Jump to content

Talk:The Holocaust in Poland/Archives/2018/May

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Missing information

The Holocaust in Poland included genocide of Poles and Roma besides the Jewish victims. Currently there is only information about Jewish victims

As per main article about the Holocaust: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holocaust#Victims_and_death_toll --MyMoloboaccount (talk) 17:19, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Use of Mark Paul as a source

I've removed some information sourced to Mark Paul, which was self-published on-line and via PEFINA. This was reverted (note that this affected approx. 2 sentences of text). Per WP:SPS self-published sources are not an acceptable sources generally. Mark Paul (bio details unavailable - it is possible this is pseudo-name or composite) has been publishing "response tracts" to notable works (e.g. Neighbors by Gross, Hunt for the Jews by Grabowski, There once was a world: A 900-Year Chronicle of the Shtetl of Eishyshok by Eliach, etc.) under the Committee for the Defence and Propagation of the Good Name of Poland and the Poles of the Canadian Polish Congress. These works are hardly cited by reliable sources (in google scholar - one of them has 1 cite, if you search via books - you get a bit more hits - but some of the citing books themselves are not reliable (e.g. self-published)). Also at issue is that the online PDFs/Words are updated (they are not static) - and page numbers are liable to change. It is actually quite hard to find RSes covering Mark Paul, however per Allan Levine in a footnote in a new edition of fugitives of the Forest, Ironically, even a cursory examination of The Story of Two Shtetls reveals that Mark Paul and the other authors in this generally anti-Jewish tract rely almost overwhelmingly on Polish secondary sources-rather than archival research-to discount the "Jewish version" of the events described. In other words and without explanation, Polish histories of the Holocaust are taken as the gospel truth, while Jewish sources and testimonies are mostly treated as complete falsehoods.Icewhiz (talk) 14:14, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Note 2

The above wall-of-text is a multiple copy-paste entry by User:Icewhiz first added to Talk:Rescue of Jews by Poles during the Holocaust on 25 April 2018, with no relevancy to this article content.

Yes, the same 'meme' was just rewritten by User:Icewhiz to mean exactly the same thing with the use of slightly different words. I repeat, his intentions are quite obvious throughout. Please look at his edit wars, and the AN/I reports. There's no end to it. Poeticbent talk 15:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive981#Disruptive editing on pages under DS:Eastern Europe
Claims made in the Hunt for the Jews by Grabowski (which User:Icewhiz is POV-pushing hard in mostly pathetic edit wars) have never been confirmed for accuracy by any reputable historian of the Holocaust whatsoever. Some authors mention his (never reviewed) work in their 'Notes', that's all. Grabowski however, is a new darling of Haaretz. Icewhiz is single-handedly trying to make him into something he isn't by gaming the system under false pretences. Poeticbent talk 15:36, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Grabowski (who has been covered in RS, and reviewed in peer reviewed journals, as well as being cited), but who to the best of my knowledge has not cited or mentioned Mark Paul - has no relevance on whether Mark Paul, writing in WP:SELFPUBLISHed books, is WP:RS.Icewhiz (talk) 16:21, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Please don't lie. No reputable historian of the Holocaust has ever confirmed Grabowski's claims. In fact, the exact opposite is true. If you don't want to have anyone mentioned, in replies to your repeat attempts at WP:SOAPBOXING, than stop pushing their names with your (always the same) POV qualifiers. And please desist from making your own unproven claims by WP:SHOUTING. Thank you, Poeticbent talk 16:39, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
Off topic. On-topic - the sources you restored are WP:SELFPUBLISHed, by an author with unclear credentials (he is not described in his own books, as far as I can tell, nor could I find bio information for him - though being a very common name - makes searching for him difficult). What are you supporting inclusion of these sources by Paul?Icewhiz (talk) 16:44, 26 April 2018 (UTC)

Everything here is 'on-topic' because the topic is the Holocaust in German-occupied Poland. Groundbreaking works on the Holocaust have been (quote-unquote) "self-published". One of them is: Belzec, Sobibor, Treblinka. Holocaust Denial and Operation Reinhard (571 pages), featuring an exhaustive analysis of all available data on the Treblinka gas chambers. It was published by Holocaust Controversies in 2011.[1] Ironically, the reply to this volume by a group of vehement Holocaust deniers published by Castle Hill was NOT "self-published" by Icewhiz's standards. Another good example is The Rabka Four - Instruments of Genocide and Grand Larceny. A Warning from History by Robin O'Neil first published completely online in 2011 or "WP:SELFPUBLISHed".[2]

For those of you who might not be familiar with what is really going on here in regard to this hunt for WP:RS authors – please be aware that the only in-depth review; and point-by-point analysis (ever written) on the Hunt for the Jews by Grabowski, actually originates from Mark Paul. It is a 140-page (1.4 MB) critique in a form of an exceptionally well-researched paper made available online by the Polish Canadian Congress. This is an actual real motive behind this argument. Poeticbent talk 18:24, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

