From what I understood, the law focuses on 2 things:

  1. Calling death camps located in Nazi-occupied Poland "Polish death camps".

  2. Blaming Poland as a nation for the Holocaust.

It seems only the second point is controversial, especially in Israel. As far as I understand the main criticism is, that it would prohibit discussing incidents, where Polish individuals collaborated with the Nazis.

Isn’t there already consensus, that Poland, as a nation and state, is not to blame for the Holocaust?

Isn't the law specifically formulated in a way, which would still allow individuals to be blamed for collaboration?

So what is everyone arguing about?

  • 15
    Is the law specifically targeting the English phrase "Polish death camps"? Because while in English, this could mean either "death camps in Poland" (location) or "death camps run by Polish people" (blame), this sort of ambiguous construct does not exist in the Polish language and there are different adjectival forms to mean either. Then again, I only have an elementary education in the Polish language, so I cannot comment on this further. – Roddy of the Frozen Peas Feb 11 at 5:03
  • 4
    I think this question could do a better job presenting the content of the law in question or link to a relevant resource. See for example:… – Trilarion Feb 12 at 9:42
  • 13
    @RoddyoftheFrozenPeas the ambiguity is the same in Polish ("polskie obozy śmierci" can mean both "operated by Poland" and "located in Poland"). – Maciej Stachowski Feb 12 at 10:15
  • 19
    Please stop re-adding the Israel tag. This question does not even mention Israel. – Philipp Feb 12 at 14:05
  • 12
    @jwco (RE: tagging) If that were the policy, questions would each need a number far greater than 5 tags. The question does not pertain to Israel, so it should not have the tag. It is as simple as that. – wizzwizz4 Feb 12 at 15:54
up vote -1 down vote accepted

The law in question was introduced to combat all attributions of the Nazi crimes to Polish People or to the Polish State. It most certainly is not to stifle debate or protect individuals guilty of crimes against Jews.

Couple of points to illustrate the need for that - as highest vote answer shows.

  1. Antisemitism in Poland is most certainly not "a third" - According to the PEW Research poll from 2016 it is 24%, and ADL poll is most certainly biased - just go and look at the questions constituting this research... Anyway, 24% is still high compared to a lot of other nations, true, but without historical context it's meaningless. Spain for example will not have much Jews after Inquisition. Same France, Germany, Scandinavia etc...
  2. Strong history of antisemitism - It is certainly curious that a country that had such a high concentration of Jews for such a long time is accused of that. It's true that quite often Jewish people were the object of the animosity (in various degrees, including violence), but it is very misleading. Saying that XVIIth century Poles didn't like Jews because they often collected taxes is not same as saying those Poles didn't like Jews because they were Jews. And of course the Jews had it better in Poland then than in - for example - in Germany or France at that time. Or Spain. So it's weird argument at the very least or, to put it in other words: they got rid of their Jews early and rather thoroughly, so who are they to criticise?
  3. Citing Kielce and Jedwabne as examples of Poles' violent antisemitism is also very curious. Apart from the J.T. Gross' book - which can be characterized as a "hit piece" (not the first one and most certainly not the last one in history) there is very little information about Jedwabne, and half of it demonstrates something in exact opposition to what that slanderous book says. And yet it's that book that "sets standard". No one is talking about at least 100 000 Jews rescued by those "violent antisemites"... And as I said: one argument about group is used to paint whole nation.
  4. Statement as the one from WHRC about restrictions on statements by scholars and others regarding the Polish people's direct or indirect complicity with the crimes committed on their land during the Holocaust are a serious distortion is itself a distortion, as Polish Underground State actively sought out and eliminated such individuals. There are archives full of cases like this and in every case the person was found guilty the execution (yes, there was only one sentence possible) followed. And the best part: no one would know about it if Polish states - both the one in exile and the puppet one in USSR - did not document those cases DURING the war and punish them then OR AFTER the war.
  5. Citing Pawłokoma massacre with short mention about AK not being shy of massacres (another answer) is very misleading. I won't go into the details of this issue, suffice to say that it was an attempt at stopping Ukrainian Insurgent Army's (UPA) systematic ethnic cleansing of Poles in the region (and by that it's meant as killing every Pole down to babies) - bad one, which I do not condone in any way, but I understand it. It got so bad in places that Polish AK and German local police had semi-official truce in place just to be able to defend Polish civilians from UPA. Sadly, nearly 200 000 were not. You want to see pictures of 2-year-old girls and boys hanged by the UPA? Just say a word.
  6. The existence of Żegota is clear and loud counterexample of - mostly supposed - antisemitism of Poles. Curiously it's not mentioned that it was the ONLY such organization in WW2 Europe. And it was formally recognized by Polish government in exile and it got priority on resources of AK.
  7. The numbers of Poles among Righteous Among the Nations is another proof. Would not be that telling except for the part where whole families were executed on the spot for "harboring Jews", which was exceptionally brutal punishment, implemented only in occupied Poland. See here:

And all that comes to the conclusion, that for majority of Poles the instances like "Polish Concentration Camps" are not a blunders but organized actions. Which by definition would mean that

consensus, that Poland, as a nation and state, is not to blame for the Holocaust

is certainly not "there".


  1. In western press, when there is mention of - for example - of Buchenwald Concentration Camp, it is in overwhelmingly large instances referred to as Nazi Concentration Camp, not German Concentration Camp.
  2. Jewish youths are taught that Poles hate Jews and Hitler built Auschwitz in Poland because he was convinced that Poles will help (and actually did) - this happened during May 2015 demonstration outside Polish Consulate in New York. Rabbi Zev Friedman shouted that through his loudspeaker quite clearly.
  3. The "common knowledge" of Polish complicity in the Holocaust (backed by claims that Polish Concentration Camps were called that because they were ran by Poles - another claim by Rabbi Zev Friedman's pupils) leads to such outrageous acts like currently proceeded in US senate Bill 447 - JUST Act 2017, or previously brought several times lawsuit (like 1999 in New York or 1999 in London), which demand restitution from Poland for the property confiscated by German Third Reich or turn over to Jewish organizations the property of the Jews killed in the course of war and who left no heirs.
  4. I wonder what Benjamin Netanyahu knew - that we don't - when he commented on the bill in question thus: "One cannot change history, and the Holocaust cannot be denied." Not much room for interpretation.
  5. Little left to wonder is in the words of Yesh Atid Chairman Yair Lapid: "No Polish law will change history, Poland was complicit in the Holocaust. Hundreds of thousands of Jews were murdered on its soil without them having met any German officer."
  6. Or Maybe "the proposed legislation attempts to conceal the Polish involvement in the Holocaust" bit published by Israel National News is also misunderstood?

And the above is very good illustration of what the argument is about... Namely: there is clear that for some "some Poles" are equivalent to "all Poles".

It is also worthy of note that Polish Government in Exile informed Allies about the atrocities committed by Germany on Jews multiple times and not once it has been even heard, not to mention believed.

So it may be taken - very badly - by Polish People that the only nation that actively and to great extent assisted in rescuing Jews is accused of complicity in the Holocaust on the grounds of "traditional antisemitism", geographical location of most notorious KZL's and documented by Polish government cases of Poles collaborating with German Occupation.

At least we have a debate, which is becoming noted internationally and it's actually not so one-sided as before. And the intensity of the argument is another illustration how badly needed that law was.

Can the down-voters come forward and at least hint at the reason, please? I would like to improve the question but without any feedback I'm unable to do so.

  • Thank you. I was hoping to read the Polish perspective on this. – user1721135 Feb 16 at 18:20
  • Would you be interested in answering – user19142 Feb 16 at 20:30
  • 1
    How exactly is this answering the question? – Philipp Feb 16 at 22:04
  • 1
    how's the demands to "turn over to Jewish organizations the property of the Jews killed in the course of war and who left no heirs" outrageous?? I followed everything else in your answer, even the attempts to make light of antisemitism (and yes, ADL's questionnaires can be a bit too much), but that I can NOT understand. It reminds me of Iraqis demanding - and getting - "their" historical heritage from the US back, which is the Jewish ancients books and such, that really belong with the Jewish People. That is what's outrageous. No heirs? Jewish People is,collectively – Genli Ai Feb 18 at 3:05
  • 1
    @user1721135 in case you were talking more about the property, then that has plenty of precedent in the world. The Swiss banks, e.g., made restitutions not to the non-existent heirs, which were all murdered, but to the Jewish organizations. It would be unseemly to profit from the murders done by the Nazis, right? To come by the windfall just because all the heirs were murdered together with their parents? Wouldn't it? – Genli Ai Feb 18 at 11:53

The Law and Polish Complicity in the Holocaust

While "Poland as a nation" is not to blame for the Holocaust, and while there was no official cooperation between Poland and Germany, government institutions as well as individual Poles collaborated with the Nazis (see also here):

As German forces implemented the killing, they drew upon some Polish agencies, such as Polish police forces and railroad personnel, in the guarding of ghettos and the deportation of Jews to the killing centers. Individual Poles often helped in the identification, denunciation, and hunting down of Jews in hiding, often profiting from the associated blackmail, and actively participated in the plunder of Jewish property.

Poland has a long and strong history of antisemitism. Before WWII, the "Jewish Question" was an important political topic and there were calls to deport all Jews. Currently, Poland has among the highest rates of antisemites in Europe (about a third of the population according to PEW, and an index of 45% according to the ADL). And before, during, and after WWII, Poles carried out pogroms against Jews.

Those that oppose the new law fear that it will suppress legitimate criticism of Polish actions and antisemitism during the war. They see it as an attempt to whitewash history.

It is difficult to say whether or not the law will be applied that way (my guess is that it probably will not), but the relevant part is that it leaves the impression of rejecting legitimate criticism about Polish involvement in the Holocaust. As the World Holocaust Remembrance Center said:

restrictions on statements by scholars and others regarding the Polish people's direct or indirect complicity with the crimes committed on their land during the Holocaust are a serious distortion.

Context and rising Polish Nationalism

A lot of the worry is not about the exact content of the law itself though, but the context around it, specifically increasing nationalism stoked by the right wing Law and Justice party. As the Guardian says:

Many observers believe the party has reignited the debate on the Holocaust as a deliberate ploy to further fuel nationalist sentiment among its voters.

The Atlantic shares this view:

But this law isn’t about the finer points of history. It is aimed at shoring up the right-wing base of the governing Law and Justice party

Free Speech

Another criticism, mainly from the US, is that the law restricts free speech (see eg CNN link above).

  • 5
    @CJDennis your comment "It implies that Jews are not Poles" lacks context. You (so it seems) think it's about "nationality" i.e. citizenship; the respondendts most surely saw it in terms of ethnicity. Ethnically, Jews are most certainly not Poles, as they also are not Russians, Ukrainians, or Germans (can't use "American" here as that is not an ethnicity, which probably contributes to the typically American confusion on these issues). Jews are Jews. It is not just religion; Jews call themselves "the People of Israel" for three millennia at least. – Genli Ai Feb 11 at 17:16
  • 7
    @jwco Many Poles protested the filming of part of the file Schindler's List on location in Poland, screaming "Jews Go Home" at the production staff. At the time, the official Jewish population of Poland was about two dozen individuals. And, of course, hardly all of the production staff were Jews. Seems like "strong antisemitism" to me. Modern Polish antisemitism may go back to the 1600s-1800s when absentee landowners who would often appoint a Jew as his representative, (Jews were often the only literate ones). The Jews would collect his rent, which would make them very unpopular. – Jeffiekins Feb 12 at 16:47
  • 6
    I wonder, Is that mythical "long and strong antisemitism" the reason that statistically most "Righteous Among the Nations" are Poles? Or maybe are you referring to people who risked their lives during WW2 to protect Jews? Because you surely don't refer to minor nationalist groups, which are present in almost all countries and don't represent the opinion of majority (though obviously scream most loudly)? – Spook Feb 13 at 7:16
  • 4
    Did your sources mean this police: Some quotes for you "In October 1939, General Governor Hans Frank ordered the mobilization of the pre-war Polish police into the service of the Germans. The policemen were to report for duty or face the death penalty." "...all of its high-ranking officers came from the ranks of the German police (Kriminalpolizei)." Or entire, actually sourced chapter which directly contradicts claims about massive compliance? Generalising like done by you and sources you quote is exactly the reason this law was introduced. – M i ech Feb 13 at 7:34
  • 4
    @tim So... fighting slander/libel is now whitewashing, and it's not a place to discuss good things but it's a great place to discuss bad things? For example your initial claim about government institutions is an outright lie. – M i ech Feb 13 at 13:40

The issue is not so much about "Polish death camps" but about doubts of how far does the law go, or how far will future laws go.

While the death camps, during WWII there where a few cases were Polish people did commit war crimes; either as individuals colaborating with the Germans, in operations together with the German occupation forces or even by units of the underground resistence army(AK).

Studies around these events have always been a sensitive issue, for political reasons. During the Soviet period they would have been used to attack AK and the German occupation; after the Soviet period commanders of the AK involved in massacres were rehabilitated; assigning blame for the massacres led to tension between Poland and several ex-SU republics, etc.

If laws are implemented as stated by the OP, there is little reason to worry. But there are some issues raised:

  • What do exactly the laws say? It probably is not very difficult to word such a law to add protection against people remembering those actions1. And even if in its current form this does not happen, it sets a precedent to allow for future changes of the law to that effect.

  • Why? It is not as if there is a lot of confusion about who established and managed the death camps2. If the objectives are those stated by the OP, there seems to be no need to criminalize such narrative, as it is not seriously considered anywhere, in the same way that there is no law forbidding people from claiming that the Earth is flat.

  • Add to all of the above that the current government of Poland is very nationalist, not very good at tolerating criticism and that there have been previous attempts by officials of this government to shift the blame of those massacres and deny Polish implication

So, on these basis, is not that difficult to understand how many people may be worried about the the intent of this law going well beyond what the OP understands, and towards forbidding any mention or study of less-than-honorable actions by some Polish people during these years, in a case of historic revisionism.

UPDATE: Trilarion's comment to the OP linked to Wikipedia, which includes part of the translated text of the law:

  1. [Anyone] who, in public and against the facts, ascribes to the Polish People or to the Polish State, responsibility or co-responsibility for Nazi crimes committed by the Third Reich, [as] defined in Article 6 of the Charter of the International Military Tribunal, Annex to the Agreement for the prosecution and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis, signed in London on August 8, 1945 [...], or for other offences which are crimes against peace [or] humanity or [that are] war crimes, or who otherwise grossly reduces the responsibility of the actual perpetrators of said crimes, is subject to a fine or [to] imprisonment for up to 3 years. The judgment shall be made public.

An strict reading of this text would make illegal any references to the Polish collaborators with Nazi Germany and/or Polish participants in the Jedwabne, Kielce and other massacres, thus giving support to the critics' concerns3.

1So far I have only found references to declarations by member of the government, but no independent description of the actual scope of the law.

2In all of the references to "Polish death camps" that I have been able to find, it was very clear that the issuer was meaning a geographic reference and that it was not a way of blaming Poland for them.

3I find particularly telling the differentiation between "Polish" and "Ukrainian" responsabilities. It shows that the intent of the law is not to avoid excuses for German responsability but as a law with the intent of forbidding criticism of Polish actions; perhaps looking to establish a narrative of a flawless Poland inhabited by flawless heroes who were victimized by all of their neighbours.

  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – Philipp Feb 14 at 13:24
  • An strict reading of this text would make illegal any references to the Polish collaborators... - this is not true. The same act (in fact the same article) clearly persecutes denial of crimes investigated by the Institute of National Remembrance, including crimes committed by the Polish nationals. Also Kielce Pogrom is hardly relevant in the context of amendment, as it is not attributed as a Nazi crime. – user19142 Feb 15 at 16:24
  • In all of the references to "Polish death camps" that I have been able to find, it was very clear that the issuer was meaning a geographic reference and that it was not a way of blaming Poland for them. - how come then other camps are referred to as Nazi concentration camp - like, for example Vught KZ, and not instead of DUTCH CONCENTRATION CAMP? And why - as I documented in my answer below - said sentence is used to support the case that they were run or aided in running by Poles? – AcePL Feb 20 at 12:27

There is a growing tendency to paint WWII as an alien invasion where a few dozen people were responsible for creating a war and death machinery and operating it with everybody else being a victim and/or resistance fighter.

The truth is that occupation forces were vastly outnumbered by local administration helping with the occupation everywhere and people arranging themselves with circumstances. Without Hitler going to all-out war against everybody and thus forcing the hands of the allies, the outcome would have been very different. And even then, a number of countries just rolled over when the occupation forces came, and the main road block in the end was that the Russian bear was far too large to roll over and the Germans were spread too thin to have any effect or control, even though they exacted a harsh price where they were. In short: WWII did not end like it did because Hitler was a madman (there was no shortage of those) but because he was a megalomaniac idiot.

The world is a better place for that outcome but paid a terrible price that we don't lightly want to be paying again.

Being in denial about one's own country's contributions may be nice for everybody's historical ego (not least of all the Germans themselves) but it does little for avoiding a recurrence, and indeed the nationalism forming the root of both World Wars is strongly on the incline. The refusal to accept responsibility for the awful consequences of induced mass behavior in the past is a direct precursor for refusing to admit awful consequences of induced mass behavior in the future.

Humans have a tribal nature: "us versus them" is always going to appeal to the primal urges of the underlying animal we have built civilizations with. Prohibiting to paint an ugly picture where an ugly picture is called for is sacrificing the tools for fighting a larger evil for the sake of some ease of mind.

  • 5
    The question is "Why is the new Polish law controversial?" not "What was the role of the Polish state and people in the death camps?" – David Richerby Feb 11 at 11:32
  • 6
    Sorry, this answer while insightful does not address the question asked. – Björn Lindqvist Feb 11 at 14:43
  • 4
    a country didn't even had 2b occupied or allied with Germany to contribute to the Holocaust. Britain for example forbade Jewish refugees entry to Mandatory Palestine, refused port entry to refugee ships like Struma, which ended in all its passangers drowning, but one. The US put their weight to forbidding Jewish refugees entry even to the nominally independent Cuba as was the case with one famous ship; the much reduced quotas for the Jewish immigration into the US went half unused during the war. Finns OTOH did not give up their Jews to the Nazis (but they did the non-Finnish Jewish refugees). – Genli Ai Feb 11 at 17:35
  • 1
    @grovkin The answer does nothing to link the stated history to the law. "Controversial" means that people argue about it; if everybody's deluding themselves that nothing happened, there's nothing to argue about. – David Richerby Feb 13 at 9:06

The law is too broad. Any mention of the Polish nation having contributed to the Holocaust could get you in trouble. Yes, you can talk about the individual acts. But you can't tie them into a bigger picture. Obviously, a law making what many consider the truth illegal is going to be controversial.

If the law only talked about the Polish state (as opposed to both the nation and state) it would perhaps be less controversial.

  • 1
    I guess it depends heavily on what really happened. If it is clear cut, that the Polish nation didn't contribute to the holocaust as a nation, then this probably would be less controversial. While the holocaust denial laws are also controversial, because they limit speech, people accept them, because the holocaust clearly happened. – user1721135 Feb 12 at 9:14
  • 4
    Downvoted as the law specifically says "against the facts" - so it is not making the truth illegal, it is making false accusations illegal. – Nick C Feb 12 at 10:14
  • 8
    @NickC it's a very vague expression. Unless the law defined what it considers "facts" or "nation" the chilling effect is inevitable. But you're right that illegal is the wrong word. – kotelcat Feb 12 at 13:10
  • I think the "against the facts" shouldn't be dismissed so easily. This makes it kind of similar to the holocaust denial crimes. – user1721135 Feb 12 at 21:51
  • 2
    @NickC Actually, I read "and against the facts" not as meaning that truth is a defense (note that "truth" is notably absent from the list of exceptions in the 3rd point of the law), but as meaning "as starting point, the truth is that Poland and the Polish People had no responsability at all". It stablishes by law what the historical truth is... – SJuan76 Feb 13 at 17:47

I believe that the law in question is particularly controversial for three reasons:

  • It is implemented mostly to express specific ideological stance, not out of actual necessity, as of majority of possible cases, would be out of Polish jurisdiction (and are more likely to result in diplomatic incidents) and more often a result of limited historical knowledge, than anything else.

    In this context some international comments are perceived as an attack on Polish sovereignty.

    As such it is viewed as an extension of an politicized view of the history and it is troubling, despite of limited practical applications, at least in terms of criminal law (civil lawsuits which might be enabled by this law, are different topic).

  • It touches deeply complex and painful historical events, and any discussion around it, naturally becomes highly emotional and quickly escalates.

