"Poland wanted war with Germany"

[wm]

Wikipedia is simply terrible for nationalist vandalising. But its a bit unlikely that German nationalists (seeking to justify WW2) are doing this and winning edit wars against Polish nationalists. Jimbo Wales's hand-picked administrators and the Arbitration Committee would come down on them like a ton of bricks.

I didn't say it was a German. Thinking about it it could have been an enthusiastic person with superficial knowledge of history, thinking in pure good vs evil terms.
The point is it wasn't said and actually it was highly out of character of the Polish leaders (and I think most of European too). "That man is a killer" was simply inconceivable at that time.

[wm]

And why is it important if "the Poles advanced East before the Bolsheviks advanced West"? Especially since they faced criminally illegal rebellion led by fanatical and highly unpredictable leaders.

And anyway, the Bolsheviks repudiated the partition treaties so the lands naturally reverted to Poland. On their own territory, the Poles could have advanced in any direction they wanted.

The text of the alliance with the Ukrainians plainly stated that no territory outside Polish borders would be acquired (but the Ukrainians could have tried their luck alone in their effort to gain more Ukraine.)

[Carl Schwamberger]

...

Its always seemed strange to me that Germany suddenly became "the enemy" to the British and Americans round about 1936, straight after the highly successful Berlin Olympics (no demonstrations or remonstrations with Hitler for cancelling the citizenship of Jews by the 1935 Nuremberg Laws, nor the persecution of Jews generally). Perhaps you can explain? ...

I have other tasks I'll do. But, anyone who wants to understand this will have to take a deep dive into US culture, perceptions, and national politics to trace the change from a general sympathy for Germany circa 1932 to a enemy state at the end of 1941.

[NickA]

Wikipedia is simply terrible for nationalist vandalising. But its a bit unlikely that German nationalists (seeking to justify WW2) are doing this and winning edit wars against Polish nationalists. Jimbo Wales's hand-picked administrators and the Arbitration Committee would come down on them like a ton of bricks.

I didn't say it was a German. Thinking about it it could have been an enthusiastic person with superficial knowledge of history, thinking in pure good vs evil terms.

Wikipedia articles are generally "owned" by nationalists (though not often those who started the article for some reason). Anyone making changes that tend to explain/exonerate the perpetrators of WW2 (or any nationalist narrative out of fashion) will be followed, obstructed, insulted and banned. The most outrageous falsifiers are protected by the admins until the hated narrative is driven off.

There are some terrible examples. Look up the "Judea and Samaria" bitch fight. The protestors (claiming that the phrase was, at least in 2008/2009, used almost exclusively by settlers, not even most Israelis). Hence, it was a toponym that should not be used in the "neutral voice" of Wikipedia articles. The Arbitration Committee pondered for around a year on the wholly irrelevant arguments and personal invective thrown at the objecting editors, who did a sterling job fielding the objections and trying not to respond to the insults. The ArbCom eventually accepted the obvious - but declared that they would restrict 5 of the editors trying to protect the Encyclopaedia and 4 of the most racist and unpleasant of the "Judea and Samaria" brigade (two of whom shortly proved to be sock-puppets of editors previously banned for highly disruptive and anti-academic contributions!) The good editors were driven off and the settler language was never removed. Its been accepted as mainstream.

The point is it wasn't said and actually it was highly out of character of the Polish leaders (and I think most of European too). "That man is a killer" was simply inconceivable at that time.

Examine the deliberate mis-translations of Milosevic's speech and what Ahmadinejad said. Mistranslation is a huge problem. Nevertheless, the "historians" at the Wiki (guaranteed not to be loyal to Nazi Germany) believe their picture shows "Rydz-Śmigły declaring Hitler an enemy of the state, Kraków, 6 August 1939". If there's a mis-translation here its likely to favour Poland. His listeners most likely heard something along the lines that "Poland wants war".

