied the Germanseither gave the choice to declare yourself Volksdeutsche ( couple of levels) or simply German - again it was a declaration - that is why by declaring yourself Volksdeutsche or German you ceased to remain Polish (nationality).
Of course here the free will was not so 'free' - there were both voluntary Volksdeutche and those nominated to this cathegory without their consent.

In addition there were Polish nationals who lived in pre-1939 Germany ( about 1,5 million of those) who also declared themselves Polish after 1918, some kept this declaration, some changed their mind.
These Polish nationals had German citizenship and were the subject of conscription to Wehrmacht, though seen as 'not reliable'.

Were not however volunteers to SS which required German nationality with German ethnic origin.
The only way a Pole could be found in SS was by dropping his Polish nationality (based on consent) and since the Germans never created Polish Waffen SS there were no Polish nationals in this force.

Recruitment scrolls bearing seemingly Polish surnames - cannot be seen as a proof -since
- Polish nationals ( based on consent) couldn't even volunteer to SS without dropping their Polish nationality (based on consent),
- there were German nationals (based on consent) of remote or closer Polish ethnic roots,

I am using the same definition of the nationality - based on consent which might include ethnic origin, but doesn't have to - simple and used in numerous countries of Europe.

They are primarily a ethnic groups of people.

Here Roma are nationality not defined by the ethnics alone...
Remember nationality here is more than ethnics it is not necessary to heve ethnic origin to be of certain nantionality and you can have different citizenship than your nationality.

Which goes back to the fallacy of stating that there were no Polish volunteers. I reject definitions that have double standards based upon the desires of the individual's argument. You claim consent as a base for nationality - but refuse to accept it when it comes to the fact that yes indeed their were Polish nationals that enlisted into the German Military during WW2. So unless you can better explain the postion - I will remain convinced that yes indeed the historian view of the majority of the histories I have read concerning Poland, and the subsequent Polish volunteers in the the German Military.

Because the majority of historians writing in ENGLISH are using the Anglo-saxon definition i.e. based on citizenship.
Unless you have read in Russian, Polish or other languages of states which do use the same definition of nationality - based on consent.

That is the simple difference in the basic definition you don't understand or don't want to accept.

Please accept the difference between the way it is defined.

That is not consent - that is cultural/ethnic identification. A major difference. Consent to the nationality implies that you consent to be governed by the state in which you reside in. One can not consent to what ethnic group one is born into.

You don't get it. It is not about consenting into ethnical group, but into nationality which is defined here as based on consent.

For instance I can only consent to be governed by the United States Government since I declare I am an American.

Because you do use American definition which is legal in your country. I am using the one which is legal in mine, simple ?

I can not consent to my ethnic background of Navajo because of a past ancestor being Navajo. I can not consent to an ethnic background of english because an ancestor was english. I can not consent to being irish because of an ancestor being from Ireland. And so forth for the other 6 ethnic groups that make up my ancestorial tree.

As above.

It is the definition of nationality which here is not the same as ethnics. It is regardless of ethnics here.

I told you a dozen times that already...

Accept finally the difference in the definition here and in your country.

Here nationality is based on consent regardless of other factors and doesn't affect your rights given by citizenship which might be different of the nationality.

In the USA it is the nationality based on citizenship, again regardless of the other factors.
You might say that there is also the factor of consent, but it is expressed by the place you are living and by your citizenship.
In the USA nationality = citizenship, in Poland nationality = consent which doesn't have to be the same as citizenship.

Are we finally, really clear with that ?:book:

drone

11-29-2006, 23:13

What percentage of Polish "citizens" of Jewish ethnicity consent to Polish "nationality", and what is their standing with these isolated Polish "citizen" anti-semites?

KrooK

11-29-2006, 23:55

Adrian

read carefully international agreements
1)No statue of limitation on genocide - simply no.
2)Salomon Morel has polish citizenship - so he is not citizen or Israel (maybe after running-like-a-coward-he-is to Israel he gain Jewish citizenship, but he still have Polish one. Polish constitution tells that Pole can't be extradite to other country but he should be judged in Poland. But Poland can demand extradition of its citizens.

AND ADRIAN IF YOU ARE BLIND, I'M REPEATING
IF ISRAEL DOESN'T TRUST POLAND, WHY THEY DON'T WANT JUDGE HIM INTO ISRAEL. IF HE IS INNOCENT, HE CAN SHOW IT. Why you don't reply on this.

BTW Adrian - into similar situation Poles were destroying documents not giving Germans.
BTW 2 if you are telling that your country is so multicultural and happy, why man can be killed there for releasing movie?

To anyone who want me cut anything from my post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cut yourselves or show me lies into my post.

Adrian II

11-30-2006, 00:16

1)No statue of limitation on genocide - simply no.
2)Salomon Morel has polish citizenship - so he is not citizen or Israel
It wasn't genocide, it was personal revenge by a Jew who snapped after his entire family was killed. And it wasn't a war crime either, since it happened after the war.

And yes, Morel is an Israeli citizen; it says so in the very link you posted at the start if this thread.

Can't you check some elementary facts before you cry racism?

Redleg

11-30-2006, 00:25

[QUOTE=Redleg]

A quoting nightmare LOL.

Here we are back again. So in your words the only way is to fight - even if you are for example crippled or unable to do so because of something else ?
I am lost here...

If one's country is invade or has an oppressive government - one either fights or submits.

It is not inconsistent. It is based on consent so the Germans in Poland before the 2nd WW could declare themselves of German nationality with any need to leave the Polish citizenship.

It is a part of Versailles agreement as well - the additional treaty about the national minorties.
The consent was so important since you declared you nationality and additional ethnic or especially race factor was not necessary or even asked for. Thus some Germans chose to declare themselves of German nationality, most likely most of them, some declared themselves of Polish nationality despite of the German ethnic origin. BOTH were Polish citizens.

When 1939 Poland was occupied the Germanseither gave the choice to declare yourself Volksdeutsche ( couple of levels) or simply German - again it was a declaration - that is why by declaring yourself Volksdeutsche or German you ceased to remain Polish (nationality).
Of course here the free will was not so 'free' - there were both voluntary Volksdeutche and those nominated to this cathegory without their consent.

In addition there were Polish nationals who lived in pre-1939 Germany ( about 1,5 million of those) who also declared themselves Polish after 1918, some kept this declaration, some changed their mind.
These Polish nationals had German citizenship and were the subject of conscription to Wehrmacht, though seen as 'not reliable'.

Were not however volunteers to SS which required German nationality with German ethnic origin.
The only way a Pole could be found in SS was by dropping his Polish nationality (based on consent) and since the Germans never created Polish Waffen SS there were no Polish nationals in this force.

Recruitment scrolls bearing seemingly Polish surnames - cannot be seen as a proof -since
- Polish nationals ( based on consent) couldn't even volunteer to SS without dropping their Polish nationality (based on consent),
- there were German nationals (based on consent) of remote or closer Polish ethnic roots,

I am using the same definition of the nationality - based on consent which might include ethnic origin, but doesn't have to - simple and used in numerous countries of Europe.

Your still applying a double standard to your arguement - to keep it simple I highlighted the double standard. Again if you live in the nation, and you have citizenship in that nation you are of that nationality. If the enlistments came from individuals that were Polish citizens then they were Polish nationals. One can not consent to an ethnic background that one is born into - one can only consent to what nation one wants citizenship in. To claim western historians are wrong because they are describing Polish nationals as Polish based upon where they were citizens - is incorrect on its face. You can believe what you desire based upon your definition - but you can not claim that they are incorrect either, especially since the definition used is a valid claim.

Edit: Neither can you claim that it is an insult (as you did in the very beginning) when one is using a valid definition. You can object to the accuracy of the claim based upon your understanding and definition - but calling it insulting is reaching a conclusion not based upon evidence. This is exactly the language used by yourself that brought me into this discussion and what you initially tried to use in the very beginning.

Here Roma are nationality not defined by the ethnics alone...
Remember nationality here is more than ethnics it is not necessary to heve ethnic origin to be of certain nantionality and you can have different citizenship than your nationality.

Nationality based upon ethnic makeup is not consistent with consent. One is born into an ethnic group.

Because the majority of historians writing in ENGLISH are using the Anglo-saxon definition i.e. based on citizenship.
Unless you have read in Russian, Polish or other languages of states which do use the same definition of nationality - based on consent.