  1. https://kpk-toronto.org/wp-content/uploads/Grabowski-Hunt-Critique-3.doc
Grabowski is off topic for the sources above. KPK's work of issuing unread and uncited responses spans two decades. This work being done unde "Committee for the defence and Propagation of the Good Name of Poland and the Poles" [3] raises severe WP:BIASED and advocacy concerns. While self published works may be, in rare cases, reliable there is no indication these are - they are almost always ignored by notable authors and scholars and appear mainly in shady internet forums and sites (some quite a bit beyond shady) and on amazon.com reader comments for well read books on the topic. There is absolutely nothing here that would suggest reliability of these self published works and quite a few red flags.Icewhiz (talk) 19:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Paul is extensively cited on the justice4poland.com website, e.g. [4], a site devoted to "Connecting true geography and detailed unfolding of wide variety of crimes perpetrated by German/Ukrainian Nazis and jewish bolsheviks of Soviet Union on the Polish nation." - which speaks volumes about reliability here.Icewhiz (talk) 19:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Anyone can copy-paste from another webpage, either legally or not. That's a different matter. The best one can do is to alert the lawful publisher about the issue. However, there's another thing that troubles me recently. How come, it was you, who provided OTRS Ticket:2018032610007576 for the photograph which you did not make @ File:Jan Grabowski 2018.jpg? Are you Jan Grabowski or perhaps a close associate of his? Per WP:DISCLOSE: If you become involved in an article where you have any COI, you should always let other editors know about it. Poeticbent talk 20:12, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I have no COI to disclose in regards to the Holocaust, Poland, or Grabowski (whose relevance to this discussion escapes me). I did email Grabowski asking for a photo release after not finding a good free one online (I did upload the USHMM photo first) - something I have done for other subjects, e.g. [5] (I emailed the photographer). Do you perhaps have a COI to disclose in relation to KPK or Mark Paul? I am puzzled by the challenge to remove these cites which support very little text, but are in the bibliography in a notable location - and this for self published books!Icewhiz (talk) 20:31, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
I have no WP:COI of anykind here. I'm only concerned with the new and unjustified attacks on historians of the Holocaust (referred to in numerous academic works, and in many Wikipedia articles already), per WP:NEUTRALITY. Thanks, Poeticbent talk 20:56, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Stmt duly noted. WP:ONUS is on you to show why self published works by "Committee for the defence and Propagation of the Good Name of Poland and the Poles" [6] meet WP:RS policy (which beyond various other red flags, [[WP:SPS would preclude as would lack of significant citations by others). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icewhiz (talk • contribs) 21:03, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Please stop playing this wp:game with me, and don't lie about any "works" by "Committee" because you know better. The same paper by Mark Paul is also hosted by the University of Notre Dame at https://www.coursehero.com/file/30253496/Grabowski-Hunt-Critique-3doc/. Almost every single one of your contributions to Poland-related articles is a WP:REDFLAG. I have no idea where you get your energy from, for all that. Poeticbent talk 21:46, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
Please, WP:NPA. A document uploaded to coursehero by loafmkanyoo is not an indication of reliability (nor is it one of the titles discussed here - but even if it was). SPS online books by authors with an unknown bio (Mark Paul's credentials do not seem to be even self described in these documents - and I at least have been unable to locate Paul (this one) from beyond the title) - do not make a reliable source.Icewhiz (talk) 21:57, 28 April 2018 (UTC)

