“We aren’t idiots,” said a Polish EU commissioner for Polish-German relations while smashing an ice cream cone into his forehead. “Why should Poland agree to a decrease in its influence? It’s already much too strong as it is. I mean negligible, of course.”
A crucial EU summit being held in Brussels today has set the stage for yet another tense encounter between Germany and Poland. Germany will be attempting to revive parts of the aborted European constitution in a vain attempt to reform the institutions of the 27-member bloc and has run up against strong Polish objections while doing so. Poland fears that a proposal to allocate EU voting power according to population will diminish its voice in Europe while its old enemy Germany, which has more than twice the population, will gain votes.
“Since when does having more people mean having more votes unless you’re Poland?” asked an incredulous Polish President Lech Kaczynski.
“Yeah, really,” added his evil twin Polish Prime Minister brother Jaroslaw Kaczynski. “And don’t forget that it was the Germans who inflicted unimaginable injury and terrible harm on us Poles long before my birth. These were incomprehensible crimes, at least for someone with a brain like mine. And besides, in reality we Poles are absolutely crazy about the Germans while the Germans just do not like Poles,” he stuttered, breaking down and sobbing quietly into the microphone he had placed into his ear.
Current EU President and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, for her part, is slowly losing patience with the Polish government’s recalcitrant stance and its constant false accusations about German aggressiveness and not-niceness and is thought to be seriously considering the possibility of releasing the world’s strongest robot upon the Kaczynski twins and have them slowly ripped apart limb by limb during a live Eurovision television broadcast.
Come visit me at Observing Hermann…
Loading ...
13 users commented in " Poland and Germany still at each other’s throats "
Follow-up comment rss or Leave a TrackbackWell i bet germans now regret not killing all the poles, but only 25 % of them. They maybe realized that their murderous hatred against Judish population was missplaced, and should have been killing the Slavic people - or better yet… both. The best thing is not to hold them accountable for the horrible crimes they commited, because what happends if they get angry. Maybe they will try to murder all of the europe again and establish the Fourth Reich. I bet Angela Merkel would like to be the new fuhrer of europe. I guess we should all be thankfull for countries like Poland and Britain, that have the guts to stand up to the opression even if threathend with murder and extermination, as they were by the now so supposedly “peaceful” germany. If they werent there, we would be all spaking german now, and there would be no voting whatsoever in Europe, instead there would be obligation to greet everyone with “Heil Merkel”.
Peter Wilfred,
you and everything you wrote is idiotic borderline-racist nonsense. I guess you forget the war ended 62 years ago and not yesterday. Over 80% of the German population was not even born at the time and the vast majority of those who were alive then were children. If you beleive in inherited collective guilt for millions of people based on crimes some of their parents or granparent commited then you are even stupider than you seem to be. Poland and Britain are not standing up to anything; they are just serviing their own interests… there is nothing wrong with that but there sure as hell is nothing heroic about. You also forgot that countries like Luxembourg, Belgium, Denmark, France, etc., which were all occupied by the Nazis, are not making absure claims like the Poles. In fact politicians from those countries are for most annoyed by the Poles once again acting like selfish xenophobes.
Well ‘danny’, I’m sorry to have upset you. You make my arguments stronger though by your replay, for which I thank you. By describing me with all those pejorative adjectives, you clearly show the lack of opposing arguments - and the need to use personal abusive sentences, which ofcourse makes what I said kind of waterproof. It somehow reminds me of the German way; say something we don’t like, and we will burn you and others like you - or better yet, we will make a carpet of your hair if we manage to separete it from the rest of you before we burn it.
Let me highlight some obvious and accepted facts that people seem to forget, so the discussion about what responsibility/consequence is upon the 80% percent of German population that wasn’t directly involved in the slaughtering and exterminating the peoples of Europe, and the 20% that was directly involved in the slaughtering and exterminating the peoples of Europe, doesn’t get out of hand:
1. For thousands of years the humanity has known that what once certain generation in a society does, affects the forthcomming generations.
2. It is obvious that children are, willingly or unwillingly, taking consequences of their parents choices and actions.
3. The individualistic view, that one should care about ones actions only, with disregard to other people or the history, is most often a sign of someone young, not yet comprehending the workings of the society and therefore focusing on isolated facts.
