Implying Polish Guilt in Holocaust To Be Outlawed

i can understand why they would criminalize it. i'm sticking my neck out here but inertial sentiments to the holocaust are still strong and they sometimes give rise to un-necessary focus and media exposure. most especially when the 20th century played host to two cases of genocide that surpassed that of nazi germany in size. there were also two cases not as big but even more horrific than the gas chambers. and remember a while back, some people were clamoring to make being a holocaust victim an inheritable condition? definitely a more stupid notion than polish guilt.

here are some canned replies i've gathered so far as two why the holocaust gets more media exposure than stalin's purges or mao's regime:

1. the holocaust affected europeans and americans by a far larger degree (never mind the ethnic armenians.)
2. hitler lost and the world hates losers, even decent ones like robert e. lee. stalin and mao came out winners.
3. both china and russia were in flux; being un-developed, despotic regimes at the time of the killings. germany on the other hand was one of the most technologically advanced countries on earth with a big share of scientists, intellectuals, mature politicians,and a well-educated population.
4. from #3, there are fears that developed countries might easily repeat something similar to hitler's death camps. well, you had serbia in the 90's.

 

The Streisand effect will bite this and any other such legal attempts to deflect interest away from certain areas on the arse.
eg. The Polish embassy is weirdly aggressive to anyone on Twatter who uses language they 'disapprove' of, or makes even quite mild points that do not fit this new enforcement of national honour. All it does is puts people's backs up and makes them enquire more deeply into the more uncomfortable bits of any nation's history.

The semantic campaign against people using the entirely legitimate phrase 'Polish Death Camps' is peculiarly patronising (the 'checker' software they've released via the Auschwitz museum's even pretty chilling). The only people reading that phrase as saying they were a Polish project are idiots, and fighting such a limited view so vociferously just looks strange. The Nazis/Germany ran camps in the modern territories of Latvia, Austria, France, Czechoslovakia, Ukraine, Poland, Holland & Germany - I might say 'French death camp' perfectly reasonably, but anyone knows who established that camp as a part of official government policy. The plurality of Polish Camps casts no extra guilt until a modern government suddenly becomes so sensitive about it, which encourages increased suspicion and interest. Even cynicism.

 

if the polish reaction is that bad, then the use of the term was not a one-off instance but repeated with obvious malicious intent. that's right, i don't have the basic data to decide what's what, but i'd like to see proof of malice in mis-naming. "polish death camps" is certainly not accurate. common sense in a sensitive matter such as this requires one to qualify terms carefully.

 

A death camp in Poland, no matter who put it there, can perfectly legitimately be termed 'a Polish death camp'.
That's a standard and correct use of English, which in no way automatically implies a conflation between location and impetus... unless someone chooses to see it as such.
It's not my problem if someone chooses to warp perfectly reasonable use of language, particularly if said person confirms themselves in the process to be a bit dim.

 

you'll get a lot of arguments there. your reasoning lacks elegance, IMO, and makes one suspect insistence on the term, rather than just clumsy semantics. the polish qualifier is secondary and not crucial. if you leave out the primary qualifier "nazi" and retain "polish," your semantics is failed.

 

I would say it was someone that took offence who was reading too much into it.
It's nothing more than perfectly normal English. eg. I'd say 'the French Disneyland' or 'Disneyland Paris' rather than 'The Disneyland in France that springs from an American entertainment conglomerate', and nobody would bat an eyelid at the former construction. Because it's normal English.
There is absolutely nothing unusual about using a country's name to specify location. Only a peculiarly sensitive or wilful view would think the other, possible (and obviously wrong in the Death camps' case) usage was the one intended.

I will resist being told how to apply my own language when that language is perfectly correct and un-insulting.
'Poland' (or whatever part of the country is pushing this) is being 'odd' about it, and generating more heat than light with such a heavy-handed and censorious approach.

 

perhaps if the polish people change their stance and instead make an earnest and polite request to call the camps something else, i'm sure decent people will oblige them.

 

That still doesn't make sense when the request is to ask people to distort perfectly legitimate use of their own languages to salve an 'issue' that appears to have sprung from a curious government position, or even, as the Auschwitz page suggests "FCB, a Warsaw advertising agency which found that the phrase ‘Polish death camps’ was used most often by journalists".
Any group, from the highest to the low, through the purest motives to the worst, can politely request whatever they like. That doesn't mean it makes sense or anyone should pander to it.

I know, it's often the lowest of the low to cite dictionary definitions, but here we go:

Relating to Poland.
'Polish Death Camp' - quite correct for a location being stated. The other possible perceptions of that adjectival use are both quite obviously incorrect in this case.
Applying this international sledgehammer to the walnut of a possible incorrect definition can feed the sort of axe-grinder who then goes 'Ah! what are they trying to hide!', and at the same time irk otherwise perfectly sympathetic commentators or students.
I've spent decades reading on the Nazis, their camps and their campaigns of deliberate destruction of humanity, and object quite strongly to suddenly being told how naughty and offensive to Poland I might be by using standard English.