Open access

  • There is a serious problem here with regard to the meaning of the phrase "SELFPUBLISHed" in Wikipedia. In order to become "WP:SELFPUBLISHed" one needs to 'publish the self' first. There's no self-publishing without the publishing process. The various weblinks to papers by Mark Paul hosted by Glaukopis quarterly (which is a scientific journal), and the Polish Canadian Congress, are just links to his papers. They are NOT self-published books ... they are 'self-written' books made available via PDF files which are hosted by portals which disseminate knowledge and/or support their own communities. Mark Paul is not "self-publishing" anything by our standards. He writes, and makes his work available ... not to general public, but to internet portals which store his documents at their own discretion, and provide links to them. The "WP:SELFPUBLISHing" charge is false and intentionally misleading.
    However, Mark Paul's identity is also shrouded in mystery since at least 10 years ago in Wikipedia – which is like an eternity in its time-span. He has been virulently attacked, and called names by problem users repeatedly, because his research illuminates dark corners of the post-Holocaust historiography, and his knowledge in this area along with reputation for fact-checking are enormous. "Paul's work is obsessively footnoted" wrote Sonia Misak (East European Jewish Affairs, Volume 28, Issue 2 Winter 1998, pp. 114-116), whatever she meant by that. Perhaps, there are reasons for Paul to stay out of dodge. We don't know that. He might be a monk for example – monks don't write for money – or a convert; an armchair philosopher; a theologian ... or an academic demoted after questioning the official party line. Anything's possible. Personally, I don't think Mark Paul will ever reveal his real-life identity after twenty (20) years of writing under a nom de plume but that doesn't make his research any less enlightening. You can read his damning revaluation of Grabowski's Hunt for Jews at http://studylib.net/doc/25162478 (for now) without having to download anything. Poeticbent talk 02:53, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
    • Back in the days of yore, these were self published by PEFINA press (Polish Educational Foundation of North America - which is associated with the congress (and seems to have published only Mark Paul and little else) - and you could mail order these in book form from the KPK congress for 20 bucks) - the newer versions (and all of these PDFs/DOCs have multiple versions - works from the 90s all have an updated electronic version) seem to be inline only. They are obsessively footnoted from my reading (some chapters are more than 80% screenspace of small font footnotes). Paul's identity is a mystery (the name seems like an alias - which may mean one individual - or a composite of many people at the congress) Getting his work hosted by Glaukopis.pl's website does not indicate a peer review, nor do any of the other online sites this is hosted (www.glaukopis.pl, www.internationalresearchcenter.org, or http://kpk-toronto.org) - and falls within the definiton of WP:SPS or alternatively WP:USERGENERATED - neither of which is acceptable as a source. Most tellingly, these are simply very rarely cited by anyone else - which means we should not use them either.Icewhiz (talk) 03:38, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
      To be clear - if you are claiming these aren't self-published (which some of the older ones were, at least per my understanding) - then it is WP:USERGENERATED - per your own words they are 'self-written' books made available via PDF files which are hosted by portals which disseminate knowledge and/or support their own communities. Mark Paul is not "self-publishing" anything by our standards. He writes, and makes his work available ... not to general public, but to internet portals which store his documents at their own discretion, and provide links to them.. WP:USERGENERATED is even less acceptable than self-published books as source.Icewhiz (talk) 06:29, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Please stop talking to yourself and misrepresenting policies to justify your partisan POVPUSH. The historian in question does not run "personal websites, personal blogs, group blogs, or internet forums." WP:USERGENERATED is unrelated here. Please, read the writing on the wall. WP:CONSENSUS is required. Glaukopis, ISSN 1730-3419 is a brick-and-mortar publishing output with stamp of approval from the Ministy of Science and Upper Education. No need to 'bold' the presence of "website" which every single journal regularly maintains these days. References from Mark Paul have been confirmed and are listed in this article as well, particularly Isaac Bashevis Singer. Poeticbent talk 14:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
Consensus is required for inclusion. In this peer-reviewed journal article - Zeleznikow, John. "Life at the end of the world: a Jewish Partisan in Melbourne." Holocaust Studies 16.3 (2010): 11-32. - the documents by Paul are mentioned Whatever the result of the case in a court of law, the larger discussions about the partisan activities have produced some demonstrably false claims. For instance, in a document published by the Canadian Polish Congress..... (the citation does contain Mark Paul) but are are ascribed to the Canadian Polish Congress - which would not be a reputable source by any policy grounds - including per Zeleznikow "demonstrably false claims".Icewhiz (talk) 12:37, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

2010 allegations

Please note: the above dead link from Icewhiz reads: "This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it: <Error><Code>AccessDenied</Code>...</Error>

Reply John Zeleznikow allegations by Paul. Note 362 on page 208 of Tangled Web (2016 expanded edition, 432 pages).

[Abraham] Zeleznikow [father] became a Soviet “intelligence officer” before leaving for central Poland in 1945. See Richard Peterson, A Place of Sensuous Resort: Buildings of St Kilda and Their People (Melbourne: St Kilda Historical Society, 2005), chapter 5. Curiously, Abram Zeleznikow’s son, John Zeleznikow,[1] alleges that discussions about the activities of the Jewish partisans “have produced some demonstrably false claims.” He attempts to illustrate this point by referring to the fact that the present work (A Tangled Web) states that his father did not mention the attack on Koniuchy in an earlier account, but did mention it in his 1993 interview. Since he does not dispute this in any way, there is nothing false about this claim. John Zeleznikow also appears to take issue with the fact that this work states that his father was part of the “Struggle” unit, insisting that his father’s group “was named ‘Death to Fascism’ and was commanded by Abba Kovner.” However, all historical accounts agree that Kovner was the commander of the “Avenger” unit, not the “Death to Fascism” unit. John Zeleznikow then goes on to explain how his father came to rationalize the slaughter of “thirty-eight Lithuanians” (sic) in Koniuchy: “He accepted that split-second decisions needed to be made to save his and his comrades’ lives. There was no time for ethical decision-making and perhaps some killings were unnecessary but enabled by an historic context of violence and desperation.” However, the assault on Koniuchy was not a “split-second” decision; it was a carefully planned mass slaughter of civilians, mostly women and children, who posed no threat to the Soviet and Jewish partisans.

