Poland furious over EU museum portraying Poles as ‘complici

[JustJohn or JJ]

Poland furious over EU museum portraying Poles as ‘complicit in Holocaust’





A museum exhibition in Brussels has come under fire from Poland’s minister of culture, who says it shows Poland, France and Ukraine as countries “complicit in the Holocaust,” and Germany as a state that “cultivates” the memory of the atrocity.


“This exhibition violates fundamental historical truth in matters of fundamental importance, omits many important historical facts and presents, in many cases, a biased interpretation of them,” Piotr Glinski said on Friday in a detailed letter to Antonio Tajani, president of the European Parliament, which sponsored the exhibit at the House of European History.

Glinski said he received “numerous signals and letters” critical of the exhibition since it opened in May.

In one of the examples, he said, the exhibition’s narrative “shows that the greatest victims of World War II were Germans, without indicating their role as aggressors and initiators of the Second World War and without counting the civilian victims of German warfare throughout Europe.”

He also noted that the “most important Pole in history, extremely recognized for the unification of Europe, Pope John Paul II (Karol Wojtyla) was not mentioned at all,” while military leader Marshal “Jozef Pilsudski, the second most-popular character in Polish history, was falsely portrayed as a fascist.”

Poland, France and Ukraine are “presented as states and nations complicit in the Holocaust, while Germany in this context is presented only as a country that cultivates the memory of the Holocaust ,” Glinski complained.

“I think that the current exhibition of the House of European History is not worthy of this name or the patronage of the European Parliament,” the minister concluded.

The items on display in the permanent exhibition of the House of European History were gathered from some 300 museums and collections from all across the world.

The House of European History a place where one can “discover different points of view and common ground in European history,” the description on its website says, adding that the museum’s aim is to provide a “permanent source for the interpretation of Europe's past – a reservoir of European memory.”

Poland itself has been accused of rewriting history when it comes to the WWII events.

Moscow-Warsaw relations have been mired by spat over controversial amendments to the so-called decommunization law, which in effect paved the way for the destruction of memorials to Red Army soldiers who died liberating Poland from the Nazis.

Senior Polish officials have also been prolific in issuing statements with their views on what started the WWII in the first place. Moscow has accused Warsaw of “mendacious cynicism” after the Polish foreign minister equated the role of the Soviet Union to that of the Nazi Germany.

[pieter]

The Polish minister of culture Piotr Glinski is right.

The House of European History (HEH) is a museum in Brussels, Belgium that focuses on the history of Europe since 1789. It is an initiative by the European Parliament and opened on 6 May 2017. As a cultural institution and exhibition centre, the House of European History intends to promote the understanding of European history and European integration, through a permanent exhibition and temporary and travelling exhibitions.

It houses a collection of objects and documents representative of European history, educational programs, cultural events and publications, as well as a wide range of online content. It is located in the Eastman Building near the Leopold Park in Brussels, close to the European institutions.

The idea of creating a museum dedicated to European history was launched on 13 February 2007 by President Hans-Gert Pöttering in his inaugural speech as president of the European Parliament. One of the key objectives of the project was to be "to enable Europeans of all generations to learn more about their own history and, by so doing, to contribute to a better understanding of the development of Europe, now and in the future."

In October 2008, a committee of experts led by Professor Hans Walter Hütter (de), the Head of the House of the History of the Federal Republic of Germany, submitted a report entitled "Conceptual Basis for a House of European History" which established the general concept and content of the project and outlined its institutional structure.

In June 2009, the Bureau of the European Parliament decided to assign the former Eastman Dental Hospital to the future museum and, in July, launched an international architectural competition. On 31 March 2011, the winning practice Atelier d'architecture Chaix & Morel et associés (FR), JSWD Architects (DE) and TPF (BE) was appointed to carry out the renovation and extension of the building. With the backing of an expert board which brings together internationally renowned specialists chaired by the Polish Professor and historian Włodzimierz Borodziej, a multi-disciplinary team of professionals led by historian and curator Taja Vovk van Gaal was set up within the European Parliament's Directorate-General for Communication to prepare the exhibitions and the structure of the future establishment.

