Churchill's Betrayal of Poland

Discussions on all aspects of Poland during the Second Polish Republic and the Second World War. Hosted by Piotr Kapuscinski.
User avatar
4thskorpion
Member
Posts: 733
Joined: 10 Nov 2009, 16:06
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Churchill's Betrayal of Poland

#211

Post by 4thskorpion » 22 Dec 2015, 13:01

wm wrote:Yes! I say that there are no sources given because I can see it with my own eyeballs.
I'm sure that man hasn't seen the Lipski's report ever. He was using some secondary sources, I can feel it.

Otherwise he would know that:
[Hitler] has in mind an idea for settling the Jewish problem by way of emigration to the colonies in accordance with an understanding with Poland, Hungary, and possibly also Rumania
was a part of the typewrited official report but the:
at which point I told him that if he finds such a solution we will erect him a beautiful monument in Warsaw
was added by Lipski using a pen (or pencil) - as a joke.
If you are saying you have seen the original typewritten official report and Prof. Snyder has not then please post the original.

Maybe you can provide a copy of authenticated original report from Likpski to Beck of 20 Spetember 1938 to support your argument against Snyder and others who quote this particular report.
Black_Earth_notes-to-page-75.jpg

Further:
DIPLOMAT IN BERLIN
1933-1939
Edited by Waclaw Jedrzejewicz
Columbia University Press 1968 New York and London

411:

f ) that he has in mind an idea for settling the Jewish problem by way of emigration to the colonies in accordance with an understanding with Poland, Hungary, and possibly also Rumania (at which point I told him that if he finds such a solution we will erect him a beautiful monument in Warsaw).

Ambassador Jozef Lipski's archives are on file in New York at the Jozef Pilsudski Institute of America for Research in the Modern History of Poland. Wactaw Jedrzejewicz, former Polish army officer, diplomat, and cabinet member, was in the 1950's when he compiled these documents, Professor Emeritus of Wellesley and Ripon colleges.
Last edited by 4thskorpion on 22 Dec 2015, 14:28, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Churchill's Betrayal of Poland

#212

Post by wm » 22 Dec 2015, 13:57

See, I've told you secondary sources and unnamed historians of these negotiations, historians who probably were hiding under Hitler's bed during those negotiations.
That man didn't even bother to study the freely available Polish diplomatic documents. Unbelievable.
20wrzesnia.jpg
20wrzesnia.jpg (45.01 KiB) Viewed 698 times
byb means a handwritten commentary


Like the bugs in Mark Twain's story Some Learned Fables, For Good Old Boys And Girls he builds a sensational story from a single sentence ripped off a multi page report on unrelated subject.

What is the source of the statement that Lipski was expressing the hope that Germany could induce some maritime power to open some overseas colony to Polish Jews?
And now completely seriously: What is the name of the idiot who wrote it?


User avatar
4thskorpion
Member
Posts: 733
Joined: 10 Nov 2009, 16:06
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Churchill's Betrayal of Poland

#213

Post by 4thskorpion » 22 Dec 2015, 14:22

wm wrote:See, I've told you secondary sources and unnamed historians of these negotiations, historians who probably were hiding under Hitler's bed during those negotiations.
That man didn't even bother to study the freely available Polish diplomatic documents. Unbelievable.
20wrzesnia.jpg
byb means a handwritten commentary
wm, Your example is not a primary source, it is a transcription and therefore also a secondary source. Please provide the original document.

But be that as it may, the addition of a handwritten addendum does not negate the contents of the handwritten addition to the note sent to Beck regarding Lipski's discussion with Hitler on Jewish affairs in Poland which you said was not true but is clearly demonstrated by Jedrzejewicz's transcription as true in section "F".

There is no supplementary evidence that supports your statement that Lipski's hand written addendum regarding erecting a statue of Hitler in Warsaw if Hitler could solve the Jewish question in Poland was merely a joke...this is entirely your spin.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Churchill's Betrayal of Poland

#214

Post by wm » 22 Dec 2015, 14:59

This is a primary source transcribed by reputable people, otherwise it is our duty to inform the Interpol and Angela Merkel.

So we have statement like:
- the Polish Government wanted to be rid of most Polish Jews,
- the Germans and the Poles were discussing an emigration of millions of European Jews to Madagascar,
- the Polish Government was expressing the hope that Germany could induce some maritime power to open some overseas colony to Polish Jews.

with nothing to show in support and I'm sure nothing are to be expected.