 

my last post on the matter. the dictionary definition already states that "polish" relates to the inhabitants, the language, perhaps the culture, or whatever thought relating to the country it might evoke. it is neither the country, nor a strict geographic delineation. as regards the death camps, it is only the latter notions that apply. therefore "in the former poland republic" is correct, while "polish" is not. "german" or "nazi" is correct. a more precise location such as "auswitz" is also correct because, arguably, there was no poland at the time, nor were there polish. i'm saying this purely on the premise that the country's borders were brought down and only small geographic locations still existed.

 

Many words can mean several different things.
If every standard usage has to be more precisely qualified to satisfy someone else's offence, then that's a retrograde step in semantics that I think panders to vapidity.

In this case as in many others, offence is being taken, not given.

 

When you surf the internet for 'German POW camps' - it can either mean German camps with Allied prisoners or Allied with German prisoners. Anyone with the least bit of knowledge of WW2 in Europe would be aware that the Holocaust was firmly at the behest of Nazi Germany.

 

Conversation with the travel agent might end up being a tad tedious...

Are you thinking of anywhere in particular?
-Yes, I'd like to visit Auschwitz, so first can you tell me how best to get to Poland.

Sorry but in order not to imply any guilt on the part of Poland and its people, I have to point out that Auschwitz is actually in the Poland formerly occupied by the Nazis. Anywhere else?
-Yes, from there I'd like to travel on to Amersfoort in the Netherlands formerly occupied by the Nazis, then to Fort Breendonk in Belgium previously occupied by the Nazis and next to Natzweiler in the part of France previously administered by the Nazis. Oh and finally I'd like to go to Bolzano in Italy also formerly administered by the Nazis.

Ever thought about Siberia?
- No but I see what you mean, the Nazis did occupy some camps there.

So, previously occupied and administered by Nazis - What about Germany?
-I thought we weren't supposed to mention that any more.

 

Out of salutes but this deserves something so, I'll repost and indicate my reaction.

 

The substance of this theme isn't just the question of wording. What we discuss here is rather an attempt to manipulate the truth by declaring questions regarding "forbidden" themes as heresy or even worse, a criminal offence punishable by the law.

Let me quote this - it appears to fit here well:

The truth can be placed in the open; exposed naked to the entire world. The truth does not need any laws to protect it, and it does not need secrecy to protect it. The truth does not need evidence destroyed, nor does it need videotapes to be confiscated.

Only lies need secrecy; only lies need protection from laws. Only lies benefit from fear, secrecy, blackmail, gossip, and confiscation of evidence.

Therefore, "heretic" questions do not undermine the truth - these questions can just serve the purpose of reenforcing the truth even more.

 

Now, if you try searching without the word POW the results are quite different. However, the search results do not reveal much except the shape of mainstream reasoning - reiteration of well known phrases.

 

That too, of course.
I'm deeply suspicious of any legislation against ideas, no matter how objectionable to me.
Until people start filling mass graves etc. I don't see the legal or moral case for driving things underground or even granting potential martyr status. If you can't counter an idea with another, then maybe look to your own presentation of a case rather than banning things.

Having said that, I do have a little more sympathy for countries with a specific past cataclysm associated with particular ideologies. Though I'm still mostly uncomfortable with banning thoughts, symbols etc., and am hugely anti one country's decision on these scores leaking into another's sphere.

 

The law (still in the pre-legislative phase) is directed against public (as in heard or seen by many people), without any proof claims that Poland took part in or supported Nazi crimes.
You can say Polish concentration camps as many times as you wish, they existed - after the WW2, ran by the communists.

So the law is no different from the laws against Holocaust denial, today in force in sixteen countries - including Liechtenstein, Switzerland, and Israel. The EU is trying to force such a law on its territory, so far Britain has been blocking this efforts.
This is good, both the "non-Polish camps" denial and Holocaust denial laws are irresponsible attacks on free speech.

The non-Polish-camp law was proposed by a politician from the victorious in the last elections conservative party. Obviously he is pandering to their core electorate.
The Polish camps correcting software was released by an advertising agency, most likely fishing for free publicity, as nobody right in his mind is going to use it.
I have no idea why the current director of the Auschwitz-Birkenau State Museum supported this bst software. He is a reasonable man, probably his knowledge of computers is nil, and he made an honest mistake.

But still, it's not just the pandering politicians. There is a large group of people, especially Polish Americans and Polish Canadians who are really offended by the Polish camps. They don't need lectures on English grammar, frequently English is their first language.
They pressure Polish institutions, embassies, media to do something, protest themselves, even initiate lawsuits.
In this they are supported, among others, by the American Jewish Congress and the Anti Defamation League - so it's not just the Poles.

The reason for this is that the phrase is pointless and misleading.
Historians have no use for it because it's a pointless generalization.
The others, with their almost non existent knowledge of this subject (or frequently even history) are invariably mislead by it, and assume it means camps built/ran by the Poles.

 

A lot depends on the actual wording they will come up with, and as I don't speak the language I am in no position to understand a draft, but laws are then interpreted by courts,, and you may end up with some pretty strange results.