That is the simple difference in the basic definition you don't understand or don't want to accept.

Please accept the difference between the way it is defined.

A difference based soley upon race is inconsistent with the principles I hold dear. The difference you speak of is to put it simply classifying people by their race/ethnic background.

You don't get it. It is not about consenting into ethnical group, but into nationality which is defined here as based on consent.

ethnic groups your born into. Nations you can move into and out of. One consents to being governed by the nation that they live in. One can not consent to what color their skin is, what color their eyes are, or even the color of the hair that they are born with.

Because you do use American definition which is legal in your country. I am using the one which is legal in mine, simple ?

Because a definition based upon ethnic background is legal - does not necessarily equate to a fair or just definition. In fact, one can say the definition you are using is what lead to the events that enabled the Nazi's to gain power and commit the holocaust because instead of seeing the Jews and gyspies as citizens of the nation - people saw them as outsiders and foreigners. Which is indeed a postion that several holocaust historians have taken.

It is the definition of nationality which here is not the same as ethnics. It is regardless of ethnics here.

Then your not explaining it well enough because you continue to use nationality to describe ethnic (cultural) groups.

I told you a dozen times that already...

Accept finally the difference in the definition here and in your country.

So I should accept the definition that I see as a racist ultra-nationalist view of people? Sorry no can do. The definition you are claiming is legal is nothing short of dividing people into ethnic groups and claiming that they are nationalities.

Here nationality is based on consent regardless of other factors and doesn't affect your rights given by citizenship which might be different of the nationality.

In the USA it is the nationality based on citizenship, again regardless of the other factors.
You might say that there is also the factor of consent, but it is expressed by the place you are living and by your citizenship.
In the USA nationality = citizenship, in Poland nationality = consent which doesn't have to be the same as citizenship.

Are we finally, really clear with that ?:book:

Nope it still reads as a form of defining people by race versus equality for all people living within that nations borders.

Edit: Something that the United States fought a bloodly civil war over and then negated a whole group of people to 2nd class status. Violence resulted from that negation and we are still dealing with the after effects of that neglecting of our fellow citizens. You may feel it to be a valid definition - however history has shown that it is prone to abuse, subjectating your fellow citizens, and a finally an attempt by one nation to destroy a whole group of people because of an ethnic classification. A lesson in history that unfortunately continues to be repeated, (Yes Krook it is even still repeated in the United States. Does that mean we have to accept it as a given condition of humanity?)

Stig

11-30-2006, 00:43

To anyone who want me cut anything from my post!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Cut yourselves or show me lies into my post.
the part where you call Adrian a member of the Waffen SS?
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:

Adrian II

11-30-2006, 01:01

the part where you call Adrian a member of the Waffen SS?
:bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce: :bounce:No, I was in the Jewish SS, in the Mel Brooks brigade.

Christ, I hope we don't have an extradition treaty with Poland yet.. :lost:

Redleg

11-30-2006, 01:14

No, I was in the Jewish SS, in the Mel Brooks brigade.

Christ, I hope we don't have an extradition treaty with Poland yet.. :lost:

How can you be a Jewish SS member and say Christ. :smash: :laugh4:

Patriarch of Constantinople

11-30-2006, 02:26

You can go with your friends from Waffen SS

Uhhh, I think you've gone a bit over the line there buddy. Didn't you already get in trouble for calling someone a Nazi? Not the smartest move in the world.

Soulforged

11-30-2006, 03:10

1)No statue of limitation on genocide - simply no.
2)Salomon Morel has polish citizenship - so he is not citizen or Israel (maybe after running-like-a-coward-he-is to Israel he gain Jewish citizenship, but he still have Polish one. Polish constitution tells that Pole can't be extradite to other country but he should be judged in Poland. But Poland can demand extradition of its citizens.Every Constitution says that, that's why there's bilateral agreements such as the extradition ones. The case you're bringing foward is exactly for when person A, polish, is living in Poland and he doesn't belong to a country with wich Poland has an extradition agreement in case of crime for example.

On the subject of estatute limitation you're right, but sadly Israel has not ratified the Convention so it's not linked in any punishable way to said convention.

It wasn't genocide, it was personal revenge by a Jew who snapped after his entire family was killed. And it wasn't a war crime either, since it happened after the war.It was both things Adrian II. Read my previous post. The label "war criminal" is not only for crimes wich happened during the two World Wars.

cegorach

11-30-2006, 09:51

[QUOTE=cegorach]

[QUOTE]If one's country is invade or has an oppressive government - one either fights or submits.

Great, so you assume that if someone cannot fight he should submit ? If a country is occupied its people should change the nationality ?

That is unrealistic and simply wrong.

Your still applying a double standard to your arguement - to keep it simple I highlighted the double standard. Again if you live in the nation, and you have citizenship in that nation you are of that nationality. If the enlistments came from individuals that were Polish citizens then they were Polish nationals. One can not consent to an ethnic background that one is born into - one can only consent to what nation one wants citizenship in. To claim western historians are wrong because they are describing Polish nationals as Polish based upon where they were citizens - is incorrect on its face. You can believe what you desire based upon your definition - but you can not claim that they are incorrect either, especially since the definition used is a valid claim.

NO. Since I am using the definition used here and numerous others countries.

I NEVER said you can consent to ETHNICs, but you can consent to nationality which is not based on your citizenship.

Edit: Neither can you claim that it is an insult (as you did in the very beginning) when one is using a valid definition. You can object to the accuracy of the claim based upon your understanding and definition - but calling it insulting is reaching a conclusion not based upon evidence. This is exactly the language used by yourself that brought me into this discussion and what you initially tried to use in the very beginning.

You judging the facts using the american definition ONLY. You don't respect that which is used in a large part of Europe. If you don't want to use that - say so at least we will avoid repeating the same arguments all the time.
But if you do you are assuming that I cannot use the defininition which is legitimate in my country and numerous others, that I am wrong because I am using non-American point of view !

Nationality based upon ethnic makeup is not consistent with consent. One is born into an ethnic group.

I repeat that for more than a DOZEN times. THe nationality here is NOT based on ethnicy, but on CONSENT alone. The consent to DECLARE yourself a part of nationality which IS NOT the same as citizenship !

You still demand from me to use American definition which is not valid here !

A difference based soley upon race is inconsistent with the principles I hold dear. The difference you speak of is to put it simply classifying people by their race/ethnic background.

Rubbish.

Because a definition based upon ethnic background is legal - does not necessarily equate to a fair or just definition.

It is not based on ethnicy or race, but on CONSENT alone.

You are intentionally twisting my words.

Then your not explaining it well enough because you continue to use nationality to describe ethnic (cultural) groups.

I don't nationality here is more than ethnics. Since it is valid here to describe the nationality as based on consent and that is fair and just.

Nationality based on citizenship would mean narrowing the rights of minorities since they would not be allowed to declare their nationality by consent, this way they would have to prove their ethnic origin to demand the rights of minorities. That is not fair, nor just.

In the USA you have melting pot ideology which means that nationality is defined by citizenship and the only way t change such nationality would be by moving out of the country.
Here you are allowed to declare yourself a different national than your citizenship implies.

So I should accept the definition that I see as a racist ultra-nationalist view of people? Sorry no can do. The definition you are claiming is legal is nothing short of dividing people into ethnic groups and claiming that they are nationalities.

NO. It is not. Since you are using consent to declare your nationality it has NOTHING to do with your ethnics or race !

Nope it still reads as a form of defining people by race versus equality for all people living within that nations borders.

Not true. It is neither defining the nationality by race, nor ethnics, but by the voluntary declaration itself - it is fair for national minorities which allows fair and just way to give them certain rights to protect their unique culture, language etc.

Edit: Something that the United States fought a bloodly civil war over and then negated a whole group of people to 2nd class status. Violence resulted from that negation and we are still dealing with the after effects of that neglecting of our fellow citizens. You may feel it to be a valid definition - however history has shown that it is prone to abuse, subjectating your fellow citizens, and a finally an attempt by one nation to destroy a whole group of people because of an ethnic classification. A lesson in history that unfortunately continues to be repeated, (Yes Krook it is even still repeated in the United States. Does that mean we have to accept it as a given condition of humanity?)

The definition is NOT based on ethnic orign I repeat that for... maybe 20th time. And it was decigned to nothing else as to PROTECT the minorities from abuses !
If it was based on ethnics or race it would be wrong, if it was based on citizenship it would be wrong too e.g. for example it excluds the possibility of dualcitizenship given to people living in one country, but having different natonality (based on consent).