The House of European History gives visitors the opportunity to learn about European historical processes and events, and engage in critical reflection about the implication of the processes on the present day. It is a centre for exhibitions, documentation and information which places processes and events within a wider historical and critical context, bringing together and juxtaposing the contrasting historical experiences of European people.

It is planned that the main focus of the permanent exhibition will be on European history of the 20th century and the history of European integration, with additional perspectives on the main historical processes of previous centuries. The aim is not simply to present summaries of national histories, but to look at important historical phenomena from a transnational and European perspective.

The originality of the project lies, therefore, in the endeavour to convey a transnational overview of European history, while taking into account the diversity of European history and its many interpretations and perceptions. It aims to enable a wide public to understand recent history in the context of previous centuries that have marked and shaped ideas and values. In this way the House aims to facilitate discussion and debate about Europe and the European Union.

With a surface area of approximately 4,000 square metres (43,000 sq ft) at its disposal, the permanent exhibition is the centrepiece of the House of European History. Using objects and documents and an extensive range of media, it provides a journey through the history of Europe, principally that of the 20th century, with retrospectives on developments and events in earlier periods which were of particular significance for the whole continent. In this context, the history of European integration is exhibited in all its uniqueness and with all its complexity.

[pieter]

Another man goes further than the exhibition in the Museum and claims that the Poles killed more jews than Germans during the Second World War.



‘Poles killed more Jews than they did Germans’: US historian ready to face Polish court over article
Published time: 31 Oct, 2016 14:37
Edited time: 31 Oct, 2016 14:54


Jan Tomasz Gross. © hse.ru

A US historian who wrote that “Poles killed more Jews than Germans” in WW2 in one of his articles, says he is ready to defend his words in court after it emerged that Warsaw had reportedly decided to reconsider closing the probe against him.
“It’s very disturbing. It’s political. I don’t believe that court is the place where historical issues having to do with Polish-Jewish relations during the war should be debated,” Jan Tomasz Gross, a US Princeton University professor of history and sociology, who is himself of Polish origin, said in an interview to Haaretz newspaper over the weekend.

Gross was accused of “publicly insulting the Polish nation [and] the Republic of Poland” back in 2015 for the views expressed in his article entitled “Eastern Europe’s Crisis of Shame” published in the German daily Die Welt. The charge can lead to jail time of up to three years in Poland.

In the article, Gross sharply criticized eastern European countries, including Poland, for their “intolerant, illiberal, xenophobic” stance on the refugee crisis that has engulfed Europe. The historian claimed that Poland’s “heartless” behavior and rhetoric lie deep in the country’s “murderous past.”

“Consider the Poles, who, deservedly proud of their society’s anti-Nazi resistance, actually killed more Jews than Germans during the war,” Gross wrote. He also claimed that the Poles who helped Jews during WWII were outsiders in their own land even after the war, and had to hide their deeds from neighbors out of fear of being shunned or even threatened.

Controversy surrounding the historian has been mounting ever since the article was published, with many Poles feeling offended by his words. Authorities claim they received angry letters calling on the government to punish the scholar and take back his state award, an Order of Merit he received in 1996 for his work on Poland.

“They got angry that a crazy guy like me writes something which is so banal that anybody who is a historian of that period and knows anything will tell you. I wanted to bring to people’s mind the enormity of the crimes made by Polish fellow citizens against Jews. This is unfortunately the case. Poles killed a maximum 30,000 Germans and between 100,000 to 200,000 Jews,” the historian told Haaretz.

The historian was questioned by the Polish prosecutor in April this year but no charges were pressed following the questioning.

"I told [the prosecutor] straight that I was not trying to insult the Polish nation. I was trying to raise awareness about the problem of refugees in Europe,” Gross told AP at that time.

According to Gazeta Wyborcza, the prosecutor’s office reversed the decision and said it would address the professional opinions of other historians regarding Gross’ claims and only then decide whether to file charges. The investigation will continue into 2017.

Gross claims that the Polish right-wing conservative government that was elected last year may be behind the decision to carry on with the probe against him.

“This strange regime works very hard on falsification of history, and now they want to falsify the history of Polish-Jewish relations in the war,” he told Haaretz.

