From: wojdylo@maths.uwa.oz.au (INFIDEL)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: Nazi camps
Date: 30 Sep 1992 03:23:11 GMT
Organization: The University of Westrn Australia
NNTP-Posting-Host: madvax.maths.uwa.oz.au

roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:

>In article <1992Sep29.154513.28006@sarah.albany.edu> pawel@tethys.ph.albany.edu writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep28.194855.28003@Princeton.EDU>, roger@crux.Princeton.EDU (Roger Lustig) writes:
>>>>In article <1992Sep28.160512.14104@sarah.albany.edu> pawel@tethys.ph.albany.edu writes:


>>  I agree, discrimination in Poland in late 30's became tolarated
>>by the goverment. Nevertheless you have to keep in mind
>>that Poland remained DEMOCRATIC country until 39, the opposition to
>>the intolerant laws was strong, elections were held and so on and NO
>>discriminatory laws were adopted by the goverment.

[...]


>>  I do not want to diminish the meaning of the shameful practices,
>>but the picture was not entirely gloom.

>Not entirely, no.  But the very fact that the mere existence of Jews
>called forth a "Jewish Question", 

The existence of a "Jewish Question" points to a nationalist attitude
concerned about the effect on the country's future of a substantial group 
outside of a predominant group that considers its own cultures etc. the most
important normative ones.

What about the morallity of this kind of attitude ? I suggest the
following as a general analysis. If the nation is surrounded by other
countries in which a similar problem exists (due to existence of ethnic groups
or whatever) then an argument exists on very immediate grounds: a decision in 
one country can set precedents and inflame rivalries in surrounding countries.
Discriminatory practices can be argued against very strongly as being
irresponsible and --- in the light of historical precedent -- evil.

As for the more general, abstract question, unfortunately recent
aligning of Western opinions doesn't help enlighten us. To take a
particular example,  four or five years ago there was a military coup
in Fiji in which a military strongman -- Rabuka -- assumed power and
installed a "racist" constitution guaranteeing the balance of political
power to native Fijians over the substantial Indian population which had
most of the economic muscle (Fijians may even be in the minority -- the ratio 
could be something like 40-60%, although I'm not sure). Of course, the
military coup was condemned by Western governments; last week, however,
following an easing of certain conditions on the Indian population,
Rabuka was given red-carpet treatment by the Australian government on
his visit here.  C'est la vie.

The nationalist attitude is undemocratic -- sooner or later its true
face is revealed: relatively mildly (though with perhaps serious
consequences --- let's try to establish the truth) in POland in the 
1930's, and severely in other cases which are obvious at this time.

The crux of the tension between Roger's and Pawel's arguments is that
Roger sees the potential evil -- hence culpability -- within the heart
of the nationalist, whereas Pawel sees the positive things that were
done despite the nationalists. 

The argument boils down to a question of the extent to which the pre-WW2
Polish government attained democracy.

(At the time that Pilsudski was at the helm, it still had a long way to
go.)


>and that even in 30%-Jewish Warsaw,
>anti-Semitic parties held a huge number of seats in the local government,
>points to the fact that Polish attitudes and establishments did not make
>the evil work of their conquerors any harder.

If Polish democracy was successful enough, then the scope of Roger's last
sentence is unfair.  There were, after all, even Polish communists active at
that time. A small number, no doubt.

On the other hand, I submit Grass's, "The Tin Drum" in support of Roger's 
argument. 


>>  Neither should we take the whole situation out of context.  If
>>I had to live in this part of Europe in between-wars period
>>I would certainly chose Poland, not Germany or USSR  (Czechoslovakia (sp?)
>>was even better place to be, but the Jewish community there was
>>rather small :-).

[...]

>If I had to make such a choice, I'd choose Germany, simply because the
>economic situation of German Jews was such that emigration was far easier
>when the time came.  Only 37% of Germany's Jews perished in the Holocaust;
>what was the percentage for Poland?

To partly rephrase the insinuated question: to what extent was Polish
nationalism (indirectly) responsible for the high percentage of Jewish
deaths in Poland in WW2 ?

I'll leave that for others to decide.

As for the other part of the insinuation -- why Germany only 37% ? -- frankly, 
a more important reason is that when a country is fucked over,
it's at the mercy of the men with the guns.


>Roger

John W.
Perth, Western Australia