I really don't know what is so hard about that. Is it so hard to understand that in numerous countries definining the nation by citizenship would be simply wrong ?
Certainly the rights of minorities would suffer, because there is no fair and just way to provide them with the special rights to protect such minorities culture, customs, language from assimilation.
Unless of course you assume that people should be assimilated, but that I cannot support.

According to our definition you can be a blackman of Nigerian ethnic origin, living in Poland and having Polish citizenship, but declaring your nationality as German - what is wrong with that ? Can't you accept that simple right ? What is so racist-ultra-nationalistic here ?

Simple question - simple answer - Nothing.

KrooK

11-30-2006, 11:16

I told he has friends into Waffen SS not he is member of Waffen SS.
BTW Adrian - are you member of Waffen SS?

I told he is member of nation big part of whom support nazis, which is true.
I don't think there were british legions of SS or Chinesee legions of SS or Polish Legion of SS or Greek Legion of SS, but there were Dutch legion of SS, which was fighting with partizans and commited war crimes (on eastern front "fighting with partizans" almost always meant "coming to village, murder all people and burn houses").

Anyway it's a bit strange that Israel did not accept international agreements about genocide. They want other countries to punish this crime but they don't punish it alone. So they treat other countries and nations worse than Jews, who are not respond for genocide cause they are Jews. This is RACISM.

So what is that country doing into ONZ? So why they punished Eichman if he did not commit any thing that is crime accoring to Israeli law. If you are trying to tell that Morel can't be prosecuted, it means that Eichman too - he just did his job - just like Morel.

BTW Adrian. Policeman who killed Morels Family has been accused and punished. Morel wasn't.

BTW2 - can you tell that Dutchman family that man who imprisoned and tortured their father of parent can't be prosecuted?

Stig

11-30-2006, 11:22

I told he is member of nation big part of whom support nazis, which is true.
Right that did it, I'm pm'ing the first mod that is online

Husar

11-30-2006, 11:27

Great, so you assume that if someone cannot fight he should submit ? If a country is occupied its people should change the nationality ?

That is unrealistic and simply wrong.
Why is that?
In the strange case that the Netherlands were bombed by our military and would take over Germany, I would never ever see a reason to fight them.
Strange example, I know, but why should each and every man always fight an occupier? So you think iraqi insurgents blowing up polish soldiers do exactly what you would expect them to do? Do you congratulate them every time they get one? After all, they are fighting the evil occupier, aren't they?
And nationality is just an idea in peoples' minds, one can change that quite easily by getting new papers...

Fragony

11-30-2006, 11:30

edit, too much godwin's law makes me a sad panda.

cegorach

11-30-2006, 11:42

????

Anyway read this to understand what is all about naionality based on consent and the rights it has if it is a minority

From UN webside

Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities

Adopted by General Assembly resolution 47/135 of 18 December 1992

The General Assembly ,

Reaffirming that one of the basic aims of the United Nations, as proclaimed in the Charter, is to promote and encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all, without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion,

Reaffirming faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small,

Desiring to promote the realization of the principles contained in the Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Intolerance and of Discrimination Based on Religion or Belief, and the Convention on the Rights of the Child, as well as other relevant international instruments that have been adopted at the universal or regional level and those concluded between individual States Members of the United Nations,

Inspired by the provisions of article 27 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights concerning the rights of persons belonging to ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities,

Considering that the promotion and protection of the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities contribute to the political and social stability of States in which they live,

Emphasizing that the constant promotion and realization of the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities, as an integral part of the development of society as a whole and within a democratic framework based on the rule of law, would contribute to the strengthening of friendship and cooperation among peoples and States,

Considering that the United Nations has an important role to play regarding the protection of minorities,

Bearing in mind the work done so far within the United Nations system, in particular by the Commission on Human Rights, the Sub-Commission on Prevention of Discrimination and Protection of Minorities and the bodies established pursuant to the International Covenants on Human Rights and other relevant international human rights instruments in promoting and protecting the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities,

Taking into account the important work which is done by intergovernmental and non-governmental organizations in protecting minorities and in promoting and protecting the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities,

Recognizing the need to ensure even more effective implementation of international human rights instruments with regard to the rights of persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities,

Proclaims this Declaration on the Rights of Persons Belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious and Linguistic Minorities:

Article 1

1. States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories and shall encourage conditions for the promotion of that identity.

2. States shall adopt appropriate legislative and other measures to achieve those ends.

Article 2

1. Persons belonging to national or ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities (hereinafter referred to as persons belonging to minorities) have the right to enjoy their own culture, to profess and practise their own religion, and to use their own language, in private and in public, freely and without interference or any form of discrimination.

2. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to participate effectively in cultural, religious, social, economic and public life.

3. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to participate effectively in decisions on the national and, where appropriate, regional level concerning the minority to which they belong or the regions in which they live, in a manner not incompatible with national legislation.

4. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain their own associations.

5. Persons belonging to minorities have the right to establish and maintain, without any discrimination, free and peaceful contacts with other members of their group and with persons belonging to other minorities, as well as contacts across frontiers with citizens of other States to whom they are related by national or ethnic, religious or linguistic ties.

Article 3

1. Persons belonging to minorities may exercise their rights, including those set forth in the present Declaration, individually as well as in community with other members of their group, without any discrimination.

2. No disadvantage shall result for any person belonging to a minority as the consequence of the exercise or non-exercise of the rights set forth in the present Declaration.

Article 4

1. States shall take measures where required to ensure that persons belonging to minorities may exercise fully and effectively all their human rights and fundamental freedoms without any discrimination and in full equality before the law.

2. States shall take measures to create favourable conditions to enable persons belonging to minorities to express their characteristics and to develop their culture, language, religion, traditions and customs, except where specific practices are in violation of national law and contrary to international standards.

3. States should take appropriate measures so that, wherever possible, persons belonging to minorities may have adequate opportunities to learn their mother tongue or to have instruction in their mother tongue.

4. States should, where appropriate, take measures in the field of education, in order to encourage knowledge of the history, traditions, language and culture of the minorities existing within their territory. Persons belonging to minorities should have adequate opportunities to gain knowledge of the society as a whole.

5. States should consider appropriate measures so that persons belonging to minorities may participate fully in the economic progress and development in their country.

Article 5

1. National policies and programmes shall be planned and implemented with due regard for the legitimate interests of persons belonging to minorities.

2. Programmes of cooperation and assistance among States should be planned and implemented with due regard for the legitimate interests of persons belonging to minorities.

Article 6

States should cooperate on questions relating to persons belonging to minorities, inter alia , exchanging information and experiences, in order to promote mutual understanding and confidence.

Article 7

States should cooperate in order to promote respect for the rights set forth in the present Declaration.

Article 8

1. Nothing in the present Declaration shall prevent the fulfilment of international obligations of States in relation to persons belonging to minorities. In particular, States shall fulfil in good faith the obligations and commitments they have assumed under international treaties and agreements to which they are parties.

2. The exercise of the rights set forth in the present Declaration shall not prejudice the enjoyment by all persons of universally recognized human rights and fundamental freedoms.

3. Measures taken by States to ensure the effective enjoyment of the rights set forth in the present Declaration shall not prima facie be considered contrary to the principle of equality contained in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

4. Nothing in the present Declaration may be construed as permitting any activity contrary to the purposes and principles of the United Nations, including sovereign equality, territorial integrity and political independence of States.

Article 9

The specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system shall contribute to the full realization of the rights and principles set forth in the present Declaration, within their respective fields of competence.

But I guess that to some UN is racist and ultra-nationalisitc too.:wall:

Fragony

11-30-2006, 11:48

Awwwww, just reacting to this, 'BTW Adrian - are you member of Waffen SS?'

Krook has the quite facist habit of calling everyone who doesn't agree with him a nazi, and by doing so he has effectivily forced many a moderator to close discussions because of his lovely ways. Not that this one is such a pearl, maybe we need to thank him.

Adrian II

11-30-2006, 11:57

It was both things Adrian II. Read my previous post. The label "war criminal" is not only for crimes wich happened during the two World Wars.Dear Soulforged, the 1948 conventions are not retro-active.

And the accepted definition of genocide, to be found in the 1948 Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, covers only 'acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group'.