Apart from the controversial article, Gross is best known for his book “Neighbors: the Destruction of the Jewish Community at Jedwabne, Poland,” in which he tells about documented atrocities, including the torture, slaughter and burning alive of some 1,600 Jewish people in the town of Jedwabne, which were committed by local Poles.



“Things happened not only in Jedwabne,” Gross noted to Haaretz, stating that attempts to rewrite history and put the blame for the murders on Germans and not Poles, which have been undertaken by some Polish historians, is criminal. For instance, Poland’s Institute of National Remembrance has been pushing for an exhumation of the mass grave at Jedwabne to seek proof that people there were killed by Poles, and not Germans. Gross told Haaretz he plans to present testimonies to prove his findings in the matter are taken to court.

“This is false, a lie about history,” Gross said about attempts to blame Jedwabne on the Germans.

“I will correct this. I’ll say how things happened not only in Jedwabne but [elsewhere]. I’ll bring people to testify. I stand by my work,” the historian stressed.

[kaima]

Oct 11, 2017 8:22:34 GMT -7 pieter said:

The Polish minister of culture Piotr Glinski is right.

The House of European History (HEH) is a museum in Brussels, Belgium that focuses on the history of Europe since 1789. It is an initiative by the European Parliament and opened on 6 May 2017. As a cultural institution and exhibition centre, the House of European History intends to promote the understanding of European history and European integration, through a permanent exhibition and temporary and travelling exhibitions.

Europe since 1789, for those of us Americans not on top of European dates,

1789 saw the start of the French Revolution and the Napoleonic Era, bringing us into a new world. (Yes, I had to look it up.)

Kai

[pieter]

It is sad that the Museum only focusses on the late period of European history and thus doesn't show the European development of democracy and early democratic forms and predecessors of the present European Order, which has roots in the Conservative, Romantic, Liberal and Nationalist 19th century. Marxism and Socialism also developed themselves in the 19th century, but gained power in the early 20th century in the SovjetUnion, Germany, Great-Britain and France (Peoples Front). The importance of the French revolution is over exaggerated. It could be that the Renaissance, enlightenment of the 18th century before the French revolution, Thomas More's (1478–1535) Utopia which influenced Anabaptism (from which the Methodist christians come), and Corporatism in the Roman-Catholic world.

Bit Democratic ideologies and philosophies developed earlier.

Encyclopedia Britannica writes: "Democracy, literally, rule by the people. The term is derived from the Greek dēmokratiā, which was coined from dēmos (“people”) and kratos (“rule”) in the middle of the 5th century bce to denote the political systems then existing in some Greek city-states, notably Athens."

Classical Greece



During the Classical period (corresponding roughly to the 5th and 4th centuries bce), Greece was of course not a country in the modern sense but a collection of several hundred independent city-states, each with its surrounding countryside. In 507 bce, under the leadership of Cleisthenes, the citizens of Athens began to develop a system of popular rule that would last nearly two centuries. To question 1, then, the Greeks responded clearly: The political association most appropriate to democratic government is the polis, or city-state.

Athenian democracy foreshadowed some later democratic practices, even among peoples who knew little or nothing of the Athenian system. Thus the Athenian answer to question 2—Who should constitute the dēmos?—was similar to the answer developed in many newly democratic countries in the 19th and 20th centuries. Although citizenship in Athens was hereditary, extending to anyone who was born to parents who were themselves Athenian citizens, membership in the dēmos was limited to male citizens 18 years of age or older (until 403, when the minimum age was raised to 20).



Because data is scanty, estimates of the size of the Athenian dēmos must be treated with caution. One scholar has suggested that in the mid-4th century there may have been about 100,000 citizens, 10,000 resident foreigners, or metics, and as many as 150,000 slaves. Among citizens, about 30,000 were males over 18. If these numbers are roughly correct, then the dēmos comprised 10 to 15 percent of the total population.