No to mention the idiocy of assuming that a diplomat, especially Beck's diplomat would ask his adversary for a favour if absolutely not forced to. It was something Beck was avoiding as the plague, and consistently was trying to induce his interlocutors to ask him for favours.

And the idiocy of asking for a "maritime" favour a man who at that time was in serious conflict with all the maritime powers there were.

Especially that just a few months earlier, all the maritime powers and a couple of others plainly stated that the Jews were not going to get even an inch of land anywhere (see the Evian Conference).

User avatar
4thskorpion
Member
Posts: 733
Joined: 10 Nov 2009, 16:06
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Churchill's Betrayal of Poland

#215

Post by 4thskorpion » 22 Dec 2015, 15:19

wm wrote:This is a primary source transcribed by reputable people
Unfortunately not true. The original document is the primary source, a transcription typeset copy is not.

For example here's why. I have a copies of Pilecki's original Auschwitz camp typewritten reports held at SPP-PUMST in London which I photocopied in person at the archive. These are primary source documents. These have at one time or another been transcribed and typeset into both Polish and English translation and these transcriptions are secondary sources.

Publication of the "official" version of the Pilecki Auschwitz report (1945) produced as "Rotmistrz Witold Pilecki" under the auspices of the Oficyna Wydawnicza VOLUMEN i Fundacja Pamięci Ofiar Obozu Zagłady Auschwitz-Birkenau w Oświęcimiu by Adam Cyra and Wiesław Wysocki (all reputable people) is supposed to be an accurate and faithful typesetting of the Pilecki report. This book is frequently referenced by authors writing about Pilecki. However it entirely flawed, there is not one mention in Cyra's "Rotmistrz Witold Pilecki " of Pilecki's use in his original typewritten report at SPP-PUMST of the then commonly used Polish derogatory term "Żydek - "Jew-boy or "little-Jew" whilst describing the Jews in the camp. I am sure you can figure out why Pilecki's text was "sanitised" with the word "Żyd" instead in this supposedly "official" publication and in every other publication of his report in Polish and English. I believe this deliberate discrepancy in all Polish publications of Pilecki's report has never been highlighted before.

However, despite all these various thread tangents the case for Churchill's alleged betrayal of Poland remains unproven.
Last edited by 4thskorpion on 22 Dec 2015, 19:51, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Churchill's Betrayal of Poland

#216

Post by wm » 22 Dec 2015, 19:50

An agreement blatantly broken by the British - regarded by Sikorski as one of his greatest achievements and a prerequisite to his talks with the Soviets:
July 18th, 1941
An official note addressed by H.M. Government to the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
On the occasion of the signature of the Polish-Soviet Agreement of to-day's date — which reestablishes the relations between the two countries as they existed before 1939"e — I desire to take the opportunity of informing you that, in conformity with the provisions of the Anglo-Polish Agreement of August 25th, 1939, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have entered into no undertaking towards the U.S.S.R. which affect the relations between that country and Poland. I also desire to assure you that His Majesty's Government do not recognise any territorial changes which take place during the war.
from: Polskie Dokumenty Dyplomatyczne 1941
And the fact that Churchill, in conspiracy with Stalin decided the postwar Polish borders and actually the very fate of Poland without any authorization from the Polish Government in the vain hope of gaining Stalin's support for the post-war new world order. And then forced the results of his collusion with Stalin on the Polish Government with the use of threats.

It should be added that it wasn't the first British attempt to create a new world order in collusion with a totalitarian regime. Earlier they attempted to create a new European order in cooperation with the Nazi regime too (the so called Four-Power Pact).


Primary sources are original materials that have not been altered or distorted in any way.
Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources.


Actually I have no idea why the term Żydek should be derogatory (unless it is obvious in the text), and why it should be translated as Jew-boy, or little-Jew or even kike. All these translations are incorrect.

It is one of the words (including the so called little peasants and even peasants) that in very short time radically changed their meaning, similarly to negroes (like in the still existing National Council of Negro Women).
There is nothing wrong with translating it as Jew, unless the text indicates otherwise.