Morel took revenge on German soldiers and Polish collaborators whom he held co-responsible for his family's death. He was not trying to destroy Germans and/or Poles as such.

cegorach

11-30-2006, 12:21

Morel was hired as a guard in the infamous prison inside Lublin Castle, where members of the Home Army [AK] were tortured, among others.

So AK was collaborating with the Nazis ? Utter nonsense and insult - it is like claiming that killing British captured aircrews attacking Germany could be considered revenge for not stopping Holocaust...
Zegota members among others were often the target of UB too - Zegota was the branch of the resistence founded exclusively to save the Jews. Are they collaborators too ?

Where is logic in that ?

He was a member of UB - communist oppressive force eliminating the enemies of the new 'order'.
I don't even discuss the German or foreigner question here in this post, all I am concerned in this post is the AK members question.:juggle2:

Maybe he was told they were collaborators, I have no idea, but the legal system demands proofs to sentence someone, so if there are no proofs of his guilt there is nothing to be worry about.

Finally from the legal point of view Israel has the right to refuse to send him to Poland ( not ratified the treaty on non-applicability of statutory limitations.), but it doesn't change the fact that Nazi and Communist crimes are crimes against humanity and as such ARE persecuted regardless of their time.

Adrian II

11-30-2006, 13:04

Finally from the legal point of view Israel has the right to refuse to send him to Poland ( not ratified the treaty on non-applicability of statutory limitations.), but it doesn't change the fact that Nazi and Communist crimes are crimes against humanity and as such ARE persecuted regardless of their time.As demonstrated earlier in this thread, international law is an incomplete instrument at best. It does not necessarily conform to elementary notions of justice, it has many loose ends, and it is never applied without other (cultural, political or strategic) considerations coming into play as well.

An example would be the Polish refusal to grant restitution and re-privatisation of Jewish property in Poland tot non-Poles. Claims by Jews who had to leave the country because of German and Polish atrocities are systematically turned down by Polish courts. The claimants have lost Polish citizenship and are therefore considered ineligible for restitution or re-privatisation. Even though they were robbed in Poland and many had to flee the country because of post-war anti-Jewish sentiment in Poland, they have no legel standing. Such is the way of the world, eh?

cegorach

11-30-2006, 13:50

There is a huge difference between crimes against humanity and re-privatisation.
The second case is not even really started e.g. my family waits for last 17 years for such law and there is still none. It is long process and will not be finished for quite a long time. It is not resolved untill now so please do not change the area for more anti-Polish accusations.:juggle2:

Redleg

11-30-2006, 15:23

If it was based on ethnics or race it would be wrong, if it was based on citizenship it would be wrong too e.g. for example it excluds the possibility of dualcitizenship given to people living in one country, but having different natonality (based on consent).

I really don't know what is so hard about that. Is it so hard to understand that in numerous countries definining the nation by citizenship would be simply wrong ?
Certainly the rights of minorities would suffer, because there is no fair and just way to provide them with the special rights to protect such minorities culture, customs, language from assimilation.
Unless of course you assume that people should be assimilated, but that I cannot support.

Citizenship in a nation does not equate to throwing off your cultural background and ethnic history. One should consent to the governing of the nation in which one lives.

According to our definition you can be a blackman of Nigerian ethnic origin, living in Poland and having Polish citizenship, but declaring your nationality as German - what is wrong with that ? Can't you accept that simple right ? What is so racist-ultra-nationalistic here ?

Simple question - simple answer - Nothing.
You just made a mockery of your whole concept of nationality in an attempt to defend it. You have just demonstrated that Nationality in Poland is a mockery, or its based on a concept of race. If such a postion can be taken then it is mockery. If the concept is based upon granting special protections for minorities its again based upon an ethnic/race equatation. Either way - I will stick with the defintion that Nationality is based upon what nation you have citizenship in.

drone

11-30-2006, 16:44

cegorach

11-30-2006, 17:58

[QUOTE]Citizenship in a nation does not equate to throwing off your cultural background and ethnic history. One should consent to the governing of the nation in which one lives.

This legalises assimilation policy.

You just made a mockery of your whole concept of nationality in an attempt to defend it. You have just demonstrated that Nationality in Poland is a mockery, or its based on a concept of race. If such a postion can be taken then it is mockery. If the concept is based upon granting special protections for minorities its again based upon an ethnic/race equatation. Either way - I will stick with the defintion that Nationality is based upon what nation you have citizenship in.

Rubbish - are the Germans black ? He could declare his nationality as Polsih as well, anyway his nationality doesn't impair his rights as the citizen of Poland.
He has the same rights as all other Polish citizens, but can ask fro help to study his national language etc.
Whatever, stick to that, but accept it is DIFFERENT in other states.

@drone

But I guess that to some UN is racist and ultra-nationalisitc too.
I wouldn't call the UN rascist, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

..... In other words a definition which deosn't care about race or ethnicy and is based on the consent alone is wrong ? All hail the state run assimilation policy !

Regardless, this document is from 1992, and does not apply to the WWII time frame.

But the definition is the same as from late XIXth century - that first appeared in post 1st WW treaties about minorities. The document only repeats that.

Read something about the history of the protection of national minorities - you will find the definision based on voluntary declared nationality regardless of ethnic, race or citizenship.

I am sure that also in the US there are books which do use such definitions, because those are in use in Europe since late XIXth century, that is why people were asked for their nationality at that time.

BTW:

here is the map of national minorities in Poland and around it based on censuses from certain years

https://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b356/cegorach/Poland1909-1939.jpg

here is a poster of national, ethnic and linguistic minorities in present Europe

http://www.eurominority.org/version/eng/projects-shop-mino-whole.asp

atlas of nationalities

http://www.eurominority.org/version/eng/projects-shop-nation-whole.asp

stateless nations and regions

http://www.eurominority.org/version/maps/map-nations.asp

historical minority and majority nations

http://www.eurominority.org/version/maps/map-nations2.asp

and so on.

American definition UNIFIES the country, but in Europe it would make to much evil.

Redleg

11-30-2006, 18:10

[QUOTE=Redleg]

This legalises assimilation policy.

Tsk tsk - cultural identification does not get removed because of nationality via citizenship. This is the arguement of those who want to keep people in the chains of race/ethnic makeup. Nor does cultural identification get removed because one consents to the government of the Nation in which they live. Care to guess how many cultural groups we have in the United States? Give you a hint - it makes Poland look like a single cultural group.

Rubbish - are the Germans black ? He could declare his nationality as Polsih as well, anyway his nationality doesn't impair his rights as the citizen of Poland.
He has the same rights as all other Polish citizens, but can ask fro help to study his national language etc.
Whatever, stick to that, but accept it is DIFFERENT in other states.

Again rubbish is your attempt. You made a mockery of your definition of nationality by going the route you did. I find it interesting and yes amusing that you don't see it.

American definition UNIFIES the country, but in Europe it would make to much evil.

This actually once again identifies correctly the inherient problem with the definition your using, and the claim that most of Europe continues to use. If a definition of all people within the geographic borders of a nation being of that nationality is seen as "evil" that prejudice is one of the basic tenats of bigotary and racism.

Dutch_guy

11-30-2006, 18:40

I told he has friends into Waffen SS not he is member of Waffen SS.
BTW Adrian - are you member of Waffen SS?

.....

Right that did it, I'm pm'ing the first mod that is online

I'm going to play the devils advocate here and suggest Krook meant Supported - past tense. Not everybody has, clearly, made the English language their own. If the afore mentioned is, however, not correct then by all means Pm that particular moderator twice or, seeing this post comes about 7 hours late, again ~;)

:balloon2:

drone

11-30-2006, 19:00

..... In other words a definition which deosn't care about race or ethnicy and is based on the consent alone is wrong ? All hail the state run assimilation policy !
The very idea that one can claim nationalistic ties lends itself to feeding the ultra-nationalistic machine, ethnicity aside. People get it into their heads that so-and-so ethnicity is better and want to be associated with it. Many of the hard-core Nazis were very borderline "Aryan Germans". With your definition, a "Nation" is a group of people with no laws or government, totally reliant on the "States" to provide that. Everyone within a "State" deserves the same treatment, regardless of "nationality". If they don't, the "State" is rascist. Which leads to the question, if everyone should be treated the same within a "State", what is the point of the "nationality"?