Regarding question 3—What political institutions are necessary for governing?—the Athenians adopted an answer that would appear independently elsewhere. The heart and centre of their government was the Assembly (Ecclesia), which met almost weekly—40 times a year—on the Pnyx, a hill west of the Acropolis. Decisions were taken by vote, and, as in many later assemblies, voting was by a show of hands. As would also be true in many later democratic systems, the votes of a majority of those present and voting prevailed. Although we have no way of knowing how closely the majority in the Assembly represented the much larger number of eligible citizens who did not attend, given the frequency of meetings and the accessibility of the meeting place, it is unlikely that the Assembly could have long persisted in making markedly unpopular decisions.


The Assembly (Ecclesia)



The Roman Republic



At about the same time that popular government was introduced in Greece, it also appeared on the Italian Peninsula in the city of Rome. The Romans called their system a rēspūblica, or republic, from the Latin rēs, meaning thing or affair, and pūblicus or pūblica, meaning public—thus, a republic was the thing that belonged to the Roman people, the populus romanus.

Like Athens, Rome was originally a city-state. Although it expanded rapidly by conquest and annexation far beyond its original borders to encompass all the Mediterranean world and much of western Europe, its government remained, in its basic features, that of a moderately large city-state. Indeed, throughout the republican era (until roughly the end of the first century bc), Roman assemblies were held in the very small Forum at the centre of the city.



Who constituted the Roman dēmos? Although Roman citizenship was conferred by birth, it was also granted by naturalization and by manumission of slaves. As the Roman Republic expanded, it conferred citizenship in varying degrees to many of those within its enlarged boundaries. Because Roman assemblies continued to meet in the Forum, however, most citizens who did not live in or near the city itself were unable to participate and were thus effectively excluded from the dēmos. Despite their reputation for practicality and creativity, and notwithstanding many changes in the structure of Roman government over the course of centuries, the Romans never solved this problem. Two millennia later, the solution—electing representatives to a Roman legislature—would seem obvious (see below A democratic dilemma).



As they adapted to the special features of their society, including its rapidly increasing size, the Romans created a political structure so complex and idiosyncratic that later democratic leaders chose not to emulate it. The Romans used not only an extremely powerful Senate but also four assemblies, each called comitia (“assembly”) or concilium (“council”). The Comitia Curiata was composed of 30 curiae, or local groups, drawn from three ancient tribus, or tribes; the Comitia Centuriata consisted of 193 centuries, or military units; the Concilium Plebis was drawn from the ranks of the plebes, or plebeians (common people); and the Comitia Tributa, like the Athenian Assembly, was open to all citizens. In all the assemblies, votes were counted by units (centuries or tribes) rather than by individuals; thus, insofar as a majority prevailed in voting, it would have been a majority of units, not of citizens.



Although they collectively represented all Roman citizens, the assemblies were not sovereign. Throughout the entire period of the republic, the Senate—an institution inherited from the earlier era of the Roman monarchy—continued to exercise great power. Senators were chosen indirectly by the Comitia Centuriata; during the monarchy, they were drawn exclusively from the privileged patrician class, though later, during the republic, members of certain plebeian families were also admitted.



Corporatism in the Roman Catholic Church



During the Middle Ages, the Catholic Church sponsored the creation of various institutions including brotherhoods, monasteries, religious orders, and military associations, especially during the Crusades to sponsor association between these groups. In Italy, various function-based groups and institutions were created, including universities, guilds for artisans and craftspeople, and other professional associations. The creation of the guild system is a particularly important aspect of the history of corporatism because it involved the allocation of power to regulate trade and prices to guilds, which is an important aspect of corporatist economic models of economic management and class collaboration.

Corporatism's popularity increased in the late 19th century, and a corporatist internationale was formed in 1890, followed by the publishing of Rerum novarum by the Catholic Church that for the first time declared the Church's blessing to trade unions and recommended for organized labour to be recognized by politicians. Many corporatist unions in Europe were endorsed by the Catholic Church to challenge the anarchist, Marxist and other radical unions, with the corporatist unions being fairly conservative in comparison to their radical rivals. Some Catholic corporatist states include Austria under the leadership of Federal Chancellor Engelbert Dollfuss, and Ecuador under the leadership of Garcia Moreno. In response to the Roman Catholic corporatism of the 1890s, Protestant corporatism was developed, especially in Germany, the Netherlands, and Scandinavia. However, Protestant corporatism has been much less successful in obtaining assistance from governments than its Roman Catholic counterpart.