User avatar
4thskorpion
Member
Posts: 733
Joined: 10 Nov 2009, 16:06
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Churchill's Betrayal of Poland

#217

Post by 4thskorpion » 23 Dec 2015, 10:02

wm wrote:An agreement blatantly broken by the British - regarded by Sikorski as one of his greatest achievements and a prerequisite to his talks with the Soviets:
July 18th, 1941
An official note addressed by H.M. Government to the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.
On the occasion of the signature of the Polish-Soviet Agreement of to-day's date — which reestablishes the relations between the two countries as they existed before 1939"e — I desire to take the opportunity of informing you that, in conformity with the provisions of the Anglo-Polish Agreement of August 25th, 1939, His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom have entered into no undertaking towards the U.S.S.R. which affect the relations between that country and Poland. I also desire to assure you that His Majesty's Government do not recognise any territorial changes which take place during the war.
from: Polskie Dokumenty Dyplomatyczne 1941
And the fact that Churchill, in conspiracy with Stalin decided the postwar Polish borders and actually the very fate of Poland without any authorization from the Polish Government in the vain hope of gaining Stalin's support for the post-war new world order. And then forced the results of his collusion with Stalin on the Polish Government with the use of threats.

It should be added that it wasn't the first British attempt to create a new world order in collusion with a totalitarian regime. Earlier they attempted to create a new European order in cooperation with the Nazi regime too (the so called Four-Power Pact).
None of the above proves Churchill betrayed Poland.
wm wrote:Primary sources are original materials that have not been altered or distorted in any way.
Primary sources are distinguished from secondary sources, which cite, comment on, or build upon primary sources
That is correct. But you cannot prove without reference to the original typewritten or handwritten report of 20 September 1938 that the typeset transcript you provided has in any way not been altered or distorted by the publisher, typesetter, proof reader etc involved in the publishing process. However If you are describing your source as a primary source then Jedrzejewicz's transcription of Lipski's report is equally valid as a primary source, and a legitimate source for historian's such as Snyder to quote from.
wm wrote:[Actually I have no idea why the term Żydek should be derogatory (unless it is obvious in the text), and why it should be translated as Jew-boy, or little-Jew or even kike. All these translations are incorrect.
Incorrect? I would have thought you would know your own language a little better, but maybe the derogatory term Żydek ("Jew Boy" or "Little Jew") has lost it's original meaning after WWII because most of the "Jew boys" and "little Jews" of Poland are no more.
image.jpeg
image.jpeg
image.jpeg
image.jpeg
wm wrote:It is one of the words (including the so called little peasants and even peasants) that in very short time radically changed their meaning, similarly to negroes (like in the still existing National Council of Negro Women).
There is nothing wrong with translating it as Jew, unless the text indicates otherwise.
If the term "Żydek" was as innocuous as you say it was then what is even more puzzling is why every published Polish transcription (even Cyra's published under the auspices of the Auschwitz museum) of Pilecki's report has the term deliberately changed from Pilecki's original " Żydek" to "Żyd" meaning all English translations miss the nuance of Pilecki's usage of "Jew Boy" to describe Jews in Auschwitz. Why would this word be changed if it meant one thing and not another in "official" Polish publications of Pilecki's Auschwitz report?

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Churchill's Betrayal of Poland

#218

Post by wm » 23 Dec 2015, 21:03

Polish dictionary from the twenties says:
diminutive - żydek,
augmentative - żydzisko.

So it was typically said: little jew, five buns please, but not jew/large jew, five buns please - these were inappropriate and offensive, especially large jew.

In Polish diminutives usually convey attitude and affection, are used extensively and possibilities to use them are endless. As real diminutives are infrequent in English is pointless to translate them without considering the context and intentions of the speaker.

Additionally żydek was a tiny lamp, kind of knife, the bank in a card game, ball game, a thought, kind of fish, kind of a cake.
And then there were żydowin, żydowiec, żydaszek, żydosko, żydawa, żydliczek, żydliczka, żydlik, żydła, żydkogłowy, żydoman, żydowię, żydzię, żydowizm, żydziawa, żydowszczenie, żydówczę, żydura, żydziawa, żydzina.

The point is I have no idea what a tiny lamp or a fish called żydek looks like or know the meaning of any of these words above, and today most people don't know either. This is how the language has changed.

The job of an editor is, among others correcting mistakes and making the text understandable, especially that even the grammar and stylistic rules changed a few times. For example jew became Jew shortly before the war.
Especially that Pilecki's report isn't any military/official report, it is written in common language story/reportage.

