Talk:Hunt for the Jews

Mark Paul as a source

I think it is fine to link his works through external links and such, particularly as a review. Mark Paul's publications are catalogued by the US Holocaust Memorial Museum ([1], ex. [2], [3]) and are found in the scholarly website Glaukopis ([4]). I don't think they fall under 'remove on sight' totally unreliable bracket.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

They certainly qualify as remove on sight. They are not published - they are self published. Hardly anyone cites them (scholar shows around 1 cite per manuscript). Glaukopis is hosting these on an open-access basis. They were (or some were) published as books by PEFINA press - Polish Educational Foundation in North America - which has published only Paul more or less. The are released by KPK's Committee for the Defence and Propagation of the Good Name of Poland and the Poles who has an agenda to promote "Poland's good name" - and not to cover history in a reliable manner. As for being held by USHMM (some of them) - it seems USHMM is one of the very few libraries that does hold these manuscripts (as you might see in worldcat) - however USHMM holds in its libraries anti-semitic screeds as well - or to be precise - just about anything (published or not) that was written about the Holocaust - this is not an indication of the manuscript being a RS or used - in fact, one can see that USHMM visiting scholars (or anyone else) do not cite these manuscripts at all.Icewhiz (talk) 12:48, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

I am not saying this is top quality work, but again I am not convinced this stuff is unreliable (it clearly has a POV, of course, that's as clear as day). Nonetheless, Glaukopis is a peer reviewed journal, and while it is unclear whether it has reviewed the stuff it hosts in this section, it is clearly endorsing them at in such a form as to republish them digitally. This counts for something (in so much as a minor Polish academic journal with next to no presence in the English-speaking world can count). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:39, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Being hosted, on an open access basis, counts for very little. As for the POV -

"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."

(NEIGHBOURS -On the Eve of the Holocaust, 2017 version)

Makes the WP:FRINGE POV here quite clear. The document responding to Grabowski - does not seem much different (mainly defending the Catholic church and Poles) - and there is little to no indication that this WP:SPS WP:QS author is covered by anyone - it seems that most if not all sources (across multiple different works by this good name committee) - ignore these.Icewhiz (talk) 14:30, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Mark Paul's publications are thoroughly documented and rely on copious sources including Jewish, Polish, Soviet and others. The critique of Grabowski's Hunt for the Jews contains more than 200 footnotes with many references to archival documents. It highlights rescue efforts that Grabowski failed to mention. Grabowski was unable to identify most of the documented cases of rescue in Dabrowa Tarnowska county including those found in Yad Vashem, and Mark Paul's findings are consistent with those of other scholars (Samsonowska). Mark Paul's publications have been cited by academics (see below), published in peer reviewed scholarly journals (e.g., Glaukopis), and appear in publications alongside academics and historians such as Marek Chodakiewicz, Peter Stachura, Piotr Gontarczyk, Waldemar Chrostowski, John Radzilowski, Tomasz Sommer, Wojciech Muszynski, Tamara Trojanowska, Danusha Goska, Zbigniew Romaniuk, Tadeusz Piotrowski, and others. Mark Paul's publications are available in major libraries around the world. Mark Paul's A Tangled Web, which references hundreds of published works and scores of archival documents, has been cited in important scholarly publications such as Bogdan Musial, Sowjetische Partisanen 1941–1944: Mythos und Wirklichkeit (Paderborn: Ferdinand Schöningh, 2009); Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Intermarium: The Land between the Baltic and Black Seas (New Brunswick, New Jersey and London; Transaction, 2012). Mark Paul's articles "Rescue of Jewish Escapees from the Treblinka Death Camp" (pp. 117-137) & "Poles and Jews in Poland's Eastern Borderlands in September 1939" (pp. 257-293) were published in Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, Wojciech Jerzy Muszynski, and Pawel Styrna, eds., Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold? Studies on the Fate of Wartime Poles and Jews (Washington, D.C.: Leopolis Press, 2012) - alongside Marek Chodakiewicz, Peter Stachura, Piotr Gontarczyk, Waldemar Chrostowski, John Radzilowski, Tomasz Sommer, Wojciech Muszynski. Some other publications by Mark Paul include: “The Catholic Church and the Kielce Tragedy,” in Kielce—July 4, 1946: Background, Context and Events, A Collective Work (Toronto and Chicago: The Polish Educational Foundation in North America, 1996), pp. 105–115 - alongside Tadeusz Piotrowski, Iwo Pogonowski; “Anti-Semitic Pogrom in Ejszyszki? An Overview of Polish-Jewish Relations in Wartime Northeastern Poland,” in The Story of Two Shtetls, Bransk and Ejszyszki: An Overview of Polish-Jewish Relations in Northeastern Poland during World War II, Part Two (Toronto and Chicago: The Polish Educational Foundation in North America, 1998), pp. 9-172 - alongside Tamara Trojanowska, John Radzilowski, Danusha Goska, Zbigniew Romaniuk. These two books are available in scores of major libraries around the world - see Worldcat. Among Mark Paul's articles published in scholarly peer reviewed journals: "Pacyfikacje akowskie na Zamojszczyznie - przyczynek do badan," Glaukopis, vol. 30 (2014): 141-150. Enough said. The evidence for inclusion is overwhelming.Tatzref (talk) 16:24, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Summary (ignoring Golden Harvest essay and possible 2014 Polish language paper - which I have not evaluated but do not show up cited in scholar) - Mark Paul's numerous self published works have been cited a handful of times by the extreme edge of historians in the topic area - and even then extremely sparsely.Icewhiz (talk) 17:19, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• You fellows may want to comment here [[5]].GizzyCatBella (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Bogdan Musial, who cites Mark Paul's A Tangled Web, is hardly "extreme edge". His books were published by an important German historical publisher, his articles have appeared in Yad Vashem Studies and are posted on the Yad Vashem website (http://www.yadvashem.org/odot_pdf/Microsoft%20Word%20-%203222.pdf). Mark Paul's Neighbours on the Eve of the Holocaust was also cited by Marek Wierzbicki, a major historian, in his book Polacy i Zydzi w zaborze sowieckim (Warszawa: Fronda, 2001). Enough of this blatant distortion, please.Tatzref (talk) 17:37, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