During the post-World War II reconstruction period in Europe, corporatism was favoured by Christian democrats (often under the influence of Catholic social teaching), national conservatives, and social democrats in opposition to liberal capitalism. This type of corporatism became unfashionable but revived again in the 1960s and 1970s as "neo-corporatism" in response to the new economic threat of recession-inflation.

Neo-corporatism favoured economic tripartism which involved strong labour unions, employers' unions, and governments that cooperated as "social partners" to negotiate and manage a national economy. Social corporatist systems instituted in Europe after World War II include the ordoliberal system of the social market economy in Germany, the social partnership in Ireland, the polder model in the Netherlands (although arguably the polder model already was present at the end of the First World War, it was not until after WW II that a social service system gained foothold there), the concertation system in Italy, the Rhine model in Switzerland and the Benelux countries, and the Nordic model in Scandinavia.

[pieter]

A democratic dilemma


In Ancient Greece, the Greeks were the first to have their government be a democracy

The Greeks, the Romans, and the leaders of the Italian republics were pioneers in creating popular governments, and their philosophers and commentators exercised enormous influence on later political thought. Yet their political institutions were not emulated by the later founders of democratic governments in the nation-states of northern Europe and North America. As the expansion of Rome had already demonstrated, these institutions were simply not suited to political associations significantly larger than the city-state.


The Greek City state of Athens was one of the first democracies in the world

The enormous difference in size between a city-state and a nation-state points to a fundamental dilemma. By limiting the size of a city-state, citizens can in principle, if not always in practice, directly influence the conduct of their government—e.g., by participating in an assembly. But limiting size comes at a cost: important problems—notably defense against larger and more powerful states and the regulation of trade and finance—will remain beyond the capacity of the government to deal with effectively. Alternatively, by increasing the size of the city-state—i.e., by enlarging its geographic area and population—citizens can increase the capacity of the government to deal with important problems, but only at the cost of reducing their opportunities to influence the government directly through assemblies or other means.

Many city-states responded to this dilemma by forming alliances or confederations with other city-states and with larger political associations. But the problem would not finally be solved until the development of representative government, which first appeared in northern Europe in the 18th century.


Representative government. On November 11, 1620, 41 “Pilgrims” signed the Mayflower Compact on the ship the Mayflower. Nearly all men on board singed the compact.

[pieter]

Until the 17th century, democratic theorists and political leaders largely ignored the possibility that a legislature might consist neither of the entire body of citizens, as in Greece and Rome, nor of representatives chosen by and from a tiny oligarchy or hereditary aristocracy, as in the Italian republics. An important break in the prevailing orthodoxy occurred during and after the English Civil Wars (1642–51), when the Levelers and other radical followers of Puritanism demanded broader representation in Parliament, expanded powers for Parliament’s lower house, the House of Commons, and universal manhood suffrage (see below England). As with many political innovations, representative government resulted less from philosophical speculation than from a search for practical solutions to a fairly self-evident problem. Nevertheless, the complete assimilation of representation into the theory and practice of democracy was still more than a century away.

Source: Britannica

[pieter]

England

Among the assemblies created in Europe during the Middle Ages, the one that most profoundly influenced the development of representative government was the English Parliament. Less a product of design than an unintended consequence of opportunistic innovations, Parliament grew out of councils that were called by kings for the purpose of redressing grievances and for exercising judicial functions. In time, Parliament began to deal with important matters of state, notably the raising of revenues needed to support the policies and decisions of the monarch. As its judicial functions were increasingly delegated to courts, it gradually evolved into a legislative body. By the end of the 15th century, the English system displayed some of the basic features of modern parliamentary government: for example, the enactment of laws now required the passage of bills by both houses of Parliament and the formal approval of the monarch.