And why is it important if "the Poles advanced East before the Bolsheviks advanced West"? Especially since they faced criminally illegal rebellion led by fanatical and highly unpredictable leaders. And anyway, the Bolsheviks repudiated the partition treaties so the lands naturally reverted to Poland. On their own territory, the Poles could have advanced in any direction they wanted.

I was hoping Sid Guttridge (is he still here?) would expand my understanding of what he wrote on 12 May 2020 "And, if I am not mistaken, in 1920 the Poles advanced East before the Bolsheviks advanced West. Cheers, Sid."

Now, the land to the East of Warsaw cannot have reverted to Poland (which had not been in existence for 125 years - the land had been Russian for that length of time). The Bolsheviks seized it again, as you say - did they proceed to ethnically cleanse Polish people out of there pushing them into former Germany (Bromberg et al)?

In which case, those Polish-speakers will have ended up in the German-speaking West of the new Poland after 1919 (land that hadn't even been Poland in 1795) and fought the German-speakers there, ethnically cleansing them into the rump Germany left by Versailles.

What we think we know (from the Wiki) is that there was a steep fall in German-speakers in Bromberg between 1919 and 1929, and again running after 1936. The same was happening to the German-speakers of Danzig (a very important commercial centre of the Hanseatic League since 1356).


Now the topic of this thread is "POLAND WANTED WAR WITH GERMANY" - and it appears that Poland was indeed causing refugee troubles for Germany and, allegedly, causing serious border and cross-border problems.

I'd like to know what books and papers there are on it. For the moment I only really know that Germans appeared to believe that Poland was behaving like some kind of very bad neighbour and Bullit and Kennedy were visiting there.

[NickA]

... Its always seemed strange to me that Germany suddenly became "the enemy" to the British and Americans round about 1936, straight after the highly successful Berlin Olympics (no demonstrations or remonstrations with Hitler for cancelling the citizenship of Jews by the 1935 Nuremberg Laws, nor the persecution of Jews generally). Perhaps you can explain? ...

I have other tasks I'll do. But, anyone who wants to understand this will have to take a deep dive into US culture, perceptions, and national politics to trace the change from a general sympathy for Germany circa 1932 to a enemy state at the end of 1941.

This is where the discussion on the Business Plot of 1933 and American admiration for "strong-man government" in Europe (Henry Ford a big supporter of Hitler in 1922 well before he started making a mark) comes in.

However, that discussion sprawled in the wrong threads - see viewtopic.php?f=6&t=232249&hilit=confis ... 5#p2399781 - if I knew where it should be I'd delete and post elsewhere.

[wm]

Now, the land to the East of Warsaw cannot have reverted to Poland (which had not been in existence for 125 years - the land had been Russian for that length of time).

The partitions of Poland, the annexations of Polish territory, were based on treaties signed between Russia, Prussia, and Austria.
If Russia declared the treaties null and void then to whom did the annexed by Russia Polish territories go? To G-d, the Almighty himself?

Now the topic of this thread is "POLAND WANTED WAR WITH GERMANY" - and it appears that Poland was indeed causing refugee troubles for Germany and, allegedly, causing serious border and cross-border problems.

After the Anschluss, after the failure of orderly Jewish emigration based on the new, proposed Haavara agreement the Nazis resorted to terror and in several months were able to expel more than 200,000 Jews from Germany (but still more than 200,000 remained.)
The 17,000 Jews expelled to Poland were a tiny part of those efforts. So how come did the Polish part was of any significance and a serious problem?

[George L Gregory]

Examine the deliberate mis-translations of Milosevic's speech and what Ahmadinejad said. Mistranslation is a huge problem. Nevertheless, the "historians" at the Wiki (guaranteed not to be loyal to Nazi Germany) believe their picture shows "Rydz-Śmigły declaring Hitler an enemy of the state, Kraków, 6 August 1939". If there's a mis-translation here its likely to favour Poland. His listeners most likely heard something along the lines that "Poland wants war".

What makes you think that? Do you have any proof that is what “most likely” his listeners heard?