You mentioned a few posts ago that the "State" of a "nationality" (for example, Poland with the Poles, I am making the assumption here that this only applies to "nationalities" lucky enough to have a "State" somewhere with a majority), has an obligation to people who claim Polish "nationality". Funding for schools, embassy priviliedges, etc. This implies that the "State" is sponsoring the "nationality", and thus favoring them, at the expense of other citizens of the "State" who may belong to another "nationality". How is this right?

But the definition is the same as from late XIXth century - that first appeared in post 1st WW treaties about minorities. The document only repeats that.

Read something about the history of the protection of national minorities - you will find the definision based on voluntary declared nationality regardless of ethnic, race or citizenship.

etc...
One thing that keeps coming up in this definition is "national minorities". Are Poles a minority in Poland? If not, can a Polish "citizen" claim Polish "nationality"?

PS. I'm not trying to troll here, I'm just completely confused as to why a system like this would be in place.

KrooK

11-30-2006, 19:20

I'm asking is Adrian II is member of Waffen SS? It's question into my intence.
If it isn't question (due to my lacks of english) - please understand it as question.

Morel should be punished cause he is criminal who commitet genocide.
Israel does not punish genocide. According to jewish foreign office only one logical understanding is that this country think that Jews are better than other nations and they can kill whoever they want. So that Jews are RACISTS.

Redleg

11-30-2006, 19:27

I'm asking is Adrian II is member of Waffen SS? It's question into my intence.
If it isn't question (due to my lacks of english) - please understand it as question.

Since the Waffen SS is disband and judged illegal it seems that it was not your intend to ask a question.

Morel should be punished cause he is criminal who commitet genocide.
Israel does not punish genocide. According to jewish foreign office only one logical understanding is that this country think that Jews are better than other nations and they can kill whoever they want. So that Jews are RACISTS.

Tsk Tsk - is this the reasonable answer or is it an emotional appeal because you disagree with their legal stance?

Redleg

11-30-2006, 20:45

I found that to get a Polish Citizenship and nationality all one has to do is follow the process as outlined in Polish Law as provided by the Consulate. Nowhere does it state one declare a nationality while having citizenship...

Now to the claim that Poland is not using Nationality as an ethnic definition but one of consent. This english version of a study seemly discounts that notion. But read for yourself and draw your own conclusion,.

The year 1989 brought changes in the status and in the situation of ethnic minorities in Poland. Communist propaganda had claimed that the Polish state was a homogenous country in terms of the national structure. Representatives of other nationalities, inhabitants of Polish territories for several generations, were perceived in terms of ethnic relics. The problems of minorities in Poland were invisible till 1989 .

It was not possible to raise ethnic issues in research on a large scale because membership of a nationality was not included in census questions. Reliable and complete data was provided only in censuses, conducted once per 10 years. Since 1921 only 9 censuses have been carried out in Poland. During the inter-war period data on the nationality and the religion of citizens was collected in two censuses (1921 and 1931). In the 1931 census, nationality was deduced on the basis of religion and native language. In the postwar years the nationality issue was included for the first time only in the last census in 2002, where questions about nationality and language used at home were included.

4. Demographic aspects

According to the public census from May, 2002, Poland has 38.2 million inhabitants. The overall composition of the Republic of Poland is highly homogeneous, since those of Polish ethnicity constitute nearly the total of its population (96.7%) and minorities are relatively small and dispersed. Non Polish national identity is declared by 444.6 thousands (1.2 %) Polish citizens. Moreover 2.0 % citizens did not declare any national identity.

At the same time the results of the census point to numerous ethnic communities which still live in Poland (see table 2).

So even Polish based sources disagree about the consent aspect one declaring Nationality.

http://www6.gencat.net/llengcat/noves/hm04primavera-estiu/moskal2_4.htm

I find this author's comments rather important to this thread.

Caught between two mutually antagonistic nationalisms - those of the nationalizing states in which they live and those of the external national homelands to which they belong by ethnonational affinity though not by legal citizenship - are the national minorities. They have their own nationalism: they too make claims on the grounds of their nationality. 'Indeed it is such claims that make them a national minority. 'National minority,' like 'external national homeland' or 'nationalizing state,' designates a political stance,- not an ethnodemographic fact. Minority nationalist stances characteristically involve a self-understanding in specifically 'national ' rather than merely 'ethnic ' terms, a demand for state recognition of their distinct ethnocultural nationality, and the assertion of certain collective, nationality-based cultural or political rights. Although national minority and homeland nationalisms both define themselves in opposition to the 'nationalizing' nationalisms of the state in which the minorities live, they are not necessarily harmoniously aligned. Divergence is especially likely when homeland nationalisms are strategically adopted by the homeland state as a means of advancing other, non-nationalist political goals; in this case ethnic co-nationals abroad may be precipitously abandoned when, for example, geopolitical goals require this.

Soulforged

11-30-2006, 21:15

Dear Soulforged, the 1948 conventions are not retro-active. Yes they are. My mistake.

Morel took revenge on German soldiers and Polish collaborators whom he held co-responsible for his family's death. He was not trying to destroy Germans and/or Poles as such.Then that's perfectly clear now. Except of course that he considered all germans and poles to be responsable for his parents deaths...

Ironside

11-30-2006, 21:40

I won't be commenting much on the current subject as I have not red enough to comment on it, but I did find this "contradiction" and that needed a comment IMO.

Also when did the Poles fight in Waffen SS - any volunteers ? None. All Waffen SS-related books do agree that there were none Polish volunteers despite Nazi recruitment.

Still there were NO POLISH VOLUNTEERS IN WAFFEN SS.

Were not however volunteers to SS which required German nationality with German ethnic origin.
The only way a Pole could be found in SS was by dropping his Polish nationality (based on consent) and since the Germans never created Polish Waffen SS there were no Polish nationals in this force.

Recruitment scrolls bearing seemingly Polish surnames - cannot be seen as a proof -since
- Polish nationals ( based on consent) couldn't even volunteer to SS without dropping their Polish nationality (based on consent),
- there were German nationals (based on consent) of remote or closer Polish ethnic roots,

Adding that nationality is based on consent and that we're talking about about people of Polish nationality and not Polish citizenship, we get a very interesting situation.

As according to that information, it's impossible to have any Polish nationals volunteering in any SS unit (ignoring enlistment as spies in the German army and simular).

Fair enough, but it also makes the statement "there were NO POLISH VOLUNTEERS IN WAFFEN SS" moot, as it holds true even if 100% of the population that had Polish citizenship 1939 volunteered into a SS unit, if we're using those parameters.

To conclude, using those parameters, it will tell absolutly nothing about the existance/size of Polish anti-semitism during WW2, who was the thing this issue originally was supposed to a proof of.

Adrian II

11-30-2006, 23:31

I'm going to play the devils advocate here and suggest Krook meant Supported - past tense.Sure. And even if he didn't, it doesn't hurt and I don't take offense. Sometimes people say things in the heat of an argument. No big deal.

Adrian II

11-30-2006, 23:58

Except of course that he considered all germans and poles to be responsable for his parents deaths...German soldiers and Polish collaborators, certainly.

But all Poles? As I understand it, Morel actually worked together with Poles in the partisan resistance.

At first he joined an exclusively Jewish partisan group. These groups were formed because the antisemitic Polish partisans and the Polish Home Army would not accept Jews in their ranks.

Morel started in the 'Parczew forest group' which pulled off quite a few local successes under their commander Yechiel Greenspan. By the end of 1943 they were finally recognized by the main Communist army of resistance, the People's Army. They began to get their share of arms deliveries and after a three-day visit in May 1944 by People's Army commander General Rola Zymierski, who was not an antisemite and who was prepared to work with them, coorperation really took off.

Morel rose in the ranks and in 1944 helped to establish the Lublin Committee in which various Polish parties cooperated to form the later Provisional Government of Poland.

Mithrandir

11-30-2006, 23:58

*smells thread*

*checks expiry date*

:inquisitive:

Adrian II

12-01-2006, 00:12

*smells thread*

*checks expiry date*

:inquisitive:*smells a camel* :wink3:

Stig

12-01-2006, 00:49

no not the camel, stay away from them

*smells Adrian*
"WHAT AM I DOING?"

KrooK

12-01-2006, 01:14

OK Adrian - i will gain 3rd waring but your lack of historical knowledge is worth of it.

You probably used this source
http://www.aish.com/holocaust/people/Profile_of_a_Jewish_Partisan.asp
but it didn't tell all the truth about that polish partizans group

Talking about Peoples Army and Michal "Rola" Zymierski as most important polish resistance organisation, you showed completely lack of knowledge about ww2.