During the Middle Ages, there were various systems involving elections or assemblies, although often only involving a small part of the population. These included:

- the Frostating, Gulating, Eidsivating and Borgarting in Norway,
- the Althing in Iceland,
- the Løgting in the Faeroe Islands,
- Scandinavian Things,
- the election of Uthman in the Rashidun Caliphate,
- the South Indian Kingdom of the Chola in the state of Tamil Nadu in the Indian Subcontinent had an electoral system at 920 A.D., about 1100 years ago,
- Carantania, old Slavic/Slovenian principality, the Ducal Inauguration from 7th to 15th century,
- the upper-caste election of the Gopala in the Bengal region of the Indian Subcontinent,
- the Holy Roman Empire's Hoftag and Imperial Diets (mostly Nobles and Clergy),
- Frisia in the 10th–15th Century (Weight of vote based on landownership)
- the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (10% of population),
- certain medieval Italian city-states such as Venice, Genoa, Florence, Pisa, Lucca, Amalfi, Siena and San Marino
- the Cortes of León,
- the tuatha system in early medieval Ireland,
- the Veche in Novgorod and Pskov Republics of medieval Russia,
- The States in Tirol and Switzerland,
- the autonomous merchant city of Sakai in the 16th century in Japan,
- Volta-Nigeric societies such as Igbo.
- the Mekhk-Khel system of the Nakh peoples of the North Caucasus, by which representatives to the Council of Elders for each teip (clan) were popularly elected by that teip's members.
- The 10th Sikh Guru Gobind Singh ji (Nanak X) established the world's first Sikh democratic republic state ending the aristocracy on day of 1st Vasakh 1699 and Gurbani as sole constitution of this Sikh republic on the Indian subcontinent.

Most regions in medieval Europe were ruled by clergy or feudal lords.

Thing (assembly)



A thing /ˈθɪŋ/ was the governing assembly of a northern Germanic society, made up of the free people of the community presided over by lawspeakers. The meeting-place of a thing was called a "thingstead" (Old English þingstede) or "thingstow" (Old English þingstōw).

In the pre-Christian clan-culture of Scandinavia the members of a clan were obliged to avenge injuries against their dead and mutilated relatives. A balancing structure was necessary to reduce tribal feuds and avoid social disorder. It is known from North-Germanic cultures that the balancing institution was the thing, although similar assemblies are also reported from other Germanic peoples and others.



The thing was the assembly of the free men and women of a country, province or a hundred (Swedish: härad, hundare, Danish: herred). There were consequently hierarchies of things, so that the local things were represented at the higher-level thing, for a province or land. At the thing, disputes were solved and political decisions were made. The place for the thing was often also the place for public religious rites and for commerce.

The thing met at regular intervals, legislated, elected chieftains and kings, and judged according to the law, which was memorized and recited by the "lawspeaker" (the judge). The thing's negotiations were presided over by the lawspeaker and the chieftain or the king. In reality the thing was dominated by the most influential members of the community, the heads of clans and wealthy families, but in theory one-person one-vote was the rule.

The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth



The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth's political system is difficult to fit into a simple category, but it can be tentatively described as a mixture of:

- confederation and federation, with regard to the broad autonomy of its regions. It is, however, difficult to decisively call the Commonwealth either confederation or federation, as it had some qualities of both;
- oligarchy, as only the szlachta—around 15% of the population—had political rights;
- democracy, since all the szlachta were equal in rights and privileges, and the Sejm could veto the king on important matters, including legislation (the adoption of new laws), foreign affairs, declaration of war, and taxation (changes of existing taxes or the levying of new ones). Also, the 15% of Commonwealth population who enjoyed those political rights (the szlachta) was a substantially larger percentage than in majority European countries even in the nineteenth century; note that in 1820 in France only about 1.5% of the male adult population had the right to vote, and in 1840 in Belgium, only about 5%.
- elective monarchy, since the monarch, elected by the szlachta, was Head of State;
- constitutional monarchy, since the monarch was bound by pacta conventa and other laws, and the szlachta could disobey any king's decrees they deemed illegal.







Conservatism in England



In Great Britain, conservative ideas (though not yet called that) emerged in the Tory movement during the Restoration period (1660–1688). Toryism supported a hierarchical society with a monarch who ruled by divine right. Tories opposed the idea that sovereignty derived from the people, and rejected the authority of parliament and freedom of religion. Conservatives typically see Richard Hooker (1554–1600) as the founding father of conservatism, along with the Marquess of Halifax (1633–1695), David Hume (1711–1776) and Edmund Burke (1729–1797).

