Skip to comments.We'd have more power in EU if Germans hadn't 'reduced our population' in WWII, says Polish PM
Posted on 06/21/2007 10:54:10 AM PDT by RWR8189
The Polish PM has stunned European leaders today with an astonishing attack on Germany for starting the Second World War.
In a spectacularly undiplomatic outburst, he said his country was losing out in today's European Union as a direct result of the millions of deaths that followed its invasion by Germany in 1939.
"We are only demanding one thing - that we get back what was taken from us," said Jaroslaw Kaczynski at the opening of the EU summit in Brussels, chaired by German chancellor Angela Merkel.
"If Poland had not had to live through the years of 1939-45, Poland would be today looking at the demographics of a country of 66 million."
The issue of population is at the heart of a heated row over voting rights that could wreck Tony Blair's last EU summit.
A proposed new system of sharing out votes rewards countries such as Germany with the biggest numbers - and Poland is angrily demanding more.
Poland's population is 38 million - implying that Mr Kaczynski blames the Germans for the loss of 28 million people.
Mr Kaczynski and his twin brother Lech, Poland's president, are said to be Second World War obsessives, with an encyclopaedic knowledge of their country's sufferings under occupation.
The identical twins, whose father fought in the 1944 Warsaw uprising, have become infamous for their unrestrained comments and dislike of EU integration.
Luxembourg's premier, Jean-Claude Juncker, said they should stop living in the past. "You have to jump into the present," he told FT Deutschland.
"You will not be happy in the long run if you are always looking in the rear-view mirror."
It sets the scene for a rancorous dinner tonight when leaders of the 27 EU states need to thrash out a series of disputes to avoid a crisis.
Mr Blair, notching up his 47th EU summit, told his Cabinet in London that he was prepared to walk away from the table unless his own demands were met in full.
Before flying out, he and Gordon Brown had telephone talks with Mrs Merkel - indicating that Mr Brown is intensely involved in the negotiations.
Mr Blair came under fire for trying to water down the EU's "son of constitution" treaty. Mr Juncker a veteran federalist, fumed: "We will not stand by and see all the substance removed from the treaty."
New French president Nicolas Sarkozy said there were multiple disputes.
"We don't just have problems with Poland," he said. "We have problems with the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, a little bit with the Czech Republic. The problems are numerous."
Privately, No 10 indicated that Mr Blair wanted his demands met "100 per cent". But European Commission president Jose Manuel Barroso retorted: "All the leaders say that they want 100 per cent achievement. But in Europe you've got to be reasonable and rational.
"At the end there has to be some, let's say, agreement."
Mrs Merkel sent an 11th-hour letter pleading with the leaders to compromise, so that Europe could move on from inwardlooking disputes to pressing issues such as climate change, energy supplies and globalisation.
"The European public now expects us to put the necessary reforms of the Union in hand," she wrote. "The time has now come to set out the roadmap for the impending reform of the treaties."
Therein lies the rub. Are the victims around? Are the perps around? Besides, there is this thing in law called the Statute of Limitations. I don't know what to make of it, but here is the Wiki definition:
STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS.
Statutes of limitations is predicated on the notion of fairness. Over time memories fade, evidence is lost or never found, and people prefer to get on with their lives without legal intrusions from the past. This idea is reflected in the various lengths of limitations periods. For example, some crimes such as murder or war crimes (see Rome Statute) are deemed so horrific that they have no limitations period in some jurisdictions. Generally, actions relating to real property have longer limitations periods and slander and libel usually have short periods. Japan is one country that does have a statute of limitations for murder. There, if murderers manage to evade the law for 25 years after committing a homicide, they will be free to go public with details of the crime.
From time to time, controversy arises because some horrific crimes have been discovered, but the perpetrator escapes due to the statute of limitation or prescription.
Another reason for statutes of limitations is closure, certainty, or repose. This encourages entities such as courts and law enforcement agencies to allocate resources to more timely concerns. The limitations period also permits entities and individuals to conduct their business without fear of being sued for something far in the past. For civil actions, statutes of limitations usually range between one and ten years. In Nevada, for example, it is two years and in New Mexico and New York, three.
Putin sure would not care for it. And don't forget that Poland used the lack of an effective government in Russia afer WWI to push its Eastern borders well into lands that were primarily populated by non-Poles. Lithuanians, White Russians and Ukrainians. Poland would have a lot more people, but a number of millions of those people would not be, ethnically, Polish.
How big would Germany be without the war and its pre-war (or even pre-World War 1) borders intact? How big would France be? Austria even. Or the myriad other mainland European countries which were occupied by the Third Reich?
How big would Ireland be without the potato famine?
How big would the world be without millions being murdered via abortion every year?
Poland deserves representation in the EU parliament.
Germany had been waiting for an excuse to invade France.
Serbian terrorism, a purely local phenomenon, was merely a pretext.
And no, this is not to say that France wasn't begging for it.
Actually, no. They have real power - much like the British House of Lords could, they can demand pretty substantial changes in Parliamentary legislation and block stuff until they get their way.
I thought this was kind of interesting.
For example, some crimes such as murder or war crimes (see Rome Statute) are deemed so horrific that they have no limitations period in some jurisdictions.
I'm not even going that far, I just do not think Germany should benefit in the here and now, for something not to long ago. I am not saying they should never, ever be allowed to move on.
And you would still have your horse cavalry if you didn’t charge them at German tanks.
I’m only interested in how they will manage to solve the whole situation amicably. That solution, if it exists, can be applied to thousands of similar situations across the world.
I’m not holding my breath, waiting for the solution though.
You haven´t forgotten that millions of Germans died during WW2, too, and that Germany lost 1/3 of its territory compared to the 1937 borders?
I suggest the Poles start “gettin’ busy” then!
Ok, so will you give native Americans 101 additional seats in Senate? Or should Ireland get more votes from the Brits because the great famine caused by the Englishmen killed many Irish? You can´t sum it up. It´s history.
“At the end there has to be some, let’s say, agreement.”
I believe this “agreement” must eventually be, “Scrap this foolish agreement”.
How does Germany BENEFIT from WW2? Do you think more innocents should have died? The complete destruction of the big cities wasn´t enough? It´s not that no Germans died during WW2.
So, what will the progeny of the wronged granpappy's grand-grand-grand-grand-grand-children have to say now?
Or were they just "not-so-special" people?
The whole argument is in a one-way, dead-end street. And what you suggest is the only way out.
Germany: "We should have more power"
Germany: "We have more people."
Poland: Now how did that happen?
Germany: Well, you see, a few years ago, we wanted more power, so we kind of went out and killed alot of your folks, so now we outnumber you.
Poland stares in silence, for a few moments before responding.
Poland: WHAT????????? You came to our lands to increase your power, killed our people, and now say that since you have more people, you should have more power?
Germany: Yes, why that is quite logical, and besides, that was in the past.
Poland: So because you commit mass murder, and you want more power?
Germany: Mass murder is an ugly word, we prefer the term "participating in history", by the way, how is your parents doing?
Poland: You shot them, remember?
Germany: Well, you get my point, your family is smaller then mine, now give me more power.
Poland: Your mad.