Most people in Germany have accepted their heritage as muderous barbarians that brought the Europe to the brink of destruction, and realize the importance of the collective memory of those events, so that the history doesn’t get repeated. The horrible crimes commited then, cannot be overlooked now, just because someone sais toay: “it wasn’t me”. There is a reason for most of the sociological events. There is a reason the Germans were murdering anb slaughtering the Poles, and not the other way around. That reason lies buried deep withing the minds of the German population that was formed over the millenia, in their disciplinned unquestionating following of a hellish ruler of evil with infinite thirst for human blood… Those aspects of a society formed over millenia, and take millenia to change. Anyone who denies that, is basically peeing on the graves of the victims of German aggression - and thereby makes the now very marginalized but still present, worshipers of Hitler, very glad. So ‘danny’… congratulations.
I have rarely felt compelled to write in response to articles on the internet. However, there are exceptions. Peter Wilfred’s written contribution(s) certainly belong in this category.
First of all, I’d like to wholeheartedly congratulate Mr. Wilfred on his writing skills. It certainly takes a peculiar talent to cram so much bigotry, hate and ignorance into so few lines. There must be some kind of award for that? It is a masterpiece of anti-German invective, which almost defies belief. It is not the fact that he writes such drivel - free speech still exists after all - but when his attention is drawn to the fact that he has written “idiotic-borderline rascist nonsense” (as another corresopondent correctly points out) he actually believes he has won the argument! Having said that, self-delusion is probably the least of his worries.
Mr. Wilfred apparently believes that the Germans were “murdering” and “slaughtering” the Poles for a reason that “lies buried deep withing (sic) the minds of the German population that was formed over the millenia (sic), in their disciplinned (sic) unquestionating (sic) following of a hellish ruler of evil with infinite thirst for human blood”.
Reducing hundreds of years of German history to the 12 years of Nazi rule is not only simplistic and jaundiced, it is a prime example of a total disregard of cultural relevance. To actually believe that the culmination, purpose and intent of German history was the Nazi dictatorship, shows a breathtaking ignorance of history. A unique combination of circumstances led to the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, just as the Bolshevik revolution happened in Russia and not elsewhere. To believe in some German genetic pre-disposition linear progression to mass murder has got to be the most ridiculous thing I have ever read.
My advice to Mr. Winfred is twofold. Leave the historical (hysterical?) pop-psycology to someone who knows what they are talking about. Secondly, make use of the spell-checker function on your PC.
I cannot take anyone too seriously, who manages not only to write nonsense (albeit it succinctly) but to misspell a goodly portion of it, too!
At first I though I’d leave Mr. Jacobs post without a comment. But then I changed my mind. Unlike me, Mr. Jacob uses rather high amount of words, to state very few things. Among the strong-worded rubbish, there is actually only one statement with any substance, the rest of the text beeing a consequence of Mr. Jacob’s inablity to hide his emotions. The statement I’m reffering to follows:
“A unique combination of circumstances led to the Nazi dictatorship in Germany, just as the Bolshevik revolution happened in Russia and not elsewhere.”
Well, that is ofcourse one of many interpretations. This particular interpretation though, is favored by neo-nazi groups all over the Europe, and ofcourse, like most of other claims made by those people, is totally wrong. There is nothing unique about the circumstances that led to the horrible crimes commited by Germans, and neither was there ever any need for a combination of them to occur in order to trigger the morderous behaviour of German people.
Somehow I feel Mr. Jacob has hard time accepting, talking about and conceeding the enormous extent of German crimes against the humanity that were commited. There are still some people alive, who miraculously managed to live through the German hell - and there would be much much more of them if not for the German efficiency when it came to burning people in concentration camps. I suggest that Mr. Jacob show some god damn respect for them.
Oh dear! Mr. Wilfred wanted so much to ignore me, but couldn’t. If it were true that what I wrote was “strong-worded rubbish”, why reply? You still have not answered my main point or criticism about how you come to believe that the whole of German history happens to culminate in the Holocaust? The best you could do, is to try and smear me with the “neo-nazi” label. Cheap, Mr. Wilfred, very cheap.
Here’s a radical thought. Stop trying to interpret other people’s thoughts and feelings and read what they actually say. Another thing. For a person with such obvious hatred in his heart and your liberal use of ad hominen attacks on critics, I think your call for me to show “respect” is wholly hypocritical. Maybe you could start showing some respect to the living, never mind the dead.
Oh, by the way, I take it your spell-check software is still not working? (That’s a rhetorical question by the way - there really is no need to reply.)