• As might be seen in Musial's dewiki page the reception of his German language books and views on Soviets and Jews have been met with poor reviews, to say the least, e.g. [6]. In English histiography he has been described like this. Musial subsequently left Germany. Recent English media has been in The Dark Return of Polish Anti-Semitism, 16 Feb 2018. Hardly a mainstream scholar - and even with Musial - we are at a handul of cites in anything remotely representing an academic work for Paul's 20 odd years of self publishing. Fronda, is not an academic publisher, to say the least.Icewhiz (talk) 17:51, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit break

This is what Yehuda Bauer, a leading Israeli Holocaust historian, said about Musial's book in Yad Vashem Studies, Volume 38:2, pp.195-204, "Soviet Partisans and the Jews: Bogdan Musial, Sowjetische Partisanen – Mythos und Wirklichkeit": "Bogdan Musial’s book about Soviet partisans is a most important contribution to the history of World War II generally. Dealing mainly with Belorussia (Belarus), Musial deconstructs the legends about Soviet partisans, showing who they were, how their units developed, how they exaggerated their exploits, how they suffered from internal strife and alcoholism, and how the Soviet authorities failed to supply them with the tools and arms necessary to conduct anti-German operations. Of special interest to the readers of this journal are extensive chapters on Jewish and Polish partisans in Belorussia." Musial's books have also been favourably reviewed by Karel Berhoff and Alexander Rossino. Please, let us abandon ideology and aim for objectivity in our discussion.Tatzref (talk) 20:11, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

This is great, but this is about Paul, not Musial. Has Yehuda Bauer reviewed any of Paul's works? K.e.coffman (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

K.e.coffman, please bear in mind that one editor (Icewhiz) is discrediting not only Mark Paul but Marek Chodakiewicz, Musiał, Kurek and other.. essentially any historian that does not support certain POV is being eliminated by Iz. GizzyCatBella (talk) 22:22, 13 May 2018 (UTC)