Now, the land to the East of Warsaw cannot have reverted to Poland (which had not been in existence for 125 years - the land had been Russian for that length of time). The Bolsheviks seized it again, as you say - did they proceed to ethnically cleanse Polish people out of there pushing them into former Germany (Bromberg et al)?

In which case, those Polish-speakers will have ended up in the German-speaking West of the new Poland after 1919 (land that hadn't even been Poland in 1795) and fought the German-speakers there, ethnically cleansing them into the rump Germany left by Versailles.

That’s because Poland had been partitioned. Poland historically was partitioned by the Austrians, Prussians and Russians.

You’re making some serious accusations here.

Provide some sources about the alleged fighting and ethnic cleansing. With regard to the latter, a reduction in the number of speakers of a language is not the same as ethnically cleansing people.

What we think we know (from the Wiki) is that there was a steep fall in German-speakers in Bromberg between 1919 and 1929, and again running after 1936. The same was happening to the German-speakers of Danzig (a very important commercial centre of the Hanseatic League since 1356).

For someone who previously dismissed Wikipedia you really do rely on it a lot.

What do you think the reduction in German speakers proves exactly?

Now the topic of this thread is "POLAND WANTED WAR WITH GERMANY" - and it appears that Poland was indeed causing refugee troubles for Germany and, allegedly, causing serious border and cross-border problems.

Poland did not want war with Germany.

What serious problems were being caused by Poland?

I'd like to know what books and papers there are on it. For the moment I only really know that Germans appeared to believe that Poland was behaving like some kind of very bad neighbour and Bullit and Kennedy were visiting there.

Just, no. What we know is that the Nazis had done the same thing in Czechoslovakia - accusing their victims of mistreating ethnic Germans to justify their invasion.

Is there any specific reason why you decided to post on a thread that was last posted on in May 2020?

[wm]

Danzig was a self-governing entity, with its own institutions including its own police. Poland and the League of Nations were mere "overseers" with very limited rights. Poland wouldn't be able to cleanse anything there, the city literally belonged to its citizens, not to Poland.

Similarly, lots of Germans (and Jews and even Poles) left the regained (at the expense of Germany) territories for the simple reasons they were Germans citizens and life was better in Germany than in Poland.
There might have been some foul play, after all, they had a few real (although short-term) Polish-German wars there but that was unavoidable.
Lots of Germans actually stayed especially German farmers.
Actually, many of the Jews "returned" to Poland by the Nazis in 1938 were the Jews who left in early twenties for the green grass in Germany (and forever as they thought) and didn't bother to return even after the Kristallnacht.

[gebhk]

I would be most surprised that the number of German speakers in Danzig fell as a percentage after 1936. Given the increasing levels of violence and intimidation directed against them, causing many Poles to leave and the influx of 'tourists' from the Reich entering to join such typically recreatioonal organisations as the SS-Heimwehr Danzig, I would expect the opposite to be the case.

As I understand it there was an overall population drop in Danzig between 1934 and 1939 of approximately 20K, albeit standing at just under 5% it can hardly be considered a steep one even if all these leaving had been German speaking, when in reality the Polish-speaking minority were likely to have been over-represented in this figure. Also, while apparently making up a very small percentage of the population, Jews leaving Danzig are likely to have made a disproportionately large contribution to any German-speaking exodus (something like 9.5K left the city between 1929 and 1939 according to G Berendt). Needless to say I don'r see how any of this could have anything to do with Poland and far more likely to have been the result of Nazi abuses and intimidation.

These are of course questions rather than speculation, as I have been unable to find uny useful data on this subject -perhaps because I am looking in the wrong places - and I would be most interested if anyone has some insight into the matter.