Comment: NOTHING here is related to the present article. This is the usual beating around the bush by Icewhiz in an attempt to discredit any-and-all Polish historians whose WP:BLPs he's been trying to deface lately by quoting pro-Israeli anonymous attack pages. Poeticbent talk 04:14, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
  1. John Zeleznikow, “Life at the End of the World: A Jewish Partisan in Melbourne,” Holocaust Studies: A Journal of Culture and History, vol. 16, no. 3 (Winter 2010): 11–32.
The deadlink is since the s3.amazon url seems to change. google the title in scholar gets to the article. I have not used "pro-Israeli anonymous attack pages" for any article. As for the connection to this article - it relates to the reliability of the self-published/user-generated works by Mark Paul - this being one of the very few cites of Paul in a peer-reviewed setting (in this case - to point out errors in these publications by the Committee for the Defence and Propagation of the Good Name of Poland and the Poles).Icewhiz (talk) 05:52, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
But you have no problem with making this extraordinary claim (edit [7]) citing as a source some unknown Dr. Kwiatkowska's Ph.D. thesis [8] It appears that you are being very dishonest while evaluating sources Icewhiz. GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:08, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Far from an extraordinary claim - it is a simple analysis of this particular right-wing newspaper, and the University College London is a top-tier university[9].Icewhiz (talk) 06:36, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
So you are declaring that Dr. Kwiatkowska's Ph.D. thesis is a RS but historian Mark Paul work is not. Do I read you correctly Icewhiz ? GizzyCatBella (talk) 06:44, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
Who's Mark Paul? What are his credentials? Has he ever published through an academic press or some other respected publisher? Do you have his Ph.D thesis? Why is a venerable "no-one" cited here to support contentious statements? François Robere (talk) 07:38, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I suspect "Mark Paul" is an alias - we have absolutely nothing (beyond "independent scholar" or referring to his works as "published by the Canadian Polish Congress") about him - including anything about his education or occupation.Icewhiz (talk) 07:46, 7 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm not sure if my comment is useful (If you can't tell, I've found editing in this area a bit toxic and have largely refrained recently), but I agree that there isn't really any reason to consider PEFINA a reliable publisher or Paul a respected subject expert. Paul's work is certainly expertly written, but to me he looks like an advocate for a fringe set of theories and there is very little discussion of his work in reliable sources (one possible exception: https://books.google.com/books?lr=&id=9G9_AgAAQBAJ&q=mark+paul). What I've read of his that isn't fringe can increasingly be found elsewhere and I don't really understand the motivation not to switch from less to more reliable sources. For instance, the reversion which started this discussion (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=The_Holocaust_in_Poland&diff=838355618&oldid=838337633) cites Paul when stating that lack of Polish assimilation among Jews should be contrasted with "the overwhelming majority of German Jews of this period [who] spoke German as their first language". This is an extremely misleading statement, as the majority of middle-class and of urban Jews in Poland spoke Polish, a majority of children spoke Polish and attended state schools for elementary education, there was a sense of Yiddish fading in many areas, etc.([10] and [11]) More up-to-date and reliable sources would definitely give a more accurate picture here and elsewhere. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:49, 8 May 2018 (UTC)
Just a note that I jusst now added a link to the sources for my claims in this previous paragraph in small text. Smmurphy(Talk) 21:29, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Paul himself cites Isaac Bashevis Singer (a bit out of context it would seem) - he was a promoter of the Yiddish language in the US (as well as winning a Noble prize for his Yiddish authorship) - who grew up in a backwater shtetl and as an adult also spent time in Warsaw prior to emigrating to the States in 1935. Singer wouldn't be an expert source for Yiddish/Polish fluency throughout Poland - though he would be a PRIMARY source for his family. I agree with your assessment that this is misleading regarding Urban Jews in 1939, though perhaps correct in the backwaters.Icewhiz (talk) 16:13, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

I hope, we all understand what is really going on here. The above attacks are NOT on any one historian but on Holocaust history per se. We have a two-prong WP:TAG TEAM attempting to erase some facts from public memory (i.e. every single instance of Jewish World War II complicity in the mistreatment of others). According to this WP:TAG TEAM's own perpetual WP:GAME, the only sure way to do this is by shooting the messenger. — Let me explain. In February 2018 Polish parliament passed the so-called Holocaust bill. The international outrage was accompanied by the media frenzy. Some writers began throwing tantrums, and saying dumb things. Outright distortions of history in the papers and personal tripping became the new norm, biased samples abound! Mind you, I don't have a problem accepting carefully controlled omissions from some Wikipedia entries, but not like THIS. Icewhiz/Robere WP:TAG TEAM went on a rampage, slashing and burning like there was no tomorrow, deleting up to 50% of some articles, and staging libelous attacks on Polish historians. This is blunt manipulation of long-established Wikipedia principles; NOT ACCEPTABLE by any behavioral standards. But, is there anybody listening? Poeticbent talk 21:53, 9 May 2018 (UTC)

Slatersteven would advise you this is a WP:SOAPBOX, and you should be wary as the page is subject to DS. I would further advise that you avoid WP:PERSONAL attacks against other editors, both for reasons of civility as well as ANI and SPI's unwillingness to accomodate these aggressions in the past. Do you have anything on the question of Mark Paul's credibility? François Robere (talk) 22:09, 9 May 2018 (UTC)
I would agree, the above is not constructive and both attacks users motives and discuses of wiki attitudes.Slatersteven (talk) 12:36, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
@Poeticbent: In general - cleaning up Wikipedia from WP:FRINGE theories from WP:QS authors is not a "slash and burn" campaign. Poorly crafted articles, with outright hoax or extremist material do Wikipedia great harm. As for Paul, he makes his own POV clear in the following passage: (from NEIGHBOURS -On the Eve of the Holocaust, 2017 version)

"While the gathering of accounts is still in its infancy, like many aspects of wartime Polish-Jewish relations, a fairly clear outline emerges of some sordid and shameful aspects of the conduct of Jews vis-à-vis their Polish neighbours under Soviet rule. It is an immensely important story that has never before been told and one that redefines the history of wartime Polish-Jewish relations. There is overwhelming evidence that Jews played an important, at times pivotal role, in arresting hundreds of Polish officers and officials in the aftermath of the September 1939 campaign and in deporting thousands of Poles to the Gulag. Collaboration in the destruction of the Polish state, and in the killing of its officials and military, constituted de facto collaboration with Nazi Germany, with which the Soviet Union shared a common, criminal purpose and agenda in 1939–1945. As such, it is an integral and important aspect of the study of wartime collaboration and one of the most important studies of Polish-Jewish relations to be published in decades. With the publication of Neighbours on the Eve of the Holocaust, the history of Polish-Jewish relations during the Second World War can never again revert to the simplistic patterns of the past, which focused exclusively on Polish conduct in general and on the victimization of the Jews."

(boding not in the original, page 14 of the 2017 version)
Mark Paul makes several things clear in this passage regarding his own views and acceptance of these views by others:
  1. Per Paul - Jews collaborated with Soviets, and de-facto (by extension) with Nazi Germany which "shared a common, criminal purpose and agenda in 1939–1945" with the Soviets. (the mainstream view being that while the Soviets possibly shared the Nazies opposition to an independent nationalist Poland (for different reasons, e.g. the Russian Empire having held the Russian Partition of Poland for over a hundred years prior to WWI and the losses in the Polish–Soviet War ) - they were hostile to Nazi Germany even in 1939-41, and certainly opposed in 1941-45 (beyond, perhaps, the narrow question of post-war Polish independence) - Jews are generally seen in mainstream discourse as victims in WWII, who were also oppressed and expelled by the Soviets (though, ironically, being sent to the Gulag from Eastern Poland was a god save - saving those Jews from the Polish pogroms and the subsequent Nazi orchestrated Holocaust) - as well as being victims of Germany)
  2. Paul is recounting an untold story, which has never before been published.
  3. Paul acknowledges that mainstream scholarship has "focused exclusively on Polish conduct in general and on the victimization of the Jews".
It would seem however, that the publishing by Paul is WP:SELFPUBLISHED, and Paul's identity remains unknown (all we know is his connection to KPK). Paul was responding to Jan T. Gross Neighbors: The destruction of the Jewish community in Jedwabne, Poland which is widely regarded as one of the groundbreaking works in Holocaust history in the past 2 decades and per Google scholar has been cited some 717 times by other authors - a definitive work. Paul's document, on the other hand, has been cited zero times per scholar (considering it is there - it probably was cited once somewhere - perhaps they filtered out cites that they eventually flagged as WP:QS/WP:SPS in Google). It would seem Paul's story - which google books says was first released as early as 2001 shortly after Gross (it seems there are multiple extant versions of this document in existence - I cited the 2017 version above, but there are many versions in between) - remains untold. Beyond the WP:SPS issue, per WP:BALASP we should reflect this on Wikipedia - leaving it untold here as well.Icewhiz (talk) 12:25, 10 May 2018 (UTC)

"only occupied county with death penalty"