And really, Mr Adam Cyra should be asked first why he replaced the word, before raising alarm and calling the UN. I bet he knows much more about the language that anyone here and all of us together.

User avatar
4thskorpion
Member
Posts: 733
Joined: 10 Nov 2009, 16:06
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Churchill's Betrayal of Poland

#219

Post by 4thskorpion » 23 Dec 2015, 21:45

wm wrote:Polish dictionary from the twenties says:
diminutive - żydek,
augmentative - żydzisko.

So it was typically said: little jew, five buns please, but not jew/large jew, five buns please - these were inappropriate and offensive, especially large jew.

In Polish diminutives usually convey attitude and affection, are used extensively and possibilities to use them are endless. As real diminutives are infrequent in English is pointless to translate them without considering the context and intentions of the speaker.

Additionally żydek was a tiny lamp, kind of knife, the bank in a card game, ball game, a thought, kind of fish, kind of a cake.
And then there were żydowin, żydowiec, żydaszek, żydosko, żydawa, żydliczek, żydliczka, żydlik, żydła, żydkogłowy, żydoman, żydowię, żydzię, żydowizm, żydziawa, żydowszczenie, żydówczę, żydura, żydziawa, żydzina.

The point is I have no idea what a tiny lamp or a fish called żydek looks like or know the meaning of any of these words above, and today most people don't know either. This is how the language has changed.

The job of an editor is, among others correcting mistakes and making the text understandable, especially that even the grammar and stylistic rules changed a few times. For example jew became Jew shortly before the war.
Especially that Pilecki's report isn't any military/official report, it is written in common language story/reportage.

And really, Mr Adam Cyra should be asked first why he replaced the word, before raising alarm and calling the UN. I bet he knows much more about the language that anyone here and all of us together.

wm, Really? Now you are just being a little puerile.

I have confirmation from both dr. Polonsky and dr. Marek Chodakiewicz (Polish historians from two very different historical perspectives) regarding the meaning of the term "Zydek" and both agreed with the interpretation "Jew Boy" or "Little Jew" which was a commonly used derogatory term used by Poles about Jews. I am inclined to believe their judgement and the few examples I have posted as to the true usage of the term than your rather fatuous explanations. I believe the reason Pileckii's original words could been seen as anti-Jewish so a noncontencious term was used instead so as not to give a negative impression of this Polish hero.

However my point in relating the Pilecki story is that one cannot rely on "official" typeset transcriptions being unaltered or edited so, it is always best to go back to the original files...the primary source.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Churchill's Betrayal of Poland

#220

Post by wm » 23 Dec 2015, 22:34

Well so be it. I call a statement that from the term żydek can be derived the speaker intention idiotic right here.
I don't know what the question and the answers were so please post them.

I know that żydek could be offensive, but still I can offend all the people here very quickly by using Sir and Mister repeatedly.
This is the term as translated by a professor of Polish literature at Harvard in 2007, from "The Doll" by Bolesław Prus:
the doll.jpg
the doll.jpg (52.27 KiB) Viewed 627 times
And I would be wary of accusing institutions of international standing of forgery - simply because some countries (thankfully Poland is not one of them) have quite weak protections of free speech.

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Churchill's Betrayal of Poland

#221

Post by wm » 24 Dec 2015, 07:34

Unfortunately I made a mistake. The translator is David Welsh - professor of Slavic languages and literatures at the London School of Slavonic Studies, later at the University of Michigan. They say as translator of Polish literature he gained special renown, and was recognized both in Poland and abroad for his outstanding translation of contemporary Polish literature.
Strangely he translated żydek as Jew eighteen times in this single book.