IMO adding "without any proof" does not make it any better, we know there were no "Polish run extermination camps", but there were "extermination camps in Poland", so all the proof you need is give the judge a ticket to Auschwitz, and then you are back to interpreting which of the two possible interpretations does that "Polish" mean in that context.

Wording so as to mean "implying Polish participation in the holocaust and the camps" is a pretty impossible task, as there was participation by some Poles, how significant was it is something I don't know, what were the chances of an escaping Jew finding shelter with a Polish family rather than being turned over to the Germans? From the little I know not many tried it for fear of the second outcome.

This looks more like the Turkish laws making it illegal to call what happened during WW1 to the Armenians a genocide than the ones some countries have against denying the holocaust. A wise government should counter propaganda with education, or resort to standard libel controversy in extreme cases, "special legislation", stinks.

BTW I find the discussion on the obligatory shop signs is mixing apples and oranges, voluntary use of a name as a brand is one thing, compulsory use of names that reveals the owner's race a totally different one, the first is good advertising and part of building a "brand name" consumers will trust, the second can serve no purpose other than create the grounds for discrimination or worse.

 

They said it will be Poland or her institutions, not a Pole/Poles.

It's responsibility for atrocities carried out by Nazi Germany,
"Extermination camps in Poland" can mean anything, it requires context to say for certain. But in dubio pro reo - when in doubt, for the accused. It's an elementary principle of criminal law.
Those people aren't idiots, as I said they are victorious politicians trying to prove their worth. It's politics for internal consumption, flag waving but little substance.

It's a false dichotomy but anyway. I suppose "escaping Jew" means a person who hadn't prepared for this eventuality earlier or didn't have friends on the other side and simply fled the deportation at the last moment.

People are writing entire books on this subject so I hope it would be sufficient to say that for example in Warsaw people lived statistically 3 per room, were always hungry and frequently flea-ridden, and were forbidden to own even a bicycle. They had no means to help anyone. And btw the Germans were everywhere, statistically every ten person on the street.

So an unprepared Jew had a slim chance of survival. If he/she didn't speak Polish (most of them didn't) the chances were almost nonexistent.
He would be extremely unlucky to be turned over to the Germans for political reasons, most likely he would be arrested after a while, or robbed by criminals, or betrayed by them for financial gain.
Still 40,000 - maybe up to 100,000 of them survived outside. Nobody knows for sure, because nobody cared to count them after the war and later it was too late.

Well, I can only say that Poland (e.g. according to the American watchdog Freedom House) consistently is ranked as a free country (with a better rank than the US) but Turkey's rank is abysmal, its press is described as "not free".
Poland is not Turkey by any stretch of imagination.

Well, why not counter propaganda, education.

Let's not be so quick with that no purpose. Compulsory use of names is in force in Poland even today, and in many other European countries if I'm not mistaken.
The purpose is to differentiate between identically named businesses. In the pre-war Poland it was even more needed, sometimes they had a a dozen or so Tailors in the same tenement.

But it is true that some populists in the parliament supported/demanded such a law to help Polish customers to avoid Jewish businesses.
But they were idiots, it wouldn't work as they intended. It's "would" because it was in 1939, shortly before the war, not in 1936.

And btw, for example in Warsaw 88% of small shops were Jewish, you didn't have to seek them, you have to seek Polish ones.
And the names were unhelpful, you couldn't use this "method" reliably but you could look inside if you were curious - in 88% cases there was a Jew inside wearing side curls, a kippah, long hairy black beard, and black coat. Most of the Polish Jews were conservative or orthodox Jews, not Pianists.

 

When it comes to "special laws" about expressing opinions I have some doubts "in dubio pro reo" will be aplied, much better not have such laws. There were no "Polish institurions" during the German occupation, some sort of collaboration had to be there, the Germans didn't have the people to spare to replace all the low level administration, but I don't think there was enough authonomy to call that "Polish institutions" so that's another item not likely to ever apply, if taken in a restrictive sense, but extemely dangerous if a judge "extends by analogy".

Why would people that had been living in Poland for generations nor speak Polish ? Orhodox Jews do not believe much in integration but that's going a bit too far, anyone involved in commerce would need to know its customer's language. People will not leave their homes until they see the fire at their doors, its a long way from Warsaw to anywhere a Jew could consider himself safe, and if all he can rely on is support from other Jews, that are likely to be watched, chances of making it are pretty slim. AFAIK the general attitude in Poland was a long way from what happened elsewhere where non Jews viluntarily chose to wear ambands to vanify the German laws.

Most legislations require you to pick a unique name when registering a company, But the company's name doesn't need to have anything to with your name, For the simplest form of company, that doesn't separate a company property from the owner's, it's usual, but not mandatory, to have the owner's name as part of the company's original name. But a family owned business is not likely to change it's name when ownership passes to the next genration as it would confuse the customers, you usually go from "John Smith" to "John Smith & Sons" and it stays there for the next generations and even when the shop moves to a different ownership the "brand value" may not bring about a name change.
When a riot breaks out the shops will close, so insignas are all the crowds will see, much better not to have any sort of racial pointers there.