    For the nation, who lost over 5 million citizens (2.7 million ethnic Poles, 2.7- 2.9 ethnic Jews or Jewish descent, as well as Polish nationals belonging to other ethnic groups) in both death camps, as well as number of actions against civilian population (like Außerordentliche Befriedungsaktion), during Warsaw Ghetto Uprising (with 13.000 killed during Uprising alone), 56,885 deported, mostly civilians (German estimate), as an outcome of Warsaw Uprising (with 50.000–70.000 civilians killed during Wola massacre and Ochota massacre) to Nazis alone (with many thousands more killed by Soviets - Katyn massacre and Ukrainian Insurgent Army - Massacres of Poles in Volhynia and Eastern Galicia) any accusations of being a Nazi accomplice are not taken lightly. Especially if you consider that many responsible for the atrocities, were never brought to justice.

    To quote the article already linked by tim

    Successive governments have been trying to persuade journalists and politicians to stop using the phrase 'Polish death camps,'" she told CNN.

    "It comes down to a rather sloppy and cavalier attitude towards Polish history... towards one of the most painful periods in Polish history."

    Events like President Barack Obama referring to "Polish death camp" or James Comey speaking "the murderers and accomplices of Germany, and Poland" caused outrage in Poland and are only the most prominent examples.

    To give you some perspective, from Polish point of view suggesting that Poland or Polish citizens are in general responsible for Nazi atrocities is pretty much as unacceptable as claims that the Jewish councils where somehow a willing accomplice of the Holocaust. I will risk to say, that calling the law, "Holocaust speech law", already shows, how little is known, about the scale of Nazi atrocities in the occupied Poland - which is tragedy which affected more than a single ethnic group, or even a single nation.

    At the same time interwar (newly interdependent) and WWII Polish history is full of ethnical tensions, both internal and external, many of which still reflect on its relationship with its neighbors (mostly Lithuania and Ukraine). In this light, governing historical research with and building ideological historical narrative is at least troubling.

  • Significant difference in the approach to freedom of speech, especially when related to nazism (and communism). In particular the article 13th of THE CONSTITUTION OF THE REPUBLIC OF POLAND

    Political parties and other organizations whose programmes are based upon totalitarian methods and the modes of activity of nazism, fascism and communism, as well as those whose programmes or activities sanction racial or national hatred, the application of violence for the purpose of obtaining power or to influence the State policy, or provide for the secrecy of their own structure or membership, shall be prohibited.


It is also worth pointing out that the same act, clearly prosecutes denial of crimes, including crimes committed by Polish individuals and law enforcement (Article 55)

Anyone who publicly and contrary to the facts denies crimes referred to in Article 1(1) shall be subject to a fine or the penalty of imprisonment of up to 3 years. The sentence shall be made public.

where the Article 1(1)

the recording, collecting, storing, processing, securing, making available and publishing of the documents of the state security authorities, produced and accumulated from 22 July 1944 until 31 July 1990, as well as the documents of the security authorities of the Third Reich and the Soviet Union relating to:


  • the Nazi crimes,
  • the communist crimes
  • other crimes against peace, humanity or war crimes, perpetrated on persons of Polish nationality or Polish citizens of other nationalities between 08 November 1917 until 31 July 1990

b) other politically motivated reprisals, instigated by the officers of the Polish law enforcement agencies or the judiciary or persons acting on their order which were disclosed in the contents of the rulings made on the strength of the Act, dated 23 February 1991, on considering as invalid the rulings made in the cases of persons oppressed for their activities for the cause of an independent Polish State (Journal of Laws of 2015 item 1583),

c) the actions of the state security authorities described in art. 5;

So the discussed amendment to the Act is mostly discussed out of its actual context.

See also

  • I was confused but now I think I understand your first point here from your comment to me on the related meta page. I agree the law seems unlikely to be applied, and that the majority of cases of speaking "against the facts" against Poland fall out of Polish jurisdiction. But does anyone disagree with the law because it seems unlikely to be applied? (maybe folks in Poland?) Or maybe I am not understanding what you mean by "specific ideological stance." – Jesse W. Collins Feb 16 at 2:33
  • @jwco I don't follow the discussion that closely, so I cannot give a definitive answer, but my impression is that the law is widely approved (which says a lot, considering highly polarized political landscape). Furthermore, some highly biased international comments, further boost the approval, and in a sense, legitimize the need of the amendment in consequence forcing government's hand. – user19142 Feb 16 at 14:37

protected by Sam I am Feb 13 at 22:19

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.