A few examples of the use as non-offensive diminutive.
from Urke Nachalnik (a hardened career Jewish criminal and very popular pre-war writer), "Żywe grobowce":
Jak widzę, jesteś morowy żydek. Daj rękę, z tobą można wszystko robić. Ja lubię z żydkami robić interesa. Co prawda żyd trochę czasami oszuka, ale za to potrafi język trzymać za zębami we wszystkim. Nie ma jak z żydkami - zawołał uradowany własnymi słowami, ściskając mi rękę po bratersku.
from a poem by Julian Tuwim:
Żydek
Śpiewa na podwórku, tuląc się w łachmany,
Mały, biedny chłopiec, Żydek obłąkany.
Ludzie go wygnali, Bóg pomieszał głowę,
Wieki i wygnanie pomieszały mowę.
Eliza Orzeszkowa, "Meir Ezofowicz":
Żydek-faktor stał u drzwi gabinetu pańskiego, pochylony nieco ku pańskiemu obliczu, uśmiechniony, gotów zawsze do sprężystego poskoku w celu usłużenia panu i do dowcipnego słówka w celu obudzenia dobrego jego humoru.
Pan był w dobrym humorze i żartował z Żydka.
- Chaimku — mówił - czy byłeś ty w Krakowie?
- Nie byłem, jaśnie panie!
Actually Tuwim lists all the better known offensive words in his work "My Żydzi polscy": Szlojmy, Srule, Mośki, parchy, bejlisy, gudłaje. As he was a żydek himself he probably knew something about it.

User avatar
4thskorpion
Member
Posts: 733
Joined: 10 Nov 2009, 16:06
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Churchill's Betrayal of Poland

#222

Post by 4thskorpion » 24 Dec 2015, 10:23

wm wrote:Well so be it. I call a statement that from the term żydek can be derived the speaker intention idiotic right here.
I don't know what the question and the answers were so please post them.

I know that żydek could be offensive, but still I can offend all the people here very quickly by using Sir and Mister repeatedly.
This is the term as translated by a professor of Polish literature at Harvard in 2007, from "The Doll" by Bolesław Prus:
the doll.jpg
And I would be wary of accusing institutions of international standing of forgery - simply because some countries (thankfully Poland is not one of them) have quite weak protections of free speech.
I think have given sufficient examples in previous posts for other readers to take view, if interested.

But as regards my accusation against any Polish institutions and others of deliberately altering official Polish transcriptions of Pilicki's original from the derogatory "żydek" meaning "Jew-boy" or "Little Jew" to the innocuous "żyd" or simply "Jew" I am supremely confident of my position because I have Pilecki's original typewritten and hand annotated reports from the Studium Polski Podziemnej (SPP-PUMST) archive here in London and correspondence records with both prof. Polonsky and prof. Chodakiewicz to prove my point. :D

User avatar
4thskorpion
Member
Posts: 733
Joined: 10 Nov 2009, 16:06
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Churchill's Betrayal of Poland

#223

Post by 4thskorpion » 24 Dec 2015, 11:08

An example of why the London Polish emigre government documents cannot be relied on for reporting accuracy, see detailed note 136:
image.jpeg
Source: "Poland's Place in Europe: General Sikorski and the Origin of the Oder- Neisse Line, 1939-1943"

User avatar
wm
Member
Posts: 8753
Joined: 29 Dec 2006, 21:11
Location: Poland

Re: Churchill's Betrayal of Poland

#224

Post by wm » 24 Dec 2015, 12:17

4thskorpion wrote:But as regards my accusation against any Polish institutions and others of deliberately altering official Polish transcriptions of Pilicki's original from the derogatory "żydek" meaning "Jew-boy" or "Little Jew" to the innocuous "żyd" or simply "Jew" I am supremely confident of my position because I have Pilecki's original typewritten and hand annotated reports from the Studium Polski Podziemnej (SPP-PUMST) archive here in London and correspondence records with both prof. Polonsky and prof. Chodakiewicz to prove my point. :D
Unfortunately you didn't address my point "from the term żydek can not be derived the speaker intention" at all.
I didn't say the word couldn't be used to offend someone, so showing examples of people being offended is pointless. Diminutive (as in diminish someone's standing) from definition could be offensive.

Actually some of your examples prove my point. Because if a Jewish child is offended by żydek - which actually can mean and meant (and there was no other word to replace it) son of a Jew so I have a question: was he a son of a Jew or not? And why he was offended?
The proper answer is he was offended by the hostility of his colleagues not the word.

At the same time Mr Nachalnik wasn't offended by calling him żydek - little jew, because obviously he was sincerely offered friendship by his newly made friend.

User avatar
4thskorpion
Member
Posts: 733
Joined: 10 Nov 2009, 16:06
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Churchill's Betrayal of Poland

#225

Post by 4thskorpion » 24 Dec 2015, 12:25

I have addressed everything I wanted to on the Pilecki report, and I am sure other readers are long since bored with this and would prefer to focus on the main thread title now.

Post Reply

Return to “Poland 1919-1945”