New Polish Migration Policy Seen Enshrining Xenophobia

Poland is said to be the most ethnically homogenous state in Europe, and probably is. Stalin moved Poland west, depriving her of Western Ukraine and re-incorporating Pomerania, East Prussia and Silesia, which were previously part of Germany but mostly Polish, ethnically.

Poles are proud to be Poles and proud of their place in history. I don’t blame them. Poland is thought of as the “Savior people” of Europe because they stood as a bulwark against the Germans on the West and the Slavs, Tartars and Mongols on the East. They were “Savior” in the same way Jesus was Savior at times, being the sacrificial victim of more powerful states. Indeed, they took all the punishment in the breakup of the Soviet Empire. They took all the casualties for Germany in spanking the Bolsheviks under Budenny back into Russia. They are Catholic and (oddly) “Mediterranean” because they rejected the cultures of Russia and Germany, having an affinity for Mediterranean culture.

I’m not Polish, even in part, but I think they have something to be proud of, and I think their self-identification is well worth preserving. Boze cos Polski.

I just reminded myself. You ought to read the translated words of the Polish National ANthem. It speaks of Poland’s martyrdom eloquently. It’s a pretty melody besides. The name of it is as above “Boze Cos Polski” (God save Poland)

You really ought to watch the following. You have to be familiar at least a bit with Polish history because the historical scenes flit by awfully fast. But it’s fun to watch and pleasant to hear.

1 Like

Poland knows diversity is not a strength, Aristotle so I’ve been lectured long time ago, was aware of an upper limit to the mixing of different tribes.

I think I posted a “no sound” version of Boze cos Polski. Here’s one with sound.

Probably so. There is probably only a million of so of the population not identifying as ethnically Polish — about the same number as the Polish population of the UK, I suppose — plus a couple of million or more migrant workers, many from Ukraine.

Yes and no, history teaches. The Versailles settlement attempted to divide Europe into ethnically homogenous nations (although it was called self-determination) but the result was not stability.

Philip Morgan (Fascism in Europe, Routledge, 2003) points out that when the Austro-Hungarian empire was broken up into “self-determined” states,

This, he says, was one of the reasons for the failure of liberal democracy in Europe between the wars.

We see this potential instability in the Polish moves. Poland is predominantly Catholic, but not 100 per cent so — the figure is in the high 80s, with observance in the 50s, according to Wiki. Policies which describe it as necessary for the population to adopt “Polish religion” show the ignoring of minority rights Morgan was describing.

1 Like

I have no pretense to being a history scholar like Mr. Morgan apparently is, but WWII was not caused by ethnic tensions among divided states that were formerly parts of one empire. It was exactly the attempt to re-create an empire fairly similar to the German and Austro-Hungarian empires combined. At its high water mark, that’s exactly what the Third Reich was.

And the Austro-Hungarian Empire was not any less dominated by dominant groups than, Serbia is dominated by Orthodox today. Austrians and Hungarians together ran everything.

One of the great failures of Versailles was the combination of hostile groups into one state. Who but a fool would think combining Croatia, Serbia, Macedonia, Montenegro and Bosnia a good idea? Those people have hated each other for centuries. And what kind of foolishness gave Western Ukraine to Poland and Silesia to Germany?

That was not the argument. The argument was that the ethnic tensions were one of the factors leading to the failure of liberal democracy and the establishment of autocratic regimes, and that forming ethnohomogenous states did not restrict, but gave scope for, these ethnic tensions.

The leaders of the victorious great powers, who were attempting to redraw Europe along “self-determination” lines. It is no part of my argument, or of Morgan’s, that they were efficient and farsighted in this task.

It is. But, in reality, that radical view is just a strawman.

Or, Poland could just be looking at Germany and saying - “C R A Z Y, we can’t afford that mess”


They were, first of all, not all really ethnohomogenous. Jugoslavia and Czechoslovakia were notable examples. Poland was not as much so, but was still ethnically diverse. Germany was too. Russia certainly was diverse. If anything, European states are now more ethnohomogenous than they were after Versailles. Lithuania is Lithuania, Poland is Poland, Croatia is Croatia.

I do not see that WWII was caused by ethnic tensions. It was caused by empire-building ambitions on the part of both Germany and the Soviet Union.

And I repeat …

But was that true? What ethnic tensions caused liberal democracy to fail and where?

As I mentioned, European states are now more ethnohomogenous than they ever were in the last couple of centuries, and it has not led to failure of democracy or the establishment of autocratic regimes.

Are they indeed? The state I live in is most certainly not. And according to some posters here Europe has been overrun by Muslims.

And according to some posters here Europe has been overrun by Muslims.

But this is incredibly untrue, and it’s not like it’s some kind of esoteric, hidden truth. Just look at what percentage of people in European countries identify as Muslim. The people saying this stuff are purposefully trying to stir up ethnic and cultural divisions, or are idiots stupid enough to fall for the lies of nationalists.

I’m not sure what state you live in, so I can’t respond to that. Nor can I opine whether it’s overrun by Muslims.

But if you look at it, while the Baltic States and Ukraine are not terribly homogenous, they are considerably more than they were when they were parts of the Soviet Union. Russia itself is more so as well. Germany is. Poland is. Croatia, Serbia, Bosnia, Montenegro, Macedonia are. Czech Republic and Slovakia are.

Overrun by Orthodox Christians here in my house. Dangerous beasts, make you do things like not wear shoes in the house and change you clothes and wear different clothes inside than outside and complain about the savagery of the UK’s plumbing system and ask ‘Why doesn’t this country have mixer taps and double sinks?’

Annoyance at lack of double sinks is a real pet peeve I’ve noticed among many Eastern Europeans. My friend who is Bulgarian goes on about this as well as does someone else’s husband.

Yes, of course it is. But they keep saying it, nonetheless.

UK, as my profile proudly declares. And no, it isn’t overrun by anyone. Well, except Britons. Muslim? About 5% I think. As to “race”, about 15% non-white here, I believe, which is probably the most ethnically heterogenous it’s ever been, I would guess, and all the richer for it.

I’ve no idea what you do with the second sink. Stub your ciggies out in it?

Strange that Orthodox Christians should impose those unnatural disciplines on you. Amazingly they turn out to be identical, in my experience, to those imposed by Scottish atheists. Dangerous, wild, wild people.

Wash plates in one, rinse in the others. Smoking a cigarette in this house is death by slow torture territory. My wife’s late grandfather Vassily fought the Nazis as a partisan as a teen and spent a long career in the Soviet forces. When his granddaughter told him no cigarettes in the house he jumped to obey as though Marshall Zhukov was personally issuing that command. You just obey, it is easier that way trust me. You may live to see tomorrow.

The rate of change does matter. Your first 10% integrated over a leisurely 300+ years.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit