Polish prime minister says Jews perpetrated Holocaust too
27 replies, posted
[URL="https://www.timesofisrael.com/polish-prime-minister-says-jews-perpetrated-holocaust-too/"]https://www.timesofisrael.com/polish-prime-minister-says-jews-perpetrated-holocaust-too/[/URL]
[QUOTE]Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki said Saturday that alongside Poles, Jews were also responsible for perpetrating the Holocaust.
Morawiecki was rejecting criticism of a new law that criminalizes mentions of Polish complicity in the Holocaust at the Munich Security Conference, when he was asked by an Israeli journalist if sharing his family’s history of persecution in Poland would be outlawed under the new legislation.
“Of course it’s not going to be punishable, [it’s] not going to be seen as criminal to say that there were Polish perpetrators, as there were Jewish perpetrators, as there were Russian perpetrators, as there were Ukrainian; not only German perpetrators,” he told Yedioth Ahronoth’s Ronen Bergman.
He said the Polish people generally aided their “Jewish brothers and sisters” during the war, and the lines between Holocaust victims and perpetrators was becoming increasingly blurred.
Earlier this month, the Polish Senate passed the legislation that prescribes prison time for using phrases such as “Polish death camps” to refer to the killing sites Nazi Germany operated in occupied Poland during World War II.
Israel, along with several international Holocaust organizations and many critics in Poland, argues that the law could have a chilling effect on debating history, harming freedom of expression and leading to a whitewashing of Poland’s wartime history.
Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has pilloried the law as “distortion of the truth, the rewriting of history, and the denial of the Holocaust.”
Amid the dispute some Polish commentators, including in government-controlled media, have made strong anti-Jewish remarks.
In one instance, the head of a state-run channel suggested referring to Auschwitz as a “Jewish death camp,” in response to an outcry over use of the term “Polish death camp” to describe the Nazi killing site in German-occupied Poland.[/QUOTE]
Probably as much as black Americans helped with slavery:
Tiny, tiny numbers of selfish individuals
You know who also helped perpetrate the Holocaust? Poles.
Oh, right, they didn't, and it's illegal to say so!
Ouch, right in the political career
The Polish PM then proceeded to visit the grave of Polish Nazi collaborators, just to drive the point home.
[URL="https://www.timesofisrael.com/polish-pm-visits-grave-of-nazi-collaborators-drawing-fresh-ire/"]https://www.timesofisrael.com/polish-pm-visits-grave-of-nazi-collaborators-drawing-fresh-ire/[/URL]
[QUOTE]Polish Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki drew fresh criticism on Saturday for [B]paying his respects at the grave of Polish fighters who collaborated with Nazi Germany[/B] during World War II, hours after sparking outrage for claiming that Jews were involved in perpetrating the Holocaust.
The Polish prime minister’s office on Saturday tweeted a photo of Morawiecki with his hands clasped at the grave of fighters from a Polish underground military unit, known as the Holy Cross Mountains Brigade. He lit a candle and laid a wreath at the Munich grave site.[/QUOTE]
A little more info:
[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Cross_Mountains_Brigade#Accusations_of_collaboration_with_the_Nazis"]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holy_Cross_Mountains_Brigade#Accusations_of_collaboration_with_the_Nazis[/URL]
Meanwhile, this happened:
[URL="http://www.jewishpress.com/news/jewish-news/holocaust/poland-to-freeze-law-returning-stolen-property-to-jewish-survivors/2018/02/15/"]http://www.jewishpress.com/news/jewish-news/holocaust/poland-to-freeze-law-returning-stolen-property-to-jewish-survivors/2018/02/15/[/URL]
[QUOTE]The Polish government has decided to “re-examine” a draft bill to compensate Holocaust survivors for property confiscated from Jews during World War 2, Ynet reported, citing the World Jewish Restitution Organization (WJRO), which expressed a concern that the Polish Justice Ministry would slip the bill into cold storage for the foreseeable future.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=ScumBunny;53140563]The Polish PM then proceeded to visit the grave of Polish Nazi collaborators, just to drive the point home.[/QUOTE]
Any idea what is behind this creeping rehabilitation of nazis?
[QUOTE=Vlevs;53140571]Any idea what is behind this creeping rehabilitation of nazis?[/QUOTE]
the ruling party seems to view the neo-nazi organizations as useful to them and their ability to stay in power
[editline]18th February 2018[/editline]
but there have been some falling-outs it seems, and the radical organizations (such as the national-radical camp) are calling for a new party, which could result in the ruling party trying to curry some favor back with them
[QUOTE=Vlevs;53140571]Any idea what is behind this creeping rehabilitation of nazis?[/QUOTE]
Many countries in Europe do not like to admit that people in their society and government collaborated or partnered with nazi germany. Visit any world war two museum in Austria, for example, to see that made clear, where they whitewash their complicity with intellectually offensive rhetoric such as "we were the first victims of the nazis" while they avoid showing the newsreel footage of cheering crowds at anschluss.
Poland seems to take it personally. Just look at [url=https://archive.is/AoTlr]this shit[/url] and how they tried to deal with jan gross's history-backed claims. And also the... #notpolishdeathcamps youtube advertisements i've been getting what the fuck
I would say this was some kind of sick joke, but this is becoming an unfortunate reality where some terrible persons use any means possible to gain, and to hold on to, power. Even if that means complete historical revisionism, and issuing blatantly loaded statements in an effort to justify said revisionism.
[QUOTE=Pitchfork;53140619]And also the... #notpolishdeathcamps youtube advertisements i've been getting what the fuck[/QUOTE]
I wondered what the fuck was up with these.
[QUOTE=Luni;53140247]You know who also helped perpetrate the Holocaust? Poles.
Oh, right, they didn't, and it's illegal to say so![/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]
“Of course it’s not going to be punishable,[B][it’s] not going to be seen as criminal to say that there were Polish perpetrators[/B] ,as there were Jewish perpetrators, as there were Russian perpetrators, as there were Ukrainian; not only German perpetrators,”[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Mifil;53140659][quote]“Of course it’s not going to be punishable,[it’s] not going to be seen as criminal to say that there were Polish perpetrators ,as there were Jewish perpetrators, as there were Russian perpetrators, as there were Ukrainian; not only German perpetrators,”[/quote][/QUOTE]
Pitchfork's linked article seems to contraindicate that on the basis that it "harms the country's reputation", which is absurd. It's like they're taking lessons from Turkey.
[QUOTE=chipsnapper2;53140555]Ouch, right in the political career[/QUOTE]
Considering the party this guy's with, not as much as you'd think.
This is a party that harbored people saying such stupid shit as gays will be the downfall of society and shouldn't be allowed to become school teachers.
Another guy even likened himself to Charles Martel stopping the Arab invasions of the 8th century.
[QUOTE=chipsnapper2;53140555]Ouch, right in the political career[/QUOTE]
Oh, you sweet summer child. You have no idea about how politics in poland work. We elected a guy to European parliament who built his whole career by stating that women are inferior and that hitler didn't know about holocaust. In poland, the more outrageous your statements are, the more the right-wing majority of the population will love you.
[QUOTE=WhyNott;53140841]Oh, you sweet summer child. You have no idea about how politics in poland work. We elected a guy to European parliament who built his whole career by stating that women are inferior and that hitler didn't know about holocaust. In poland, the more outrageous your statements are, the more the right-wing majority of the population will love you.[/QUOTE]
If you're talking about Korwin what you said is not true. His opinions on women are questionable, however he just said there is no evidence or any documents signed by Hitler that would confirm he knew about the Holocaust (which is true btw).
Also just to talk about the topic, I don't know what this fuss is about. The first reply says the same thing yet people don't criticise it. Yes, there were Polish as well as Jewish collaborators. The PM said it probably in the least offensive way possible.
I don't understand what is so outrageous here. There have been both Poles and Jews collaborating with the Nazis during the occupation. If you want to say that Poland shares the blame for the holocaust then [U]by your own logic[/U], so do the Jews.
Personally I'd say neither nation shares the blame for the holocaust, I'd say all the blame for the holocaust, specifically, is on the nazis. Both Poles and Jews are the victims here.
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;53141425]I don't understand what is so outrageous here. There have been both Poles and Jews collaborating with the Nazis during the occupation. If you want to say that Poland shares the blame for the holocaust then [U]by your own logic[/U], so do the Jews.
Personally I'd say neither nation shares the blame for the holocaust, I'd say all the blame for the holocaust, specifically, is on the nazis. Both Poles and Jews are the victims here.[/QUOTE]
"The Jews" don't share the blame for the Holocaust, "some Jews" do. "The Poles" don't share the blame for the Holocaust, "some Poles" do.
What's so difficult about this?
[QUOTE=Grenadiac;53141430]"The Jews" don't share the blame for the Holocaust, "some Jews" do. "The Poles" don't share the blame for the Holocaust, "some Poles" do.
What's so difficult about this?[/QUOTE]
Yeah that's pretty much the point I'm making so I don't understand why you're asking me this question. And by what you wrote, that's pretty much what Morawiecki also said. So I ask again, what is so outrageous here?
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;53141439]Yeah that's pretty much the point I'm making so I don't understand why you're asking me this question. And by what you wrote, that's pretty much what Morawiecki also said. So I ask again, what is so outrageous here?[/QUOTE]
its clearly a nationalist dogwhistle, distracting people, building a narrative that makes them innocent. It started with rebranding the death-camps in poland, (they're running media ads saying they were german death-camps not poland's) then they start talking about how there also were those jews that helped the holocaust to marginalize their own role in it, next it will be something like "all of the holocaust was because of the germans", and the poles were just forced to do this, and then outright "there were no polish death camps, no polish involved, and it was all germany's fault."
You don't change history in one go, you incrementally change the narrative until its the one you want.
[QUOTE=Sableye;53141677]its clearly a nationalist dogwhistle, distracting people, building a narrative that makes them innocent. It started with rebranding the death-camps in poland, (they're running media ads saying they were german death-camps not poland's) then they start talking about how there also were those jews that helped the holocaust to marginalize their own role in it, next it will be something like "all of the holocaust was because of the germans", and the poles were just forced to do this, and then outright "there were no polish death camps, no polish involved, and it was all germany's fault."
You don't change history in one go, you incrementally change the narrative until its the one you want.[/QUOTE]
What the hell? You think calling the death camps "nazi germany's death camps" instead of "polish death camps" is revisionism? You think Poland was Germany's ally during WW2 or something? Are you for real?
The only narrative being pushed here is that Poland shares the blame for the holocaust and you already bought it.
Why don't you take Germany's Foreign Minister's word on it: “This organized mass murder was carried out by our country and no one else. Individual collaborators change nothing about that”
The "nationalist" side has always been consistent on this topic: "There were some Polish collaborators but the death camps weren't Polish and Poland doesn't share the blame for the holocaust".
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;53141425]I don't understand what is so outrageous here. There have been both Poles and Jews collaborating with the Nazis during the occupation. If you want to say that Poland shares the blame for the holocaust then [U]by your own logic[/U], so do the Jews.
Personally I'd say neither nation shares the blame for the holocaust, I'd say all the blame for the holocaust, specifically, is on the nazis. Both Poles and Jews are the victims here.[/QUOTE]
It just sounds like victim blaming. I wonder if we'll hear some politician say [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium]Belgium[/url] were complicit in their own war crimes. Or [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre"]China[/URL].
[editline]18th February 2018[/editline]
[QUOTE=Silly Sil;53141747]
The "nationalist" side has always been consistent on this topic: "There were some Polish collaborators but the death camps weren't Polish and Poland doesn't share the blame for the holocaust".[/QUOTE]
My stance generally is that many countries were in part complicit in the holocaust because Europe was insanely anti-semetic.
[QUOTE=Damn3d;53140897]If you're talking about Korwin what you said is not true. His opinions on women are questionable, [B]however he just said there is no evidence or any documents signed by Hitler that would confirm he knew about the Holocaust (which is true btw).[/B]
Also just to talk about the topic, I don't know what this fuss is about. The first reply says the same thing yet people don't criticise it. Yes, there were Polish as well as Jewish collaborators. The PM said it probably in the least offensive way possible.[/QUOTE]
Okay - fair point (perhaps); so where exactly was he going with this? Was it just an insignificant fun fact he babbled out?
[QUOTE=Sableye;53141677]its clearly a nationalist dogwhistle, distracting people, building a narrative that makes them innocent. It started with rebranding the death-camps in poland, (they're running media ads saying they were german death-camps not poland's) then they start talking about how there also were those jews that helped the holocaust to marginalize their own role in it, next it will be something like "all of the holocaust was because of the germans", and the poles were just forced to do this, and then outright "there were no polish death camps, no polish involved, and it was all germany's fault."
You don't change history in one go, you incrementally change the narrative until its the one you want.[/QUOTE]
Well, all of holocaust was because of the germans, the poles were just forced to do this, and there were no polish death camps (other then geographically). What exactly is your point here? Once again, I think youre mistaking the occupation of poland (which was 100% annexed to be part of germany) with puppet governments like in other countries like france.
[QUOTE=Sableye;53141677](they're running media ads saying they were german death-camps not poland's)[/QUOTE]
how exactly were they poland's death camps?
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53141855]It just sounds like victim blaming. I wonder if we'll hear some politician say [url=https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_of_Belgium]Belgium[/url] were complicit in their own war crimes. Or [URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanking_Massacre"]China[/URL].[/QUOTE]
And how does it sound when you take places where hundreds of thousands Poles were mass murdered and call it "Polish concentration camps"? How does it sound when you look how the Nazis invaded Poland, killed millions, stolen children, forced Polish people to slave labor and go "yep the Poles are complicit". Totally not victim blaming.
[QUOTE=Lambeth;53141855]My stance generally is that many countries were in part complicit in the holocaust because Europe was insanely anti-semetic.[/QUOTE]
Yeah many countries had their government comply to an extend with the Nazis. Poland had people from it's government executed (those that didn't escape), because the Nazis wanted to erase Poland from the map. Polish government in exile did not cooperate with the nazis. Poland as a nation did not cooperate with the nazis, Poland as a nation was supposed to be destroyed.
Sure there were some Poles who collaborated with the Nazis, whether they were giving up information on Jews or other Poles. That doesn't mean that Poland is complicit, because by that same dumb logic, the fact that there were some Jewish collaborators would mean that somehow Jews are partly complicit. Both ideas are equally stupid.
This is basically about about tying Polish anti-semitism to the German variety, because you're talking about two eurocontinental societies with a strong illiberal conservative history and in their rise to nation-hood being shaped by ethnic consciousness and threats on the international level. Holocaust scholars and Jews no doubt are aware of how Polish ideas of judeo-bolshevism (zydokomuna) developed in parallel to the German variety in the late 1910s, and how interwar Poland until Pilsudski's death was held together by a nationalist dictatorship whose figurehead was an ex-socialist, believed in promotheism (expansionist but not colonialist like lebensraum), and an anti-communist war hero. It doesn't help his main opponent was Roman Dmowski, who was pretty fascist.
It's an exaggeration to tie the two together as case studies in European anti-semitic ethnonationalism and use that to explain resistance to the EU and Karl Popper's liberal-democratic 'open society', but we can expect it to happen as Poland becomes along with Hungary an 'illiberal democracy', an outpost of nationalist resistance to 'neoliberalism' after being sheltered by the Iron Curtain from how the West was affected by the 60s.
These countries have short histories of independence and their post-91 national mythologies are troubled by trying to explain how communism relates to the nation's history. We see the same thing in Ukraine, where conflicts over different historical narratives define sharp divisions in the country.
Good read, very biased towards liberalism but interesting. Today's nationalism has a lot to do with backlash to the social effects of 1968 and the economic effect of 1989 combined. This particularly shapes Polish nationalism
[url]https://www.academia.edu/35862719/_Down_With_1989_Polands_Peculiar_Right-Wing_Backlash_Against_1968[/url]
[quote]One of the things that stands out about Poland’s 1968, fifty years later, is that there is no “other side” which condemns it as the start of a tendency or movement that must now be reversed. This is all the more surprising in that a radical right government is now in power in Poland, committed to dismantling democratic institutions and pushing through a traditionalist cultural counterrevolution against secularism, feminism, and a supposedly rampant anti-patriotic liberalism. And wasn’t 1968 everywhere all about new freedoms, radical democracy and the rise of a counterculture? Not in Poland. There is a culture war in Poland 2018, but the“progressive” side only got to be able to promote its vision after 1989.
It’s like 1968 is a phantom enemy for the right today. Those connected with the ruling Law and Justice party (PiS) cannot condemn the student protests of the time, since these were directed against (and repressed by) the communist authorities. But neither can they praise them, because left-wingers did dominate the events. Today the right directs its ire at 1989, blaming that caesura for introducing the “commie liberalism” (which others simply call liberal capitalist democracy) it is so intent on eliminating. This is an indirect bash at 1968, since leading ‘68’ers played a key role in the transformation of 1989. They negotiated the end to communist rule, took control of the new government, and then promoted liberal democracy and facilitated the rise of progressive culture, both of which today’s right finds anathema. So the right largely commemorates 1968 with silence, not scorn. No Houellebecq tries to eviscerate its legacy. Vilification is saved for 1989 instead.
[...]
Thus, of all the 1968 movements, east or west, Poland’s was the only one directed specifically against the left – against the communist party (Polish United Workers Party, or PZPR) which had ruled since 1945. In Czechoslovakia, activists always had powerful allies at the top. Even in Yugoslavia – the other country governed by a communist party to see major social protests in 1968 – student protests broke out in the context of reforms already going on.Tito had dismissed the hardline police chief Aleksandar Ranković in 1966, inaugurating a mini-glasnost that empowered liberal reformers, who were already operating in a framework where anti-Stalinism and self-management were the rule. Only in Poland did the students have no allies in the top echelons of the ruling party
[...]
Yet this movement against the left was organized by those in a new left. Poland’s 1968 was led by young left student activists who a few years earlier had been seeking “real communism” instead of the distorted rule of a bureaucratic elite (and who are today mostly liberals). By 1968 most of them had lost interest in Marxism per se, but remained loyal to a left ethos: for radical democracy and self-management, against integral nationalism and theocratic power. When mass protests started in March 1968, participation grew far larger than that strict left group. Some conservative-minded student groups joined in, while most protestors saw themselves as just trying to protect university autonomy, or registering their objection to the authorities. But because this new left was the catalyst of that fight, and the chief target of the ensuing repression, the movement had an inescapably left hue.
Indeed, hard-right anti-communists condemned it as part of an internal struggle among communists, precisely because its origins were on the left. Due to the fierce repression of the movement, however, and the fact that so many later oppositionists got their start there and became an influence on others, that view never gained much traction (though this might soon change, as we shall see in the conclusion). Still, this means the right cannot quite claim 1968 as its own. Thus today it largely ignores 1968, and only the liberal-left embraces it.
How does the left remember 1968? There are, of course, virtually no communists anymore, in the sense of staunch defenders of the PZPR. (And even the PZPR apologized for its behavior in 1988, one year before giving up power.) That leaves two other lefts today. The first are the followers of the original student organizers, including many of the original members, who became liberal democrats in the 1970s and neoliberals - enthusiastic supporters of capitalism with few regulations – in the 1980s, but who still count as left because of their defense of democracy, inclusiveness, rule of law, and their rejection of nationalism. The other is a new, anti-capitalist left whose members came to adulthood only in the postcommunist era, and who dismiss the left-liberals as apologists for capitalism not so very different from the right. The liberal left has been and remains the standard-bearer of the memory of 1968. It is the group whose leaders, fifty years ago, led the student protests, and who have played such a large role in politics afterwards: as opposition leaders in the 1970s, Solidarity and underground activists in the 1980s, and strong defenders of the post-1989 political order. Yet just as the right tends to pass over 1968 in favor of 1989, so the liberal left focuses on the later date, too. For them, the real accomplishment of 1968 was that it served as a crucial stepping stone in the march towards 1989. It was in 1968 that they turned away from Marxism, gave up hopes for party reform, recognized the importance of patriotism, developed underground skills, and established contacts with milieus far different from their own both geographically and ideologically. If the right cannot fully acknowledge 1968 because of the dominant role played by the left, today’s anti-capitalist left sees 1968 as the moment when the new left turned right. The charge is that they abandoned not just Marxism but a focus on inequality, and as a result of the anti-Semitism that was a key element of the repression of the movement, began to fear their own society. In this way, runs the accusation, “they opened the door for the return of the right.”
Anti-Semitism? Here we get to the other element of 1968 that complicates its reception fifty years later. For while this was a movement against communist party rule, and thus against the left, that left in power was at that very moment controlled by a right, “patriotic” fraction. “National communism” had reached its peak. Led by Interior Minister Mieczysław Moczar, the party not only abandoned its denigration of nationalist traditions, but revived the anti-Semitism associated with Poland’s far right. For the Moczarites, the PZPR had too long been under the influence of Jewish Stalinists and “cosmopolitan” intellectuals, and needed a patriotic infusion so the Party could better represent the nation whose interests it was supposed to serve
This is another reason why 1968 was such a critical juncture not only for the left but for the right as well. The student protestors could more easily give up on all hopes for the Party when the latter sounded and acted like fascists. The right’s ambiguity towards 1968 is heightened by its admiration, despite everything, of the patriotic turn made by the communists. “Weren’t you ever attracted by Moczarism, with its more patriotic, more national, socialism?”, a right-wing journalist asked PiS leader Jarosław Kaczyński. No, he replied, though he acknowledged that it was “thanks to Moczar” that the Home Army finally got the respect it was due and “patriotic songs began to be sung in schools again."
[/quote]
[QUOTE=Pitchfork;53140619]Just look at [url=https://archive.is/AoTlr]this shit[/url] and how they tried to deal with jan gross's history-backed claims. [/QUOTE]
Gross's work isn't perfect, at least [I]Neighbors[/I].
This is from ""NEIGHBORS" RECONSIDERED" by Piotr Wrobel and published in the Journal [I]The Polish Review[/I], Vol. 46, No 4 (2001). Pages 419-429. [URL="http://www.jstor.org/stable/25779292"]Retrieved from Jstor[/URL].
[quote] It is difficult not to agree with Deak's opinion that [I]Neighbors[/I], a powerful and momentous book, includes several statements difficult to accept, especially for professional historians. [quote]To begin with - writes Jan Gross - I suggest that we should modify our approach to sources for the period. When considering survivors' testimonies, we would be well advised to change the starting premise in appraisal of their evidentiary contribution from [I]a priori[/I] critical to in principle affirmative. By accepting what we read in a particular account as fact [I]until we find persuasive arguments to the contrary[/I], we would avoid more mistakes that we are likely to commit by adopting the opposite approach, which calls for cautious skepticism toward any testimony [I]until an independent confirmation of its content has been found? [/I][Italics in the original.][/quote]
The author's intentions here are clear: survivors are less and less numerous, their voices are drowned by other comments, and those who were killed in the Holocaust are unable to speak for themselves. Yet, no professional historian can accept the above methodological statement. The postulate that Jan Gross wants to eliminate belongs among the most basic rules of our profession. There is no touchstone for historical truth besides the commitment to basic standards of historical veridicality, the commitment to accuracy and to the procedures of verification and documentation. In addition, witnesses' testimonies are sometimes mutually exclusive. For example, Jedwabne pogrom survivors Rivka Fogel and Itzchak Yaacov (Yanek) Neumark, whose testimonies have been published in Yedwabne. History and Memorial Book, describe some parts of the pogrom differently than Szmul Wasserstein, the key witness for Jan Gross. In spite of this, Gross claims that Wasserstein's deposition "has to be taken literally."
The author's attitude towards primary sources assumes disturbing forms on many pages of the book. We can read there that in Jedwabne "the Polish half of a town's population murders its Jewish half.' This is a powerful accusation and a catchy phrase, but primary sources give us no evidence t[o] support it. On the contrary: Szmul Wasserstein and other survivors call the perpetrators "local hooligans." Itzchak Yaacov (Yanek) Neumark, who managed to escape from the burning barn, claims in his testimony published by the Baker brothers that some Poles did not want to participate in the crime. Neumark mentions a prewar Polish police chief who opposed it and another Poles who escaped to Warsaw after he had protested against the pogrom. It would also be very interesting to explain a most surprising statement by Neumark: "An American [sic] gentile who did not want to take part in the slaughter was also thrown into the flaming barn.' Leaving aside the controversial issue of German participation, it appears that, indeed, a large group of local Poles and numerous peasants from the nearby villages, altogether definitely well over one hundred persons, took part in the pogrom and terrorized the town so efficiently that nobody dared protest or oppose them. This is shameful enough, but it is not identical with "die Polish half of a town's population murders its Jewish half."
Neighbors is based on several sources: the Wasserstein testimony; the documentations of the 1949 and 1953 trials of the participants of the Jedwabne pogrom; the Bakers' Memorial Book; and the interviews recorded by filmmaker Agnieszka Arnold and by Jan Gross himself. The interviews, done in the late 1990s, cannot be considered reliable sources, especially regarding the details of the crime. Similarly, the Memorial Book prepared over thirty years after the war by two men can serve only as supplementary evidence. The postwar trials were "hastily arranged" and involved typical Stalinist interrogation methods involving beating and torturing suspects. It is, therefore, difficult to agree with Gross' statement that their documentation "can serve us well." In addition, both trials were triggered by and based on the Wasserstein testimony. This deposition, given four years after the crime, is in fact the only historical primary source that can be considered sufficiently reliable.
It is unfortunate, however, that this is the only source of this kind. According to both Jewish and Roman judicial traditions, "one witness is no witness" - [I]testis unus, testis nullus[/I]. In 1966, the late Szymon Datner, probably the most outstanding Polish specialist on the Holocaust in Poland ever, published a long article on "The Extermination of the Jewish Population in the District of Biafystok." This article also mentions Jedwabne. However, Szymon Datner could not write openly about the anti-Jewish pogroms because of censorship in communist Poland. Nevertheless, analyzing the Jedwabne crime, Datner used several testimonies deposited in the Archives of the Jewish Historical Institute in Warsaw and given not only by Szmul Wasserstein but also by Abraham Belawicki and Abraham Sniadowicz. It appears in the text that to Datner (who, incidentally, also gives a different number of the people burned in the barn) the testimonies of Belawicki and Sniadowicz were more important than the Wasserstein deposition. Why did Gross ignore these sources entirely? Finally, although oral history is en vogue today, we have to be very careful with testimonies given sevveral - or even worse - dozens of years after the fact. An Israeli scholar, Ben-Cion Pinchuk, writes in the introduction to his book on the Jews under Soviet occupation: "It is clear that the presence of the narrator on the spot at the time does not itself guarantee authenticity. Given the strong tendency to reconstruct the past from the vantage point of the present, and the very high possibility of forgetting many details, one has to be very careful in using the evidence.'[/quote]
He also seems to have neglected German sources in his study, which is odd considering that research carried out at the Holocaust Memorial in Washington D.C., along with a liteny of other scholars, demosnstrated that the [I]Einsatzgruppen [/I]and [I]Eisatzkommandos[/I] had planned pograms before the invasion of the Soviet Union, and oftentimes instigated these pograms. Alexander B. Rossino from the United States Holocaust Memorial Museum argued in 2001, according to Piotr Wrobel, that the Pogram in Jedwabne was instigated and carried out by "Sonderkommandos led by SS officers Adolf Bonifer, Erich Engels, Johannes Bohm, and Wolfgang Birkner".
That's not to say Gross's book is completely awful, but rather that it's not perfect. As Piotr Wrobel states, it helped really open the debate about this stuff up in Poland, and is important in that regards. His conclusion
[quote] I hope that the Jedwabne debate will help to change a scandalous situation, in which Poland, so important to the history of the Holocaust and so distinctly shaped by it, has not a single scholarly center which specializes in Holocaust studies, and not a single scholar focusing his or her research mostly on this issue. The Jedwabne debate has already improved the Poles' and Westerners' general knowledge about Polish Jews. There is also hope that Polish educational programs, not satisfactory in this respect, will be changed. Neighbors has reopened the discussion on Polish-Jewish relations, especially during World War II. As a byproduct, the Jedwabne debate has demonstrated clearly a conflict between collective memory and history in Poland. Should historians serve as myth destroyers? How dangerous can bad history be? Can a suppressed history "explode"? Is Jan Gross' book such an "explosion"? What can replace a discredited history? How can historians contribute to the shaping of historical conscience? How can historians disassociate themselves from the deformations of collective memory and, at the same time, preserve respect for their discipline and support of their audience? These and similar questions asked by theoreticians have become practical problems in contemporary Poland.[/quote]
That said as well, I don't think he should be prosecuted at all.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.