Peoples Army was communist resistance - very very weak comparing with real resistance - Country Army. Peoples Army claimed themselves to prepare over 10.000 actions against Germans, but for them action was everything - even graffiti on wall. For Country Army, which did 15.000 actions against Germans, action was where weapon was used. Furthermore Peoples Army did hardly any to fight with Germans, especially in the areas where Country Army fought hard. I don't know any famous action made by Peoples Army and teens made by Country Army - lets start from SS General Kutchera assasination in the middle of Warsaw, action Wieniec - every railway around Warsaw destroyed one night, capturing Pinsk Prison - partisans captured prison and saved men, some attacks on prisoner camps (like into Tluszcz),
Arsenal action - saving members of resistance in the middle of Warsaw, or biggest one - defending of Zamojszczyzna, where Germans had to withdraw facing polish partizans.

Numbers of men;
Peoples Army - 9.000 into 1944
Country Army - 380.000 (with 10.000 officers) into 1943

Michal "Rola" Zymierski (because you should write it this way) was not allowed to join Country Army. I don't know why but I have heard that he was earlier kicked from army because of finansial malversations.

And it's false that Jewish partizans were not allowed to join Country Army. During Warsaw Rising 1944, Country Army conquered concentration camp and saved about 300 Jews. They wanted fight with Germans, so they were formed as batalion and equipped with weapon taken from dead SS guardians.

ANYWAY WHY WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SITUATION THAT STARTED TOPIC
Why Israel - country whom citizens (or rather ancestors of 80% of citizens) suffered so much from holokaust and racism, now is protecting criminal accused of genocide? For be they believe that Morel is better than people whom he killed because he is Jew. And this is RACISM

Redleg

12-01-2006, 01:26

Why Israel - country whom citizens (or rather ancestors of 80% of citizens) suffered so much from holokaust and racism, now is protecting criminal accused of genocide? For be they believe that Morel is better than people whom he killed because he is Jew. And this is RACISM

Emotional appeal does not equate to a valid claim.

Adrian II

12-01-2006, 01:31

Talking about Peoples Army and Michal "Rola" Zymierski as most important polish resistance organisation, you showed completely lack of knowledge about ww2.No. Just read what I wrote. I wrote 'main Communist resistance army'. That takes care of your rant.
ANYWAY WHY WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT SITUATION THAT STARTED TOPICSigh. I am talking about Morel's war experiences because this thread is about Morel, no?

cegorach

12-01-2006, 02:15

At first he joined an exclusively Jewish partisan group. These groups were formed because the antisemitic Polish partisans and the Polish Home Army would not accept Jews in their ranks.

Not true, there were units consisting entirely of Jews in AK. As antisemitic partisans you mean NSZ (National Armed Forces) ? They were independent force as BCH ( Peasant Battalions) and numbered up to 50-80 000 ( AK had over 300 000 soldiers), BCH had about 100 000. In 1944 a large part of NSZ and the entire BCH united with AK.

By the end of 1943 they were finally recognized by the main Communist army of resistance, the People's Army.

The peoples army was an extremist force numbering at that time less than 15 000 men, They enlisted anyone who volunteered including Russian POWs and criminals.
Since they were the only resistance organisation which didn't submit to the Polish government and the Polish Underground State simpply because thy were fully loyal to Moscow.

They began to get their share of arms deliveries and after a three-day visit in May 1944 by People's Army commander General Rola Zymierski, who was not an antisemite and who was prepared to work with them, coorperation really took off.

Rola Zymierski was pre-war officer who was removed from the army after he was found guilty of taking bribes for accepting faulty gas masks from Czechoslovakia.
He was clearly the highest ranking soldier who joined the communists.
He definetely was a traitor since the communist movement was the only one opposing all other organisations and loyal only to Moscow i.e. Stalin.
There are some recent and reliable theories that he was a Soviet spy from late 1930, actually.

Morel rose in the ranks and in 1944 helped to establish the Lublin Committee in which various Polish parties cooperated to form the later Provisional Government of Poland.

The Lublin Committee was not consisting of various parties. The people were Stalin's puppets, completely unknown in Poland and loyal only to the Soviet Union.
Collaborators, or actually even less - often NKVD agents - such as Bierut the future 'president' who joined NKVD in 1930s. - so even without Polish citizenship and sometimes nationality ( Wanda Wasilewska - the greatest woman scum in Polish history).

The people were not even known in Poland, didn't represent anyone in Poland and had only one advantage to back them up - the Red Army.

The legal and supported government was that in London which indeed consisted of various parties - from Nationalist and Socialists to Jewish 'Bund' and Peasant's Party.
In Poland there was the underground parliament and local 'delegated' governent (which worked until expected return of the governement in the exile) which was later either eliminated by the Soviet NKVD and the collaborators from UB or lured into a trap, such as the 16 leaders who were later sentenced for 'collaborating with the Nazis' - Soviet justice and truth as always was questionable...

In other words check your sources !

@Ironside

Adding that nationality is based on consent and that we're talking about about people of Polish nationality and not Polish citizenship, we get a very interesting situation.

As according to that information, it's impossible to have any Polish nationals volunteering in any SS unit (ignoring enlistment as spies in the German army and simular).

Exactly what I am saying. It was impossible without renouncing your Polish nationality if you had it of course.

Fair enough, but it also makes the statement "there were NO POLISH VOLUNTEERS IN WAFFEN SS" moot, as it holds true even if 100% of the population that had Polish citizenship 1939 volunteered into a SS unit, if we're using those parameters.

Exactly, of course second thing only in theory.

To conclude, using those parameters, it will tell absolutly nothing about the existance/size of Polish anti-semitism during WW2, who was the thing this issue originally was supposed to a proof of.

You forget one factor - the Waffen SS units which allowed to enlist Poles or actually which were organised for Poles alone -
there were such attempts in 1944 and earlier, but you had the situation when even the crews ( workers, labourers who are always necessary) of the death camps were using Balts, Ukrainians, and very little Poles - e.g. in the biggest camp that of Auschwitz there were probably about 10 or something around the number Polish nationals to do basic labourers' duties.

Of course there were none known Polish nationals in the crews ( guards etc) of such camps.

Because for the entire war there was none organised collaboration the attempts to tempt the Poles to create special Polish units fighting together with Germans were a failure - the underground refused any contact and open announcements to volunteer even to work to prepare fortifications were met with no interest.

For the entire war there was anti-Soviet and anti-Ally propaganda spread by Polish-language occupation press, posters, in cinema and by street speakers
it was met with cold response.

All what was achieved was the irregular collaboration of people who wanted to earn some extra money such as 'szmalcownicy' the scum who sold Jews and sometimes resistence members and simply any hiding people.
Those were hunted down by the resistance - according to the sentence prepared by the underground courts ( proofs were still required) - their crime was punished by death.
Of course we have also the cases of the 'friendly neighbours' who denounced the Jews they knew, but in general there are also quite many cases of declared antisemites, even fascist ( ONR delegalised before the war) who saved Jews simply because they were not traitors or to make the Germans angry.

The picture is pretty complicated, but we have numerous factors to consider - I know at least 10 works about the question of the collaboration during the war.
The most important thing is to have open mind and approach the question without any stereotipical images in mind, or at least not to allow th distort the entire question with the prejudice some harbour.

@ drone

I am happy to answer someone who is serious and wants to discuss the question.

[QUOTE]..... In other words a definition which deosn't care about race or ethnicy and is based on the consent alone is wrong ? All hail the state run assimilation policy !

The very idea that one can claim nationalistic ties lends itself to feeding the ultra-nationalistic machine, ethnicity aside. People get it into their heads that so-and-so ethnicity is better and want to be associated with it. Many of the hard-core Nazis were very borderline "Aryan Germans". With your definition, a "Nation" is a group of people with no laws or government, totally reliant on the "States" to provide that. Everyone within a "State" deserves the same treatment, regardless of "nationality". If they don't, the "State" is rascist. Which leads to the question, if everyone should be treated the same within a "State", what is the point of the "nationality"?

The whole thing is to avoid unnecessary research and stress caused to people.
By defining the nationality on consent all what is necessary is the voluntary declaration - this way a member of a nationality doesn't have to answer questions about his/her ethnic origin or race.