To the contrary - one could use Musial or Chodakiewicz when they are published in an academic setting (and not in a political blog) - however per WP:BIASED use of them for a contentious stmt should be balanced by mainstream historians as well as the opposite extreme (if it exists) or attributed and qualified with the way Musial and Chodakiewicz are described in histiography RS. As for Kurek (whose identity is known at least, but does not have credentials in the field, is barely cited, is often self published, and is known for "Jews had fun in the ghetto") or Paul (for whom any bio info is unavailable, has been self published, and has not even received the negative coverage (beyond 2-3 footnotes by authors mentioning and dismissing the KPK's attack pieces) that Kurek has - mainly being ignored) - they do not remotely meet the definition of RS.Icewhiz (talk) 03:41, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Let's focus. Icewhiz says Mark Paul's view are illegitimate because no historian cites them unless they're allegedly extremists and possibly anti-Semites (Bogdan Musial) or their works are not published by academic publishers (Marek Wierzbicki). The first of these claims (re Musial) has been effectively blown out of the water. Turning to Wierzbicki, while Fronda is not an academic publisher, neither is the publisher of Timothy Snyder's most important books. Wierzbicki is a member of the Political Studies Institute of the Polish Academy of Sciences, which has published several of his books. He is recognized internationally as a leading scholar on Soviet-occupied Eastern Poland and has contributed articles/chapters to the following English language publications: “Polish-Jewish Relations in the City of Vilna and the Region of Western Vilna under Soviet Occupation, 1939–1941,” Polin: Studies in Polish Jewry, Volume 19 (2007), pp. 487–516; “Western Belarus in September 1939: Revisiting Polish-Jewish Relations,” in Shared History, Divided Memory: Jews and Others in Soviet-Occupied Poland, 1939–1941, edited by Elazar Barkan, Elizabeth A. Cole, and Kai Struve (Leipzig: Leipziger Universitätsverlag, 2007), pp. 135–146; "Soviet Economic Policy in Annexed Eastern Poland, 1939-1941," in Stalin and Europe: Imitation and Domination, 1928-1953, edited by Timothy Snyder and Ray Brandon (New York: Oxford University Press, 2014), chapter 5. Let's not pretend that the historians who cite Mark Paul's publications are on the fringes of scholarship. If Mark Paul's publications are worthy of mention by these scholars, they should do for Wikipedia, even though some might not like their content, which is highly factually based and meticulously referenced.Tatzref (talk) 03:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Please do not misquote me - I merely quoted a RS regarding Musial's views and words. As for use of Paul - in the past 20 years these various self-published works have garnered less citation (all of them together) - less than the fingers on my hands. These very scant cites (in any constructive use of them) are by historians (Chodakiewicz, Musiał, Wierzbicki) who have been described as The main representatives of the post-1989 historiography, characterized by prejudicial views toward Jews and other minorities, are Marek J. Chodakiewicz, Marek Wierzbicki, Bogdan Musiał, and the late Tomasz Strzembosz. These historians belong to the school of (ethno)nationalist history writing in which the themes of martyrdom and victimhood of ethnic Poles vis-à-vis other groups play a key role in shaping their arguments and interpretations., Marek Wierzbicki also represents the ethnonationalist school of history writing, though his position is definitely less extreme than that of Chodakiewicz and of Bogdan Musiał, Wierzbicki blames anti-semitic violence due to - Another cause was what Wierzbicki refers to as “the stereotype of Polish antisemitism.” As discussed above, the fact that Jews perceived the Poles as a group of antisemites was, he believed, conducive to the development of anger and frustration among the Poles, which in turn led to the eruption of the hostilities toward the Jews in the summer of 1941 (so Jews are to for Polish violence against them as they held an unjustified stereotype of Polish antisemitism). Furthermore, the following is said of these 4 - Characteristically, these four historians view the interethnic conflicts as bilaterally Polish-Jewish, Polish-Ukrainian, or Polish-Lithuanian relations in which the (ethnic) Polish side is always right and threatened by the others, and the other side is at fault.. (all from Michlic, Joanna B. "The Soviet Occupation of Poland, 1939–41, and the Stereotype of the Anti-Polish and Pro-Soviet Jew." Jewish Social Studies 13.3 (2007): 135-176.). So - we have very scant usage of Paul (I believe each of these individuals have possibly mentioned Paul once or twice) - by the the fringes of Polish historians/political-activists.Icewhiz (talk) 07:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

So basically, what you are saying Icewhiz is that you don't like what the above historians are narrating, therefore, they are unreliable.GizzyCatBella (talk) 09:28, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

