The “Polish Economy” and the “German Pig”

Even today, we hear certain figures of speech being used in Germany that relate explicitly to the country’s eastern neighbors, some of which have become part of common parlance. These expressions convey an idea of German superiority that has its origins in a colonial view of Central and Eastern Europe. The term  “Polish economy”

Polish economy

The stereotype of the Polish economy deeply rooted in the German-speaking cultural area since the late 18th century, which contrasts the alleged backwardness and inefficiency of Poland with the German sense of innovation and order. , for example, is still sometimes used to refer to situations where there is disorder or general mismanagement. These figures of speech usually have a long history, and all too often serve to portray the German nation in a positive light. The alienating term "Polish economy", for example, is characteristic of a particular discourse around modernity that conveys a perception of Germany’s superiority over Poland.
 
In caricatures, we see this segregating perspective distilled in the form of a visual image. What is special about caricatures is that they are intended for a large audience. Their content should therefore be easy to decipher and establish a clear position. Because caricatures are images in the broadest sense, they are easier and quicker to absorb than text. They contain concrete symbols that convey a specific meaning. Starting in the 19th century, for example, Germany increasingly portrayed itself as a harmless, lazy and stuffily conservative German  “Michel”

Deutscher Michel

The “German Michel” is an allegorical figure and national personification of the Germans and the German states, whose origins probably date back to the Renaissance. Historically, the figure not only has negative connotations, but also stood for the commitment to the German language and literature in the early modern period. The German Michel was also used as a literary figure in humorous texts, where he symbolized comfort and bourgeoisie. In the political caricatures of the 19th century, the figure of the German Michel was increasingly portrayed in a negative light, often with a pointed cap and a sleepy look.  figure wearing a nightcap. Furthermore, the subtitles of caricatures often provide a contextualizing classification and thus also give us an insight into the mentality of a bygone era. 

Depending on who drew the caricatures and captioned them, they convey different ideas of which position is superior or inferior and why. If we think of the above-mentioned demarcations which set Germany apart from Poland and Eastern Europe in general, the positive depiction of the German culture or nation as “our own” is a crucial factor. The devaluation of other cultures or countries was a strategic move at precise moments in time when the idea of “our own” nation and identity needed to be bolstered.

This act of devaluating the “other” became important, for example, after the end of the First World War, which Germany had lost. This defeat in 1918 was accompanied by a loss of power, influence and territory. Among other things, the Germans lost control over parts of the former  Commonwealth. With the founding of the  on November 11, 1918, Poland regained its own statehood after 123 years. During the time of the partitions, the Poles had lived in three territories under the rule of Prussia and the German Empire, the Habsburg Empire and the , respectively. German-Polish relations were shaped by this, characterized by asymmetrical, hierarchical thinking and the suppression of Polish culture. A predominant feature in German journalism and literature at the end of the 19th and beginning of the 20th century was the idea of a mission to “civilize” Poland. However, when German-controlled Polish territories were handed over to the newly independent Polish state, which was a requirement of the Treaty of Versailles, this balance of power was called into question. This was particularly true for those territories whose state affiliation was not clear, such as Upper Silesia. In such cases, local populations were called upon to choose their affiliation via a vote. Both states wanted to win the vote, and thereby either gain or retain the territories, ultimately in order to hold influence and power in these regions. Against this background, it became an important issue for both states to promote and strengthen their own identity. The thinking of the time was that, by denigrating the “other” and at the same time positively differentiating “one’s own”, this would be made more possible. The self-image is therefore intertwined with the image of the other. The renegotiation of self-images, images of others and power relations is reflected in the two caricatures that are the focus of this article. They show how asymmetrical relations between Poland and Germany, characterized by colonial patterns of thought, were (re-)produced on the one hand and questioned on the other.

The first caricature featured in the satirical magazine "Kladderadatsch". It is entitled "Politur" and was published on July 27, 1919. The caricature is divided into two pictures, although it is not possible to say exactly where the two scenes are taking place. The top picture shows a German family, probably sitting in the garden of an inn. The scene looks very idyllic with a church tower in the background and numerous children present. The family is sitting together at their table in an orderly fashion. The picture below gives the opposite impression. This scene takes place in the interior of a pub, where things are getting rowdy. A family can also be seen there, but the children are crying and clinging to their mother. This kind of inn is no place for children, the caricature wants to convey to the viewer (where the German word “Wirtschaft” is acting as a pun, meaning both “inn” and “economy”).  The subtitles allow the scenes in the caricature to be classified. The one above shows a German “Wirtschaft”, while the one below shows a Polish “Wirtschaft”. But the latter is not just a Polish inn/economy, no, it depicts the possible result of the transformation of a German one.  