It causes me a great deal of pain to see how the neo-nazi movement managed to penetrate the internet. Even more unresting is the way in which they manage to give an apperance of creditibility. The old and well know nazi techniques still manage to shine through though. Observe the ongoing personal attacks by the person under the nickname “Paul Jacob”, and constant ongoing references to ortographical errors in my writing, all aimed at moving the attention of whoever reads those posts from the issue at hand. This constitutes another old way to stay in a discussion even when completely lacking arguments - simply by reffering to unimportant details (as misspelling or similar) - simply to compensate for lack of anything of relevance to contribute. Another technique used by current neo-nazi movement is to accuse the opponents of exactly the very same things they could be accused of - ie. accusing me of hatered, when in fact everything I wrote clearly shows that I nothing but oppose the horrible crimes commited during the history, and I do so out of love for life and respect for different cultures. Lack of these attributes, and the same hatred I am accused of, are some of the reasons that led to the slaughtering of 75 million people during the German attempt to exterminate nations and races.
;
I do not claim to have some kind of monopoly on the truth. I don’t know if the killings were motivated by simple bloodlust or greed, or maybe some other reason. I don’t claim the German culture is the sole reason, but a mere factor among many other, still an undeniable one given the discipline, commitment and efficiency while executing the orders of the mass murder. I would like to stick to the facts, and avoid attacks on the personal level - which may prove hard in an enviroment evidently penetrated by neo-nazi members who like nothing else than to jump on a person given first occasion, some examples from previous posts:
“self-delusion is probably the least of his worries”
“then you are even stupider than you seem to be”
etc…
is what I get for bringing up facts about what ought to be everyones responsibility to remember - an unprecedented series of German crimes, so horrible that no words can be used to fully describe them.
A few comments on Mr. Wilfred’s latest outburst. According to him, I am now apparently part of a neo-nazi attempt to penetrate the internet. This smear is simply outrageous and unworthy of further comment. I cannot take you, or anything you state seriously, Mr. Wilfred.
I take my comment back about self-delusion being the least of your worries. You are plainly paranoid instead.
How do you know that I am not using my own name? In fact I am. You accuse me of using a nickname without the slightest shred of evidence. You have just sunk your own credibility in one shot with such wild accusations. Well done!
You have made outrageous claims and then attacked anyone (not just me) who has questioned them. Mr. Wilfred, read back over your own posts and see where there is a clear hatred of Germans and Germany therein. When asked to provide evidence of your claims, you have simply replied with more invective and personal attacks. The fact that at least two people have disagreed strongly with you is not evidence of you maybe being a teensy-weensy bit inaccurate in your observations. No, to you it’s proof of ‘neo nazi’ infilitration of the internet! Priceless!
I freely admit that my comments about your spelling have been ironic. But they also happen to be true, as any reader can determine by briefly perusing your texts. They are relevant insofar as they detract from any dwindling credibility you might have had. Now even that has gone.There is a strong whiff of ‘burning martyr’ emanating from your last post. So now you’re the “victim” in all this? It just confirms my strong suspicion that, how shall I put this gently, you certainly do suffer from paranoidal tendencies. I sincerely hope you get well soon.
> A few comments on Mr. Wilfred’s latest outburst.
Well, thank you for taking the time. It’s always good to get some feedback so one can revide his views and opinions. The word
“outburst” however is kind of provocative. Sounds more like an attempt to ridicule me, than to bring anything constructive into this circus of a discussion - but lets overlook that, given that it may be an effect of some irritation by my earlier posts.
> According to him, I am now apparently part of a neo-nazi attempt to penetrate the internet.
Well, I admit, that is kind of far fetched - but absolutely no more than some of your previous remarks, that were totally outrageous and which I have left unchallenged because they were, as you managed to express so nicely, “unworthy of further comment”.
> This smear is simply outrageous and unworthy of further comment.
Yes, you wrote something similar a couple of times before. I get the idea. I recommend leaving statements that are outrageous and unworthy of further comment, without further comment.
> I cannot take you, or anything you state seriously, Mr. Wilfred.
Well, repetition is the mother of learning. You have said that before. I recommend that you cease to take me, or anything I state seriously.
> I take my comment back about self-delusion being the least of your worries.
Seems we are getting somewhere. Well, don’t get me wrong, for sure im self-delusional to some extent - we all have our shortcommings.
> You are plainly paranoid instead.
Really? Thank you!
> How do you know that I am not using my own name?
… I don’t…? Or you imply that I actually do know that?
> In fact I am.
There you go! I couldn’t know you are not, because you were! You actually answered your own question.
> You accuse me of using a nickname without the slightest shred of evidence.
I would actually exchange the “accuse” with “imply”, if the above sentence is ment to describe the real state of facts. But by all means, leave it as it is
> You have just sunk your own credibility in one shot with such wild accusations. Well done!
Oh, have I? Or you just like the sound of that? I thought that according to you, all my credibility was gone already after my first post, because some linguistinc maniac in your childhood told you that someone who misspells has no credibility. Or wait… wasn’t it because you happend to disagree with my “outrageous” opinions? Well, whichever it may be, you once again repeat youself. Actually you repeat youself so often that soon your repetitions will loose all credibility, and my repetitions of the frase “you repeat youself” will also loose all credibility, and you won’t take me seriously when I repeat that you repeat repeating youself… Anyway my guess is that my credibility is quite fine, and the reason you write it’s sunken, is because you like the sound of that. And in case you forget I wrote that, I will remind you by repeating it couple more times.
> You have made outrageous claims and then attacked anyone (not just me) who has questioned them.
Hmm… Repetitions vs. Mr. Paul Jacob standings: 4-0
> Mr. Wilfred, read back over your own posts and see where there is a clear hatred of Germans and Germany therein.
Mr. Jacob, please look up the definition of the word “hatred” before using it again; judging by purity of your language - which is way higher than mine, without irony - you seem to be an educatated person. However confusing and misusing concepts lowers your otherwise quite intelligent image. After refreshing the definition of “hatred” please read “Mein Kampf” by A. Hitler, then please visit Auschwitz and Birkenau. Then, knowing the correct notion of “hatred”, read my posts again to conclude hatred isn’t anywhere in those to be found.
> When asked to provide evidence of your claims, you have simply replied with more invective and personal attacks.
Ouch! How can I reply to that? You really got me there… How about: “This smear is simply outrageous and unworthy of further comment”? Or how about following a simple rule of conversation: when asking a question, try not to surround it with strong-worded rubbish, thereby increasing the likelihood of getting an answer? True, I ignored some questions contained within your emotion-filled preaching, but those were indeed trivial and instead of asking me for answers I recommend you review your elementary education - parts of which you apparently have forgotten during the years of practice how to impose random opinions on random people by using permutations of fancy words that sound good together. For example “You have just sunk your own credibility in one shot with such wild accusations” sounds really great!
> The fact that at least two people have disagreed strongly with you is not evidence of you maybe being a teensy-weensy bit inaccurate in your observations.
I guess you didn’t really mean that, and it is there for one reason only, but in case you did mean that I will reply. However please disregard my reply if the sole reason for the above sentence is because it sounded too good to be left out.
The fact that at least two people have disagreed strongly with me is not evidence of any kind. Please look up the definition of
“evidence”, if that is not enough read something about the history of science. If I recall corectly, about 300 years ago, the amount of people that agreed or disagreed on a subject ceased to constitute proof.
> No, to you it’s proof of ‘neo nazi’ infilitration of the internet! Priceless!
No, to me it is not proof of anything. You have vivid imagination Mr. Jacob, and you have imagined me either using the word “proof” or “evidence” or in any other way claiming to have proven anything. Because of this confusion i assume you are unfamiliar with next set of definitions, therefore i recommend you study of concept of “proof” as well. There is a discipline, considered a subscience of Mathematics, called Proof-theory. I recommend a brief overview of that as well. If you follow those recommendations I’m positive you will feel more secure using those concepts.
> I freely admit that my comments about your spelling have been ironic.
Ok, none taken.
> But they also happen to be true, as any reader can determine by briefly perusing your texts.
Yes, we do have a predisposition for stating the obvious, don’t we?
> They are relevant insofar as they detract from any dwindling credibility you might have had.
No, actually we disagree here, but you are entitled to your opinion (freedom of speech etc.) I’am forced to use a language very different from my own to be able to communicate with you at all. If the misstakes I make while doing that amuse you, then I’m very happy. If they sadden you then I apologize. Anyway, by mentioning that once again you have shown one thing and one thing only. I don’t even have to express that explicitly, because every single non-Anglosaxian reader, will immediatly understand what it is that you have shown. However, I will follow your advice and buy spell-checking software for the English language, maybe I will even learn to spell better by doing that.
> Now even that has gone.