Since the definition works only for the benefit of the national minorities there is no danger to treat them somehow unfair.

Because the nationality doesn't affect all the equal rights given by citizenship if matters nothing if you have German nationality in Poland to your constitutional rights.

The only benefit you can get is to get help in learning the national language and similar so there is little temptation to declare your nationality as one of the minorties.

You mentioned a few posts ago that the "State" of a "nationality" (for
example, Poland with the Poles, I am making the assumption here that this only applies to "nationalities" lucky enough to have a "State" somewhere with a majority), has an obligation to people who claim Polish "nationality". Funding for schools, embassy priviliedges, etc. This implies that the "State" is sponsoring the "nationality", and thus favoring them, at the expense of other citizens of the "State" who may belong to another "nationality". How is this right?

It is useful only for minorities, there are no special rights for the nationalities which are the majority in their state.

The whole point is that the minority is the weaker side, needs to be protected from unwanted assimilation - because it is the assimilation if you have to pay to learn your own national language - you still have to know the official language of the state, but surviving is much easier with the help of the state.

One thing that keeps coming up in this definition is "national minorities". Are Poles a minority in Poland? If not, can a Polish "citizen" claim Polish "nationality"?

Of course they are not, they can't. As the majority, they cannot expect any special rights - all their rights arethe same as of any citizen in the country.

You can say that the minoritis have the additional rights to compensate for the fact that they need to learn the language of the majority, live in the country of a different nationality etc.

The minority rights are to make all people happy and allow them keeping their culture, language if they want to.

Of course in many cases people tend to be assimilated completely abandoning their earlier nationality, but the definition based on consent and help from the state for all national minorities gives them the real choice.
The choice is unfair if you have to pay to learn your national language etc that is why in Europe where there are so many nations and states of centuries of history each the national minorities need to be protected.

PS. I'm not trying to troll here, I'm just completely confused as to why a system like this would be in place.

I understand that, there is no problem - I know it must be interesting and simply different than in your country, so I am happy to to answer your questions.

I actually worked for CBOS - which makes the census of nationalities so have first-hand experience from the entire affair.:2thumbsup:

Adrian II

12-01-2006, 02:44

The Lublin Committee was not consisting of various parties.Yes, it was. Maybe not parties of your liking, but your rabid anti-Communism is not the issue here.

The issue is that Morel worked together with Poles as a partisan before he became a camp guard and started killing Poles. This speaks to the genocide question. If he wanted to exteminate Poles, he wouldn't have worked with Poles.

Redleg

12-01-2006, 07:30

I wonder what some would think of this article concerning the issue at hand.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19990110/ai_n9652213

For nations, like people, suffer from the traumas that twist and shape their psyche: traumas of war and occupation, resistance and collaboration with dictatorships, Nazi or Soviet. It is perhaps difficult for citizens of Britain, a country that has not been occupied for centuries, to imagine the mental scars left by Nazi and Soviet occupation and the choices of collaboration and compromise demanded by a reign of terror. Now officials are grappling with the question of how to bring to account those Communist officials who organised systematic human rights abuses including judicially-sanctioned torture and murder. Polish officials are now seeking the extradition of two alleged Communist- era criminals: Helena Brus, a former military prosecutor, now living in Oxford, and Salomon Morel, one-time commander of a Soviet detention camp, now living in Tel Aviv. "This is payback time for the Stalinist period. The same excuses were given by Nazi war criminals. They said they were innocent because they were just following orders," said Zbigniew Wolak, veteran in the Polish Home Army, many of whose comrades were killed or imprisoned on their return to post-war Communist Poland by the Soviets and their local supporters. "You cannot punish the hundreds of thousands of people who were involved, but you can bring to justice those who were prominent. This is a battle for the memory of future generations. Either they will know the truth or it will be hidden."

further down the article

During 1997 and 1998, Poland did not make a single extradition request from these countries for former Communist officials, according to the Polish Ministry of Justice. "The evidence against Salomon Morel is very damaging, but why, of all the commanders of the dozens of camps run by the Soviets, pick on him?" asked Konstanty Gebert, editor of the Warsaw- based Jewish magazine Midrasz. "There are no extradition requests to other countries where former NKVD officers must be living. "The Morel case is very worrying, because when the Poles made the extradition request they must have known that Israel had no legal basis on which to accept it. So either the experts at the Ministry of Justice are incompetent, or this was done to make Israel look bad." For Maria Fieldorf-Czarska, who is daughter of the hanged General Fieldorf and is pressing for Mrs Brus's extradition, Poland has said sorry to Jews too many times. Now it is their turn to apologise to Poland, she claims. Mrs Fieldorf-Czarska, now 73 and living in Gdansk is blunt with her opinions. "The sad truth is that our secret services in the 1950s were dominated by Jews. They were disposed to Communism, perhaps it is genetic. All the people connected with the arrest and prosecution of my father were Jewish, and most of them went to Israel. "Nobody says sorry to us, but nowadays we have to say sorry to Jews all the time. Our government apologised for the Jews killed by the Germans: now Israel should apologise to us."

The last sentence that I bolded just reminds me of this whole discussion.

cegorach

12-01-2006, 09:18

Yes, it was. Maybe not parties of your liking, but your rabid anti-Communism is not the issue here.

So now anti-Communism is wrong too. It is like assuming that an organisation which had less than 1 % of support represents everyone !
Think of your country and choose a party which repeatedly didin't get into the parliament - that is the Lublin committee.

Accoording to this statement Northern Korean state backs pluralistic system - there are several parties after all - which I don't like it too, but I guess I am sooo biaaaased that Northen Korean government is more reliable...

The various parties you described were

Among the members of the PKWN were politicians of various communist and leftist parties accepted by the communist authorities. Its chairman was Edward Osóbka-Morawski (Polish Socialist Party, PPS). His deputies were Wanda Wasilewska (Union of Polish Patriots, ZPP) and Andrzej Witos (People's Political Party, SL), a younger brother of Wincenty Witos, a notable pre-war politician. Andrzej Witos was later replaced by Stanisław Janusz.

Other members included those from KRN, ZPP, Worker's Party of Polish Socialists (RPPS), SL, Democratic Party (SD), Polish Workers Party (PPR) and unaffiliated. Most of these organisations and politicians were largely unknown to Polish society

We have couple of members of known parties , but these were represented in the legal government and people such as MR. Osóbka-Morawski cannot be treated otherwise than as individual members who represented only themselves.

You are either intentionally telling something you don't believe or claim that communist run organisation backed by Stalin was more democratic than the legal government backed by the Polish society.

e.g.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krajowa_Rada_Narodowa

Also why was the Jewish Bund not even represented by a single person ? It was in the government in the exile.

According to your words an organisation totally loyal to Stalin and founded by him was the most democratic Polish structure - this cannot be serious.

I don't know what is the idea here, but obviously you are entering something totally unknown to you.

May I ask for your source ? That would explain a lot.

The issue is that Morel worked together with Poles as a partisan before he became a camp guard and started killing Poles. This speaks to the genocide question. If he wanted to exteminate Poles, he wouldn't have worked with Poles.

Not true. It doesn't matter at all - Chinese, Northern Korean, Soviet and other communists clearly commited crimes of genocide against their own nations.

@Redleg

More serious posts ?

Let's see.

For Maria Fieldorf-Czarska, who is daughter of the hanged General Fieldorf and is pressing for Mrs Brus's extradition, Poland has said sorry to Jews too many times. Now it is their turn to apologise to Poland, she claims. Mrs Fieldorf-Czarska, now 73 and living in Gdansk is blunt with her opinions. "The sad truth is that our secret services in the 1950s were dominated by Jews. They were disposed to Communism, perhaps it is genetic. All the people connected with the arrest and prosecution of my father were Jewish, and most of them went to Israel. "Nobody says sorry to us, but nowadays we have to say sorry to Jews all the time. Our government apologised for the Jews killed by the Germans: now Israel should apologise to us."

Obviously desperate woman who blames all for the crimes of a minority - numerous Jews were also the subject of UB and NKVD 'investigations'.
This however changes nothing regardin the neutrality of courts and such.
Which is the main issue here.

She has a strong prejudice - her experience was not easy though, so do not expect a fair judgement from a person as this woman.
It is like asking Holocause survivols how do they feel about Germans.

I found that to get a Polish Citizenship and nationality all one has to do is follow the process as outlined in Polish Law as provided by the Consulate. Nowhere does it state one declare a nationality while having citizenship...