Conservatism, political doctrine that emphasizes the value of traditional institutions and practices.



Conservatism is a preference for the historically inherited rather than the abstract and ideal. This preference has traditionally rested on an organic conception of society—that is, on the belief that society is not merely a loose collection of individuals but a living organism comprising closely connected, interdependent members. Conservatives thus favour institutions and practices that have evolved gradually and are manifestations of continuity and stability. Government’s responsibility is to be the servant, not the master, of existing ways of life, and politicians must therefore resist the temptation to transform society and politics.

It was not until the late 18th century, in reaction to the upheavals of the French Revolution (1789), that conservatism began to develop as a distinct political attitude and movement.

Liberalism in the Western world



Liberalism is a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality. Liberals espouse a wide array of views depending on their understanding of these principles, but generally they support ideas and programmes such as freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of religion, free markets, civil rights, democratic societies, secular governments, gender equality and international cooperation. Liberalism first became a distinct political movement during the Age of Enlightenment (the 18th century), when it became popular among philosophers and economists in the Western world. Liberalism rejected the prevailing social and political norms of hereditary privilege, state religion, absolute monarchy and the Divine Right of Kings. The 17th-century philosopher John Locke is often credited with founding liberalism as a distinct philosophical tradition. Locke argued that each man has a natural right to life, liberty and property, while adding that governments must not violate these rights based on the social contract. Liberals opposed traditional conservatism and sought to replace absolutism in government with representative democracy and the rule of law.



Leaders in the Glorious Revolution of 1688, the American Revolution of 1776 and the French Revolution of 1789 used liberal philosophy to justify the armed overthrow of royal tyranny. Liberalism started to spread rapidly especially after the French Revolution. The nineteenth century saw liberal governments established in nations across Europe and South America, whereas it was well-established alongside republicanism in the United States.

[pieter]

John,

In my opinion you can't compare Poland with France and Ukraine. France and Ukraine had large Collaborationist movements. Vichy France, the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician) a World War II German military formation made up predominantly of volunteers with a Ukrainian ethnic background from the area of Galicia. Poland didn;t had the Milice française ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milice ), the Carlingue (or French Gestapo) were French auxiliaries who worked for the Gestapo, Sicherheitsdienst and Geheime Feldpolizei during the occupation of France in the Second World War and the the Special Brigades ( en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Brigades ), and the 33rd Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS Charlemagne (1st French).

In Poland you had only the Blue Police, more correctly translated as The Navy-Blue Police (Polish: Granatowa policja) was the popular name of the Polish police during the Second World War in the German occupied area of the Second Polish Republic named as the General Government. The official title of the organization was the Polnische Polizei im Generalgouvernement (Polish Police of the General Government, or in Polish: Policja Polska Generalnego Gubernatorstwa). According to historian Andrzej Paczkowski (Spring Will Be Ours), the police force consisted of approximately 11,000–12,000 officers, but the actual number of its cadre was much lower initially.

Scholars disagree about the degree of involvement of the Blue Police in the rounding up of Jews. Although policing inside the Warsaw Ghetto was a responsibility of the Jewish Ghetto Police, a Polish-Jewish historian Emmanuel Ringelblum, chronicler of the Warsaw Ghetto, mentioned Polish policemen carrying out extortions and beatings. The police did also take part in street roundups, but not in the killings of Jews. The Poles refused to obey the orders of their overseers to execute jews in the Ghetto.

According to Raul Hilberg, "Of all the native police forces in occupied Eastern Europe, those of Poland were least involved in anti-Jewish actions.... They [the Polish Blue Police] could not join the Germans in major operations against Jews or Polish resistors, lest they be considered traitors by virtually every Polish onlooker."