Well, you kind of contradict youself here. You implied it was totally gone, a couple of posts ago. But ok, I buy that. Then you implied, now you actually state; Cool. I just wonder what you will say next time, can’t wait to read that.
> There is a strong whiff of ‘burning martyr’ emanating from your last post.
Is there? There also is one new word in your sentence. And it still sounds good. And all those are still good sounding permutations of fancy words, but now, thanks to you I will add “whiff” to my own vocabulary.
> So now you’re the “victim” in all this?
Nah… I am not. But thanks for asking.
> It just confirms my strong suspicion that, how shall I put this gently, you certainly do suffer from paranoidal tendencies.
Ah! It wasn’t a question. You could fool me…
> I sincerely hope you get well soon.
Well, thank you! I will do my best to beat this (what is it a sickness, or just mental disorder?) But you have to promise me not to take it away from me before I get well, like you did with my self-delusion. I kind of never had a chance to defeat it before you kindly diagnosized that I no longer had it.
Let’s cut through the psychobabble of Mr. Wilfred’s newest post and get to the point.
Mr. Wilfred has an obsession. It with the Germans, Germany and the Third Reich era. From his unsustantiated rantings about an alleged will to dominate Europe by the present German government (all phrased in Hitlerian terms) to a general accusation of the will to murder and kill throughout the span of German history, Mr. Wilfred’s obsession shines through. Yet, he cannot see that this is in any way hateful, because he “would like to stick to the facts.” He wants to “avoid attacks on the personal” level and yet trys to put his critics down by accusing them of being “neo-nazis” (note the “nazi” reference again!). He cannot define hatred in any other terms other than with reference to “Mein Kampf” and “Auschwitz-Birkenau”. As I said, obsessed. He has moved the goalposts of this “discussion” so many times, I am not sure Mr. Wilfred knows whether he is coming or going anymore. He has tried it with insults, self-pity and now self irony. None of these guises becomes him.
I am not even going to attempt to address Mr. Wilfred’s twisted “interpretation” of my last post. It tells more about Mr. Wilfred’s frame of mind than I could ever do. No doubt this will in turn be interpreted by him as some kind of “victory” on his part. So be it. It has all become rather tiresome and I have better things to do with my time. I wanted to bring back the post to where it all started, because in the midst of all this, I believe my original point has been lost; Mr. Wilfred’s comments are indeed “idiotic borderline-racist nonsense.” The more he writes, the more he confirms that fact. Maybe he should cut his losses now and simply shut up (knowing quite well he won’t). I have certainly learned something thet “danny” obviously learned sometime ago. Ignore the guy. Something I should have done long ago.
Mr. Jacob has finally shown some thoughfullness and refrained from using all those superlatives
together with references to ortographical errors in my writing. It makes me feel that replying to
his posts was, not so much rewarding as worth it from a pedagogical perspecive. Now we can only hope
he will study the concepts and notions i recommended in my previous post before using those again
on a public forum - there is good chance he will do that, given the change in his attitude after I pointed
out the missconceptions in his reasoning as well as the genaral missuse of concepts.
;
Normally i would recommend someone like Mr. Jacob to retain his habit of not responding to articles
on the internet, but in this case I will make an exception. Provided he chooses a slightly less aggressive
non-personal tone and looks somewhat deeper into the definitions before he chooses to use the concpets behind,
I’m quite positive he will have relevant thoughs to provide to the online community in the future.
;
And Mr. Jacob, word of advice. Writing an article in a newspaper is like hitting the board.
The board however, doesn’t hit back.
You really don’t get it, do you? Your patronising tone is about as hypocritical as it gets. (He’s even adopted the royal “We”! )When and where I choose to respond to any posts on the internet is my decision alone and certainly none of your business! My last post underlined the real issues of this discussion. Rather than addressing these points you have again chosen to make me the focal point of your ramblings. Take a long hard look in the mirror, Mr. Wilfred and see how much your own “advice” and “recommendations” apply in first instance to your good self. A classic example of the kettle calling the pot black, if ever there was one ….
Well since Mr. Jacob seem to be interested in further teachings of mine, I will gladly provide that to him free of charge.
Especially since he so kindly freed me of self-delusion, and even restrained himself against his will, from commenting
more ortographical errors. Before I do that however, in my upcoming posts, I renew my recommendation, that Mr. Jacob
keep writing in the meantime, on the internet, even more so at this very portal. Practice is the only way - and it is my pleasure to be of service.
Leave A Reply