@Volunteer Marek: with this this revert yiu restored information sourced to a self published book (iUniverse) by a WP:QS author Ewa Kurek (see wyborcza article on her views on "Jews having fun in the ghetto" or [12]). Not only that - this is false information. While some propaganda pieces like to claim Poland was the only place witha death penalty for helping Jews (and I will note that none of the authors claiming this have a cross-country research background) - this is incorrect - "only_German-occupied_European_country"_with_death_penalty see this discussion or page 55 of Grabowski's book that was there previously. This was applied in territories east of Poland as well as Territory of the Military Commander in Serbia and elsewhere. We should not repeat fake news on Wikipedia, all the more so when sourcing used is dubious self published books.Icewhiz (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll AGF and remove Kurek but give me some time to check into the rest of it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:20, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
With regard to the "only occupied country in Europe" - there are other sources there which say the same thing but I think the issue is with what the word "automatically" means. While you could get killed for helping Jews in other countries, the Germans applied this haphazardly. In Poland it was pretty automatic. You would need to bring some other sources here, esp. with regard to "territories east of Poland" (what does that mean? Russia? It better mean Russia ;) ) and Serbia. Also your link to the other discussion doesn't work for me.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:27, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
To be clear, I'm open to clarifying or rewording this, but the distinction between the situation in Poland and that in other occupied countries is crucial and it is almost always brought up in sources, so something like this has to be in there.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:32, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
It is a long running claim in some Polish sources (some of which is just copied over by inertia) - but it is incorrect. It was known to be incorrect as early as Jan 1942 - see this Jan 1942 press report (this are secondary sources of high quality, but sometimes period reports are more convincing). It is correct that in Western Europe this was not applied (though people there helping Jews were sent to concentration camps and many died) - which probably morphed to all countries in a careless step by someone (to be fair - prior to the computer/internet age making these cross country checks was not trivial)... The same nazi order was issued in every place they controlled directly (not one of their proxies) in the east and north - including Norway. In Holland, for instance, the death penalty order did not apply (you still could get killed for helping a Jew, but this was not on the books, and if that is "all you did" (as opposed to wider subversive action) - you probably would not be killed). However in Serbia, Ukraine and other USSR parts, and I think Norway - it was the same sutomatic death sentence on the books - same order more or less. This was applied more often in Poland as there were more Jews and helpers(Norway just had around 2000 - compared to around 3 milllion in Poland!).Icewhiz (talk) 18:41, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
Ok but you need secondary sources... NOT from 1942. (And your source for Norway can be read ambiguously - they faced death penalty because they were part of the resistance, which then helped Jews, rather than just for rescuing Jews). Also, you need to propose a wording here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 18:46, 11 May 2018 (UTC)
See some secondary sources "only_German-occupied_European_country"_with_death_penalty here, as well as Grabowski which I was following in "Those helping Jews were at risk of execution by the Germans following a German regulation in October 1941, similar to regulations that were issued by the Germans in territories east of Poland.[1]". I do not think we should get into lenghly comparative death penalty (between countries) in this article which is about Poland - that would be a better fit in The Holocaust or Individuals and groups that assisted Jews during the Holocaust.Icewhiz (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2018 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Hunt for the Jews, Jan Grabowski, page 55, Indiana University Press
  • Comment: Lukas indeed mentions this: "These people either feared becoming actively involved in aiding Jews because of the risk of the death penalty the Germans automatically imposed on Poles who helped Jews — Poland was the only occupied country where this was done —...." but his book that he quotes (The Forgotten Holocaust) first appeared in 1986 and is rather dated 30 years on. Columbia Guide to the Holocaust merely repeats Lukas: [13].
USHMM says: "Jews in hiding and their protectors risked severe punishment if captured. In much of German-occupied eastern Europe, such activities were deemed capital offences" [14]. Eastern Europe would include Lithuania, Ukraine, Belarus, Russia, etc. See also: [15] (Belarus); [16] (Ukraine).
There's some discussion about the death penalty in GG here: Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw, 1940-1945, which says it was not unique to helping the Jews and included a host of other offences. Only one page is visible to me, unfortunately. But I assume the decrees were similar in the other parts of Eastern Europe, with the death penalty for any passive or active resistance being the 'norm' rather than the exception. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:56, 12 May 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia as a credible resource

According to "Wikipedia:Academic use" essay (posted originally in 2006‎) Wikipedia is a quick "ready reference" for information about anything and everything... But everything is 'easily accessible' everywhere nowadays. So, the question remains: a "ready reference" for what exactly? Our coverage of the Holocaust in Poland is a "ready reference" for information about indisputable facts rather than myth and assumptions, or political ideologies and state propaganda (Israeli and Polish prime ministers included).[1] Some facts are inconvenient... but knowledge reside with many ethnic groups.
An interesting point was brought up by User:Smmurphy above; nevertheless, some Jewish accounts of the Holocaust are hugely conflicting, along with their most recent interpretations.[1] His point is best summarized by Smmurphy's own source, T.R. Weeks who said that: "Jews certainly learned Polish, became less religiously observant, and 'blended' more easily with their Christian neighbors" in the Second Republic.[2] Not only Mark Paul, but also Alina Cała and others had said something quite different about the Jewish self-imposed isolation in interwar Poland (links below). As quoted by both of them, the Orthodox Jews: "were virtually precluded from experiencing a sense of Polish nationality or cultural identity".[3] The long-standing, stable version of the article informed, that: for "hundreds of thousands of Jews the Polish language was barely familiar." This information was removed under the POV claim that the source is unreliable (!), except that it originated from (not one, but) two sources. There was a third source: Isaac Bashevis Singer, also removed, with the claim of PRIMARY. Bad sources? I don't think so. There are more sources stating the same facts. For example, the Wspomnienia by M. Milsztajn (direct link below).[4] They cannot all be wrong.
Now! This is what I mean by revisions in an attempt to erase some facts from public memory. – The information about the Jewish self-imposed isolation was replaced with a new paragraph, about "Polish antisemitism." The source for this paragraph was Blatman's 20-page article published in Jews and the Sporting Life.[5] Is there anything in it we haven't covered yet? No! But the CODE WORDS are there, and the code-words are what matters most in the realm of political ideology (quote): "Polish antisemitism was deeply rooted" and "property, taken over by Poles, was a driving factor behind the beating and murdering of Jews by Poles between summer 1944 and 1946." But wait! Marek Edelman said: "I wouldn't explain it as anti-Semitism." There were other factors at play.[6] – Article by Daniel Blatman lacks statistical data and research, therefore it has no place in this article. This is a classic case WP:FRINGE and WP:CHERRY in POV pushing. (See Paul for more examples of similar misrepresentations of facts.) The controversy fueled by the Holocaust Bill has nothing to do with research which has been going on for a number of years. Poeticbent talk 01:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
  1. The exchange between Benjamin Netanyahu and Mateusz Morawiecki over the Holocaust Bill. Independent, UK.
  2. Theodore R. Weeks, "Assimilation, Nationalism, Modernisation" (p. 28) [in:] Antisemitism and Its Opponents in Modern Poland edited by Robert Blobaum
  3. Alina Cała, "The Social Consciousness of Young Jews in Interwar Poland" [in:] Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry, vol. 8: Jews in Independent Poland, 1918–1939 (London and Washington: The Littman Library of Jewish Civilization, 1994), 50.
  4. Marian (Mosze) Milsztajn, "Wspomnienia" (Memories) [in:] Ścieżki pamięci: Żydowskie miasto w Lublinie - losy, miejsca, historia edited by Jerzy Jacek Bojarski. Collection of testimonies Zbiór kilkudziesięciu tekstów - relacje lublinian żydowskiego i chrześcijańskiego środowiska. "Ośrodek „Brama Grodzka – Teatr NN”, Lublin, Rishon LeZion, 2000, pp. 66–71 of 98 in PDF.
  5. Daniel Blatman, "Polish Anti-Semitism: A National Psychosis?" [in:] Jews and the Sporting Life: Studies in Contemporary Jewry. An Annual, vol. XXIII, edited by Ezra Mendelsohn. The Avraham Harman Institute of Contemporary Jewry. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem 2008, pp. 213-226.
  6. Joanna Szczęsna (19 January 2008), 'Powszechna rzecz zabijanie.' Rozmowa z Markiem Edelmanem. Gazeta Wyborcza. Otwarta.org
I am surprised to read that you think Alina Cała would say that Jewish isolation was "self-imposed", that is Paul's wording but I don't think it would be used by Cała. Weeks discusses Cała in the previous page of the Weeks chapter you link, emphasizing that assimilation was imprecise. Cała's well cited essay, “The Question of the Assimilation of Jews in the Polish Kingdom (1864–1897)" (which is a summation of a longer work of hers in Polish, I believe) considers the question in a rather contrary way from Paul, writing, "anti-Semitism strengthened the role of the Jew (or rather his myth) as determinant of Polish national consciousness. Whole social groups discovered their national allegiance as an offshoot of the feeling of separateness from the Jews." In this context, Cała writes that groups are eager to impose separateness of themselves from Jews. Three other sources you mentioned, Milsztajn, Singer, and Edelman, are memoirs and testimonies, right? I think memoirs can be valuable, but where there is a dispute, I would hesitate to rely on them. As for Blatman's article, it was published in an edition of Contemporary Jewry which contained nine articles which were part of a symposium entitled, "Jews and the Sporting Life". Blatman's essay was not a part of that symposium. Rather, it was a review essay, reviewing four other works: Blobaum's Antisemitism and Its Opponents in Modern Poland, Gross' Fear, Weeks' From Assimilation to Antisemitism and Żbikowski's, U genzy Jedwabnego. A review essay in a highly respected journal (here is the editorial board) seems like a pretty good source to me.
I apologize if I've misunderstood anything. I am not fully versed in this subject, nor in the ins and outs of the article. My initial comment was mostly meant to point out that on top of Paul's work not being peer reviewed, it was demonstrably misleading in how it presented assimilation when compared to academic experts on assimilation of Polish Jews. Smmurphy(Talk) 15:35, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I think this use by Paul exhibits a general pattern. My impression is that these self-published documents by Paul, when using "Jewish" sources tend to quote non-experts, out of the context, and extend a specific statement - to a blanket statement. My understanding (which is based on some reading) of Jewish assimilation in Poland circa 1939 was that it was highly variable. You had Jews in some backwater shtetls who perhaps were the same as they were back in 1800. And you had Jews who crossed fully over into Polish society (speaking Polish as a first language). And you had everything in between.Icewhiz (talk) 15:42, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
I think the literature supports that impression. Smmurphy(Talk) 16:30, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
Some assimilated Jews declared to be Polish, eg. Gustaw Herling-Grudziński. Some writers criticised some aspects of Jewish life in Poland, eg. Julian Tuwim. pl:Stanisław Likiernik and his father were Polish heroes. About 500 Jewish officers died in the Katyn massacre because they declared to be Polish, when some ethnic Poles didn't.

But the majority of Polish Jews used to live in their Jewish communities, many of them spoke poor Polish. Orthodox Jews didn't marry Christian Poles, so there were almost no family relationships. The current research, I have quoted many times, proves that Jewish communities which supported the government (voted for BBWR) weren't attacked in 1941 in Jedwabne area. Voting for Jewish parties, preferring German (Wielkopolska) or Russian (North-East) culture was "self-imposed". So yes, there existed the whole spectrum, but the majority of Polish Jews didn't assimilate, what you don't know or don't mention, which makes you unreliable. Please read books by Isaac Bashevis Singer. Xx236 (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

What you call antisemirm had frequently economical roots. In many regions peasants were Polish and tradesmen Jewish, see the Przytyk pogrom. Some rich Jews owned houses inhabited by poor Poles. So yes, antisemitism is a psychosis - among some Jewish writers, unable to understand social life as more complicated than "Poles against Jews".Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Singer was discussed above, he's a greatly respected writer, of course (and I've read some of his short stories - feel free to suggest anything in particular). The only non-fiction work of his mentioned on his wikipedia page is The Hasidim and I don't think he wrote sociology or history. Novelizations and memoirs can be useful, but I'm not sure what formulation you are proposing. Is the suggestion that mention of partial assimilation and lack of assimilation cited to historians and sociologists as Icewhiz wrote should be augmented with examples and counterexamples from personal accounts? That might be nice, I agree, but it would be very hard to do in a NPOV/NOR way. Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "physosis" (physiosis [in the sense of a puffing up], psychosis, or something else), nor what response you are looking for. Apologies again for any slowness on my part. Smmurphy(Talk) 11:57, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I'm sorry - should be psychosis, as in the title above "Polish Anti-Semitism: A National Psychosis?".
Yes, Singer wrote fiction, but his Jewish world was more or less realistic in proportions, shtetls or Jewish quaters of Warsaw, little contact with Poles. The Poles were foreigners - hostile or dumb. Not the best position to ask for their help in 1942. Xx236 (talk) 13:09, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Thanks, it is more clear now. I don't think I have anything to say in response and I stand by my point. Smmurphy(Talk) 13:24, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
I mean The information about the Jewish self-imposed isolation was replaced with a new paragraph, about "Polish antisemitism." - The majority of Polish Jews refused to assimilate or assimilated into German or Russian culture. Antisemitism is a political tool, which replaces sociological and economiucal analysis.
According to recent study (by the Center) Polish nationalists helped Jews. One of the explanation is that szlachta had a long tradition of underground activity and peasants were loyal to any administration. Also szlachta had a long tradition of economical cooperation with Jews and many peasants believed that Jews were their oppressors. Xx236 (talk) 13:29, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
As with your previous comment, I do not know exactly how to respond. I will explain why I do not know how to respond. It looks to me like what you just wrote is that material by a writer who is not peer reviewed was replaced with peer reviewed material and that the peer reviewed material is faulty because using the word "anti-Semitism" has the ulterior motive of shutting down deeper analysis. You then reference without citation more non peer reviewed research which implies that violence against Jews was a justified uprising by peasants. Your views may or may not be correct, but I don't see how they can add to this article and I don't see what there is for me to discuss with you in this talk page (per WP:NOTFORUM). Smmurphy(Talk) 13:47, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
Yes, anti-Sremitism can be a political tool, especially when it is the only method of explaining the world, like Class conflict. But you have omitted the other word - Psychosis.Xx236 (talk) 06:03, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

mass immigration

Rather emmigration. And the goal of the emmigration was Palestine. Jewish fighters were trained by Polish Army. Xx236 (talk) 06:27, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:The_Holocaust_in_Poland/Archives/2018/May&oldid=856825599"