The background to this caricature is the (possible) transfer of German-ruled territories to Poland. The caricature takes a stand by expressing the idea that the beautiful, orderly and idyllic German economy is set to become a dirty, disorderly and neglected one. This gives a positive charge to Germany's own image while figuratively expressing (through the visual pun of the inn)  that Poland will drag the German culture and way of life into the dirt and allow it to degrade to a state of pre-modern chaos. The fascinating thing about this caricature is the fact that, in order to be effective, Germany’s self-portrayal relies on a stark juxtaposition to the portrayal of Polishness. It is only through the depiction of a “Polish Wirtschaft” that its German counterpart appears as something worth striving for, as a better and superior version. Here, supposedly different characteristics are depicted with the aim of portraying Poland as bad or inferior and Germany as good and superior. The term “Polish economy” is a German construct that has persisted for a long time. What is special about this caricature is that it processes this construct visually. It is very likely that those who viewed it would have been aware of the term “Polish economy” and what it meant. There was therefore a direct point of contact. However, it is important to note that the "Polish economy" as a construct refers to the realm of economics and thus to various forms of organization, as well as to a perception of work ethic. This caricature transfers this broader issue to the setting of a pub and uses this specific scene to paint a picture of general mismanagement.

In addition to this denigration of Poland, the illustration also contains a rupture. It reveals a rift in Germany’s self-image. The caricature shows that the “German” economy could be handed over to Poland or, depending on the location, had to be handed over as dictated by the Treaty of Versailles. This in turn reveals an interesting entanglement, as Germany’s own superiority necessarily relies the existence of on an inferior counterpart. However, the balance of power is not permanently fixed, but changeable and dynamic. This caricature therefore also implicitly reveals the changed circumstances and the uncertainty of the previously, supposedly unchangeable, supremacy.

The second caricature comes from the Polish satirical magazine "Mucha" (in English: The Fly). The title is "Plebiscyt na Górnym Śląsku" (Plebiscite in Upper Silesia) and was published on February 4, 1921. The caricature also featured on the front page of the magazine. It is set in Upper Silesia and was published in the run-up to the referendum on the national affiliation of this region. The cartoon shows a large pig. It is much larger than its surroundings. An industrial scene can be seen in the background and bones and a skull in the foreground. More bones are shown falling out of the pig's mouth. The pig's ears look a little like the devil's horns, in line with the setting of the caricature which conjures up an impression of hell. The caption tells us that the pig is a Prussian, i.e. it stands for Germany. Thus, pig-like characteristics are being ascribed to the Germans. The pig is depicted as voracious and ruthless, which contrasts with the caption, as this animal appears to be the opposite of high culture and a deep sense of justice: Germans are portrayed as barbaric. This is also the reason why the population should not join Germany. The pictorial part shows how Germany is perceived from the Polish point of view, while the caption expresses how Germany supposedly perceives itself. The reorganization of power relations can also be seen in this caricature. Although the pig appears very powerful at first glance, there are no other people depicted in the scene over whom the pig could exercise power. The caption makes it clear that people will not choose Germany, but Poland. But the caption also reminds the viewer that Germany was once more powerful than it is now. In the Prussian-ruled period of Upper Silesia, the country tried to establish its supposedly “high” culture, which, according to the image, resulted in exploitation and a reign of terror. The caricature thus shows how connected Germany and Poland are, while at the same time revealing the negative perception of Germany. Poland presents Germany literally as beastly, thus distinguishing itself in a positive light in contrast to its neighbor. People do not want to identify with this pig. The caricature ends with an affirmation that Poland will win the election for the territory of Upper Silesia, and thus predicts that the hierarchical balance of power is about to change.

What conclusions can be drawn from the two caricatures about the negotiation of Polish-German relations after the end of the First World War? The first caricature makes it clear that the German side was continuing to portray itself as superior. Colonial images were produced, drawing on traditional stereotypical constructs and attributions. In view of the danger of losing German territory to the new Polish state, the depiction of Poland’s inferiority is intended to bolster the Germans’ sense of power and self-assurance. However, the threat of imminent change expressed in the caption also shows that the power structure has begun to totter. The result is an image of supposed superiority, but one in which cracks are slowly developing; these cracks are to be covered up by the repetition of colonial images. The second caricature, on the other hand, plays with the apparent superiority of the Germans by depicting them as gluttonous pigs. The message is that they themselves do not meet the standards of their supposedly high culture. The absence of any other people in this Upper Silesian landscape makes the pig look ridiculous and undermines its authority, which is intended to irritate the “superior” German. There is no one here over whom it could exercise its supposed power. This reverses the superiority paradigm and makes it clear that it is not only Germany that has the power to act. Through the pejorative depiction of Germany, Poland’s own position is also confirmed and strengthened. The two caricatures thus provide a valuable insight into the complex and chaotic period after the end of the First World War. While some tried to maintain their notion of power and hold on to it, others were working to undermine it. But both these processes relied on a long tradition of creating and reinforcing images – the self-image and the image of the “other”.

Engish translation: William Connor