WM - I would add to your comments about the government of the Free City of Danzig, that this was even more complex than you hint at. While it had all the trappings of a sovereign state, it was not one in reality. Ultimate power, theoretically, lay with the League of Nations' High Commissioner. Executive power lay with the Volksrat (parliament) and the Senate - which increasingly became simply a mouthpiece for the NSDAP of Germany. The General Commissioner of the Polish Republic (aka the Polish Diplomatic Representative) had powers to enforce Polish interests guaranteed by the league, but only that. Finally, there was the Port and Waterways Council which was, in practice, independent (it had its own pollice force for example). Due to the inevitable overlaps of competency and conflicting aims and objectives, these 4 bodies, predictably, spent perhaps as much time fighting each other and internally as they did carrying out their work, even before the vile contagion of National Socialism was added to the mix.

[NickA]

I didn't say it was a German. Thinking about it it could have been an enthusiastic person with superficial knowledge of history, thinking in pure good vs evil terms. The point is it wasn't said and actually it was highly out of character of the Polish leaders (and I think most of European too). "That man is a killer" was simply inconceivable at that time.

I quote Wikipedia a lot - but, on any subject that could be "nationalist propaganda" I would always add a health-warning.

It really is highly unlikely that a fraudulent quote from a Polish leader (backed with a photograph) and tending to support a Nazi narrative, would be inserted into a Wikipedia article and allowed to stand.

As I said, Jimbo Wales's hand-picked administrators (JayJg an extreme example) and the Arbitration Committee would come down on any such nationalist editor for a "bad side" like a ton of bricks. The edit would be removed and the editor would be entirely sanctioned from the project.

Do you need an example of extreme nationalist bias in Wikipedia articles? I came across one such example on a topic that you'd never expect, the geographical situation of some quite important islands being bashed and battered to a staggering extent (think a double-sided print-out of 7 reams of paper) presumably by dozens of non-islanders.

[NickA]

... anyone who wants to understand this will have to take a deep dive into US culture, perceptions, and national politics to trace the change from a general sympathy for Germany circa 1932 to a enemy state at the end of 1941.

It seemed to me that US public support for strong-man government increased throughout the 30s (tinged with prejudice against getting involved in any war in Europe) and the Roosevelt administration acted robustly to tamp it down and preserve American democracy.

There was heavy handed censorship of Coughlin:

In the late 1930s, he supported some of the fascist policies of Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, and Emperor Hirohito of Japan. ... After the outbreak of World War II in Europe in 1939, the Roosevelt administration forced the cancellation of his radio program and forbade distribution by mail of his newspaper, Social Justice

And persecution of the likes of the immensely popular Charles Lindbergh:

... supported the antiwar America First Committee and resigned his commission in the U.S. Army Air Forces in April 1941 after President Franklin Roosevelt publicly rebuked him for his views."

And high-profile threats against Germany (such as "Germany must Perish!") that suddenly silenced American pacifists and outright supporters of Fascism after September 1939.

It was not until December 1941 that the fascist salute (known in the US as the "Bellamy Salute") was abolished in US schools.

[NickA]

I would be most surprised that the number of German speakers in Danzig fell as a percentage after 1936. Given the increasing levels of violence and intimidation directed against them, causing many Poles to leave and the influx of 'tourists' from the Reich entering to join such typically recreatioonal organisations as the SS-Heimwehr Danzig, I would expect the opposite to be the case.

I'm looking for evidence of violence and intimidation of "minority" populations in this period - maybe Germans driven out of Bromberg - but Poles driven out of Danzig would be equally concerning. There doesn't seem to be much information (other than Germans were definitely leaving Bromberg).

As I understand it there was an overall population drop in Danzig between 1934 and 1939 of approximately 20K, albeit standing at just under 5% it can hardly be considered a steep one even if all these leaving had been German speaking, when in reality the Polish-speaking minority were likely to have been over-represented in this figure. Also, while apparently making up a very small percentage of the population, Jews leaving Danzig are likely to have made a disproportionately large contribution to any German-speaking exodus (something like 9.5K left the city between 1929 and 1939 according to G Berendt). Needless to say I don'r see how any of this could have anything to do with Poland and far more likely to have been the result of Nazi abuses and intimidation.

Danzig should have been prospering between the wars (unless there were some other factors I'm not aware of). Jews were certainly leaving Germany (though under supposedly favourable conditions, tranfering their wealth to Palestine) but I'm not sure why they would have been leaving Danzig.

These are of course questions rather than speculation, as I have been unable to find uny useful data on this subject -perhaps because I am looking in the wrong places - and I would be most interested if anyone has some insight into the matter.

No, sorry, can't add anything.

[Carl Schwamberger]

It was not until December 1941 that the fascist salute (known in the US as the "Bellamy Salute") was abolished in US schools.

Bellamy also popularized the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1880s, rewriting a version written by Captain George Thatcher Balch, of the Union Army, later a teacher of patriotism in New York City schools. Bellamy was both a socialist & clergyman. Part of his motivation seems to have been to provide a alternate to the loyalty oaths popular among some politicians of the era. The Bellamy salute had two parts, during the recitation of the pledge the right hand was held to the forehead in a military style salute. The second part was at the end the right hand/arm was extended to the flag in a Roman style salute and held there for a beat, then dropped to the side. Ib the 1920s Musollinis Facists revived the Roman salute connecting it to their Facist rituals. For some reason the NASDP adopted this Roman or Latin gesture as part of their 'Aryan' or German ideology.

[NickA]

It was not until December 1941 that the fascist salute (known in the US as the "Bellamy Salute") was abolished in US schools.

Bellamy also popularized the Pledge of Allegiance in the 1880s ... right hand was held to the forehead in a military style salute ... The second part was at the end the right hand/arm was extended to the flag in a Roman style salute and held there for a beat, then dropped to the side.

Thankyou for confirming what I reported.

Ib the 1920s Musollinis Facists revived the Roman salute connecting it to their Facist rituals. For some reason the NASDP adopted this Roman or Latin gesture as part of their 'Aryan' or German ideology.

I don't understand what you mean by "For some reason" - the communists (eg all over the world but including Hitler's opponents, the Rotfront, banned by the Weimar Republic for chaos and harm on German streets) along with BLM and a few others use the closed fist, a symbol speaking of the willingness to do violence.

The Bellamy salute - like your "military style salute" uses the open hand, a sign of peace and absence of weapons.

Why did the Americans abolish it in December 1941? Was it some kind of problem? What problem? Why have we been demonising it for 90 or 100 years?

I'm asking questions like this because, to me, the importance of WW2 is learning how to avoid making the same mistakes. One of which is falsely accusing others of acting aggressive when we might be accused of all kinds of things that really do amount to aggression.

[George L Gregory]

I didn't say it was a German. Thinking about it it could have been an enthusiastic person with superficial knowledge of history, thinking in pure good vs evil terms. The point is it wasn't said and actually it was highly out of character of the Polish leaders (and I think most of European too). "That man is a killer" was simply inconceivable at that time.

I quote Wikipedia a lot - but, on any subject that could be "nationalist propaganda" I would always add a health-warning.

It really is highly unlikely that a fraudulent quote from a Polish leader (backed with a photograph) and tending to support a Nazi narrative, would be inserted into a Wikipedia article and allowed to stand.

Why don’t you quote from books? Do you not do much reading? Don’t worry, you don’t need to answer the last question, I already know the answer.

What you posted above is totally different from the BS you posted earlier:

“If there's a mis-translation here its likely to favour Poland. His listeners most likely heard something along the lines that "Poland wants war".”

Don’t for one moment pretend to speak and write Polish.

As I said, Jimbo Wales's hand-picked administrators (JayJg an extreme example) and the Arbitration Committee would come down on any such nationalist editor for a "bad side" like a ton of bricks. The edit would be removed and the editor would be entirely sanctioned from the project.

Do you need an example of extreme nationalist bias in Wikipedia articles? I came across one such example on a topic that you'd never expect, the geographical situation of some quite important islands being bashed and battered to a staggering extent (think a double-sided print-out of 7 reams of paper) presumably by dozens of non-islanders.

No one cares about Wikipedia. You should try citing and referencing from books.