Now to the claim that Poland is not using Nationality as an ethnic definition but one of consent. This english version of a study seemly discounts that notion. But read for yourself and draw your own conclusion,.

The year 1989 brought changes in the status and in the situation of ethnic minorities in Poland. Communist propaganda had claimed that the Polish state was a homogenous country in terms of the national structure. Representatives of other nationalities, inhabitants of Polish territories for several generations, were perceived in terms of ethnic relics. The problems of minorities in Poland were invisible till 1989 .

Declaring your nationality (on consent) doesn't exclude any ethnic roots to this nationality.
It is pretty obvious that if you have German parents you can claim to be a member of this ethnic group and this nationality - which is different thing here than citizenship.

It was not possible to raise ethnic issues in research on a large scale because membership of a nationality was not included in census questions. Reliable and complete data was provided only in censuses, conducted once per 10 years. Since 1921 only 9 censuses have been carried out in Poland. During the inter-war period data on the nationality and the religion of citizens was collected in two censuses (1921 and 1931). In the 1931 census, nationality was deduced on the basis of religion and native language. In the postwar years the nationality issue was included for the first time only in the last census in 2002, where questions about nationality and language used at home were included.

I was collecting datea fro CBOS in 2002. The definition provided asked for the declaration - nothing else. The answer wasn't required if someone didn't want to.

According to the public census from May, 2002, Poland has 38.2 million inhabitants. The overall composition of the Republic of Poland is highly homogeneous, since those of Polish ethnicity constitute nearly the total of its population (96.7%) and minorities are relatively small and dispersed. Non Polish national identity is declared by 444.6 thousands (1.2 %) Polish citizens. Moreover 2.0 % citizens did not declare any national identity.

At the same time the results of the census point to numerous ethnic communities which still live in Poland (see table 2).

So even Polish based sources disagree about the consent aspect one declaring Nationality.

Yes because the question is about the nationality you feel you are a part of - the declaration of your will.

Citizenship was another question in the census.

I find this author's comments rather important to this thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rogers Brubaker
Caught between two mutually antagonistic nationalisms - those of the nationalizing states in which they live and those of the external national homelands to which they belong by ethnonational affinity though not by legal citizenship - are the national minorities. They have their own nationalism: they too make claims on the grounds of their nationality. 'Indeed it is such claims that make them a national minority. 'National minority,' like 'external national homeland' or 'nationalizing state,' designates a political stance,- not an ethnodemographic fact. Minority nationalist stances characteristically involve a self-understanding in specifically 'national ' rather than merely 'ethnic ' terms, a demand for state recognition of their distinct ethnocultural nationality, and the assertion of certain collective, nationality-based cultural or political rights. Although national minority and homeland nationalisms both define themselves in opposition to the 'nationalizing' nationalisms of the state in which the minorities live, they are not necessarily harmoniously aligned. Divergence is especially likely when homeland nationalisms are strategically adopted by the homeland state as a means of advancing other, non-nationalist political goals; in this case ethnic co-nationals abroad may be precipitously abandoned when, for example, geopolitical goals require this.

Nothing new, actually. You quoted a source which discuss a question of national minorities and some possible relations with the state itself.

Nationality based on consent for sure includes people of the same ethnic group as the declared nationality, however it doesn't demand that.

If you declare yourself German in Poland there is no further research made to check your parent's origin etc. Declaration itself is enough.

KrooK

12-01-2006, 10:30

Hehe so what do you think. Semi-Russian judge killed father of that woman with help of Jewish prosecutor (actually her name was earlier Helena Wolinska). Now she has to apologise..... She might not like Jews. Just like Morel could not like Poles. Difference beetwen her and Morel is that she doesn't prepare special camp for Jews. And thats why she is worth of respect when Morel is worth of capital punishment - Wolinska too.:skull:

CrossLOPER

12-01-2006, 12:51

The longer this thread lives, the more camel-killing emissions it will produce. Also, I will jump under a bus. Not because of the camels.

Adrian II

12-01-2006, 13:46

According to your words an organisation totally loyal to Stalin and founded by him was the most democratic Polish structure (..)No, just a structure involving Poles. I said nothing about democratic, let alone most democratic. I am perfectly aware of the post-war Soviet take-over of Poland.

You constantly put words in my mouth. I've had it with the scorched language tactics. So long.

Redleg

12-01-2006, 14:42

@Redleg

More serious posts ?

Just showing more contradictions.

Obviously desperate woman who blames all for the crimes of a minority - numerous Jews were also the subject of UB and NKVD 'investigations'.
This however changes nothing regardin the neutrality of courts and such.
Which is the main issue here.

She has a strong prejudice - her experience was not easy though, so do not expect a fair judgement from a person as this woman.
It is like asking Holocause survivols how do they feel about Germans.

Prejudice is prejudice. The sentiment expressed by the individuals that are obviously desperate toward a race is far different then the sentiments addressed toward an individual. If she had stated that Morel was a murdering scum that killed her family I would see it as directed at the individual. However that is not what she did now is it?

Declaring your nationality (on consent) doesn't exclude any ethnic roots to this nationality.
It is pretty obvious that if you have German parents you can claim to be a member of this ethnic group and this nationality - which is different thing here than citizenship.

Except that Poland also via the consult defines Nationality where one is born - because of the wording of the citizenship criteria - If one's parents are Polish one can gain citizenship. A contradiction to the criteria of nationality that you have been espousing. Poland also uses the same criteria of Nationality as the United States. Which leads us back to the discussion around nationality being defined as an ethnic identification with ethnic criteria. Isn't lovely how circlur reasoning works? Hince Polish is not necessary polish. Polish could be a german ethnic groups with citizenship in Poland as even recongized by your nation.

I was collecting datea fro CBOS in 2002. The definition provided asked for the declaration - nothing else. The answer wasn't required if someone didn't want to.

Yes indeed I understood exactly what the census was accomplishing - the data shows that the nationality was based upon ethnic criteria as demonstrated with what was posted.

Yes because the question is about the nationality you feel you are a part of - the declaration of your will.

Citizenship was another question in the census.

Based upon an ethnic/language criteria as specified in the write up in the posted link. Here let me quote the relative passage.

According to the public census from May, 2002, Poland has 38.2 million inhabitants. The overall composition of the Republic of Poland is highly homogeneous, since those of Polish ethnicity constitute nearly the total of its population (96.7%) and minorities are relatively small and dispersed. Non Polish national identity is declared by 444.6 thousands (1.2 %) Polish citizens. Moreover 2.0 % citizens did not declare any national identity.

At the same time the results of the census point to numerous ethnic communities which still live in Poland (see table 2).

So claiming its based upon consent does not negate that ethnic background is being used as a criteria for nationality. That is a direct contradiction to the statement taken from the census itself.

Nothing new, actually. You quoted a source which discuss a question of national minorities and some possible relations with the state itself.

Nationality based on consent for sure includes people of the same ethnic group as the declared nationality, however it doesn't demand that.

If you declare yourself German in Poland there is no further research made to check your parent's origin etc. Declaration itself is enough.
[/quote]

What it shows is that claims of nationalities are indeed based upon some ethnic criteria because that is exactly the wording used in the report. That one doesn't have to prove it to the government demonstrates that the system is an attempt to negate some past prejudice based upon race, but I suspect its prone to major abuse by those whom wish to.

Which leads us back to the discussion about No Polish Volunteer's in the Waffen SS. Given the data when you speak in absolutes wether you believe fully the nationality criteria as espoused by yourself - that is incorrect on its face given the listing of polish surnames on the Waffen SS roles, if one uses the obvious ethnic criteria regardless of consent. If one adds the consent factor to nationality it removes many names from those roles - but I am willing to bet not all. Given that many resistance groups wanted to inflirate the German Military in the occupied areas. Now include the fact that Polish citizens of german ethnic grouping did indeed volunteer for service in the German military, add the fact that your nation recongizes that Nationality for citizenship is based upon where geographically you were born or where your parents were citizens of as stated in your governments citizenship regulations - one can not claim the absolute postion of no Polish volunteer's in the Waffen SS.

Its been rather interesting reading about nationality based upon consent, but even the wording of the census group clearly states is based upon the declared ethnic group of the individual. Declaration does indeed imply consent but it does not negate the fact that the nationality itself is being defined along ethnic lines, something that you seemly were attempting to circumvent with your arguement about consent.