In Hungary, Romania, Ukraine, the Baltic states, Slovakia, Croatia, France, the Netherlands and Belgium you had collaborators who cooperated with the German/Austrian occupation authorities, the Gestapo, SD (Sicherheitsdienst), Sicherheitspolizei, Grüne Polizei (Ordnungspolizei) and in some cases with German or Austrian Gauleiters, SA people or Wehrmacht occupying forces (and in some cases you had bad Gestapo/SD/SS like acting Wehrmacht leaders units and thus elements -often Nazi NSDAP members). In Poland that was nearly impossible, due to a resitance (The Armia Krajowa , the Armia Ludowa, the Bataliony Chłopskie (Peasants' Battalions), the Gwardia Ludowa WRN, the Konfederacja Narodu, the Narodowa Organizacja Wojskowa, and the Obóz Polski Walczącej (Camp of Fighting Poland) that did not accept collaboration with the Nazi's. Collaboration wasn't popular amongst the Polish population.

Cheers,
Pieter

[karl]

Being of course a non-Pole. nether the less, do I carry an opinion. My personal opinion of Mr. Jan Tomasz Gross, is in my belief he believes very strongly of his research as being correct. But, withen the intellectual manner, my belief is he {Gross} is extremely faulted with his hypothesis that: "Poles Killed more Jews then the Germans". Just this statement is obsurd to a fault. Non of us was there at that time to say one way or another, for we must rely upon written history and trust that writing is valid.

The following was sourced from Wikipedia, it is of 9 pages. It is addressed to The Goverments of the United Nations on Dec. 10th, 1942. Directed from: Republic of Poland, Minister of Foreign Affairs. Titled: The Mass Extermination of Jews in German Occupied Poland.

It is very extensive, but very revealing of the exposure of Jewish people in Poland to their mortal existence at that time.

To review, klicken upon upper right bar, hold and drag to scroll down.

upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/33/The_Mass_Extermination_of_Jews_in_German_Occupied.pdf

Karl

[Jaga]

John, I agree with Pieter, Karl and Polish government. All this BS talk about Poles as accomplices does not take into account a reality of the history.

Pieter, very interesting historical overview of medieval politics.

[kaima]

Oct 11, 2017 11:16:32 GMT -7 pieter said:

England


It was not until the late 18th century, in reaction to the upheavals of the French Revolution (1789), that conservatism began to develop as a distinct political attitude and movement.

Liberalism in the Western world

Pieter,

My own concept of a political spectrum would tend more toward this 3-D cubic model, though being Human, I would not agree to any one definition. This just minces the political pie a bit finer:



I am not familiar with the site imposing its URL on the diagram; I chose because it is the generic diagram I remember and seemingly a good viewing size. However, I did take a look and here is a link to the site - with a terrible lot of reading and as much analysis or pseudo-analysis as anyone could ever dream of. Read and test at your own risk!


www.friesian.com/quiz.htm

PS. It is obvious from the " friesian.com " that we owe a thanks to our resident Friesian, Karl!

Kai

[kaima]

Oct 11, 2017 11:16:32 GMT -7 pieter said:

England


The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth



The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth's political system is difficult to fit into a simple category, but it can be tentatively described as a mixture of:
alt="https://thewatchlog.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/liberal-conservative1.jpg?w=640"]

Having lived in Lithuania a while, I definitely favor the country and its fine people with their multi-national outlook, something Poland, particularly with this current government, seems to lack.

The Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, formally the Crown of the Kingdom of Poland and the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, after 1791 the Commonwealth of Poland, was a dualistic state, a bi-confederation of Poland and Lithuania ruled by a common monarch, who was both the King of Poland and the Grand Duke of Lithuania.

This is more of how I think of the Commonwealth, going from Baltic Sea to Black Sea.

[karl]

Dear Kai

I am not sure how you found the Frisian url, but am very indebted to you. For once to begin viewing it, was to find it not only very interesting, but very informative and extremely valid. As an example of the immense amount of material covered, was to find it very realistic such as exampled by the following:

"Here it is obvious that just because a right is not listed in the Constitution, that does not mean that it does not exist. Indeed, it cannot even be argued that rights listed in the Constitution are more important than the ones not listed, for this would be to "disparage" the others".

The above is only a very very small example of the content. Although the writing is geared toward the American Constitution, it non-the-less, would apply to most Democratic Constitutions held by many Democratic States {Countries} in as well.

Although long in length as you have warned, it is still very worth the time reading through.

Thank you for presenting

Karl