I did not say that. I have said that they've been described as the extreme end of the spectrum in Polish historiography - their views being markedly different from other Polish and non-Polish historians. Certainly, when published in a peer reviewed setting and taking care of WP:BIASED with an eye for WP:BALASP - one could use them. In regards to Paul - it is quite telling that the extremely few citations of his self-published works are from these 3.Icewhiz (talk) 10:23, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Joanna Michlic has been peddling her own nationalist/extremist views about Polish historians she does not like for more than a decade. Obviously, Timothy Snyder and Ray Brandon, as well as many other historians, don't think much of them if they invite Marek Wierzbicki to contribute to an Oxford University Press publication in 2014. Nor apparently does Yehuda Bauer, a leading Israeli Holocaust historian, for that matter, who described Musial's Sowjetische Partisanen – Mythos und Wirklichkeit as "a most important contribution to the history of World War II generally." It is obvious that the war on these historians is purely ideological and is not based on the actual merits of their publications. Virtually all Polish historians of all stripes were devastatingly critical of the book Fear by Jan Gross, who is one Michlic's gurus from the politically correct camp. Here are a few examples: August Grabski, “‘Krew brata twego głośno woła ku mnie z ziemi!’,” Kwartalnik Historii Żydów, no. 3 (2006): 407–14; Bożena Szaynok, Review of Gross’s Fear, in Zagłada Żydów: Studia i materiały, vol. 2 (2006): 486–94; Jacek Walicki, “Bezdroża nauki i publicystyki—o nowej książce Jana T. Grossa,” Dzieje Najnowsze, vol. 39, no. 1 (2007): 158–67; Paweł Machcewicz, “Odcienie czerni: Antysemityzm po wojnie,” Tygodnik Powszechny, January 13, 2008; Paweł Machcewicz and Konstanty Gebert, “Kto się boi ‘Strachu’,” Gazeta Wyborcza, January 18, 2008; Dariusz Sola, “Nieudana próba Grossa,” Gazeta Wyborcza, January 19, 2008; Paweł Machcewicz, “Zbyt proste wyjaśnienia: O ‘Strachu’ Jana Tomasza Grossa,” Więź, no. 2–3 (February–March) 2008: 73–84. See also the compilation by Robert Jankowski, ed., Cena “Strachu”: Gross w oczach historyków (Warsaw: Fronda, 2008). A discussion of the merits, not mudslinging, should be the only valid criteria. Tatzref (talk) 14:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, I am sure there are some "politically correct camp" Polish historians who have praised Jan T. Gross's Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz (2007) - which per google scholar has been cited some 359 times - approx. 100 times more than the citations of all of Paul's works put together.Icewhiz (talk) 16:17, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Well, on the subject of political correctness, it is quite obvious that there are some POVs which are more politically correct than others, and some nationalities or ethnicity which are harder to criticize than others. And since this is a controversial issue, I think we have to be careful who we consider 'mainstream'. I agree that Chodakiwiecz and others named represents one side in this debate, but to me he is no less reliable, and no more POVed, then for example Michlic (and Grabowski and Gross). Those names are not 'neutral mainstream', they have their own agenda to grind, and there are historians who point that out, too: Peter Stachura [7] "For those readers unfamiliar with the theme or historiography in question, it might be helpful to intimate that both Polonsky and Michlic are perceived in certain academic circles as being uncompromising advocates of a tendentious interpretation of Polish-Jewish relations in the modern era." In all honestly, I believe we are decades away from a neutral, mainstream consensus, and majority of works we are dealing with in this area 'take a side'. (I'd be happy to discuss specific names, if anyone wants to suggest who may be, nowadays, 'neutral', in this topic arena... Snyder, perhaps?).--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

While "Polska dla Polaków!" (Poland for Poles!) is promoted (big image in main page) by open-access glaukopis.pl (which per its own description "We are particularly interested in the unknown aspects of the history of Poland and the world. By rejecting political correctness, we present topics that have never been explored and are often controversial.").... Outside of Poland, a far right activist who has been effectively blacklisted from most journals on the topic - carries much less weight than mainstream, respected historians whose seminal works have been cited hundreds of times in an academic setting and whose work is described as groundbreaking (e.g. [8]).Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Seriously, please stop misrepresnting stuff. Glaukopis is not promoting 'Poland for Poles!' slogan, but a book co-authored by historian Marek Chodakiewicz with that title, which is an academic study of Polish right wing scene, 'narodowcy', like National Movement (Poland). You can't expect people to take you seriously if you misrepresent sources like that "Glaukopis is promoting Polish far right xenophobia!" - no, it is not. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:14, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Piotrus: I can't possibly square what you say with the quote given by User:Icewhiz in parentheses immediately above. Is the quote taken out of context? Does it come from someone else the author was writing about and the "We" refers to a completely different set of people? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:18, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri 88: I don't know where the quote is from, it doesn't show up in google. I was just pointing out that Icehwiz seems to have confused a book cover's title with some sort of activism poster. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:08, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

I should have been clearer this is a book - yes. A book on narodowcy as in National Movement (Poland) (Ruch Narodowy) by Chodakiewicz who is a "historian and far-right activist " and has "In June 2014, he appeared at a rally of the far-right Ruch Narodowy party, where he proclaimed “We want a Catholic Poland, not a Bolshevik one, not multicultural or gay!”" per Newsweek (which itself links to this Youtube video of him speaking). Not exactly an author disconnected from the topic.Icewhiz (talk) 07:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

And at the same time, he is someone who had a seat on the United States Holocaust Memorial Council and is an academic and a reliable source. Some scholars criticize him, just as he criticized them. Nobody we talk about here is pretty much disconnected from 'the topic'. If you want to discuss Chodawkiewicz's reliability, take it to WP:RSN. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:05, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

That was a political appointment (no qualifications are needed - you need to get onto the president's list) - and prior to the more serious issues at the time. I'll note that as controversy around him erupted during his term, towards the end of his term at USHMC this elicited a great deal of blowback and criticism including by the Southern Poverty Law Center - see SPLC: HISTORIAN MAREK JAN CHODAKIEWICZ WITH CONTROVERSIAL VIEWS SERVES ON HOLOCAUST MUSEUM BOARD. I'll note I did not bring up Chodawkiewicz - not sure why we are discussing him, though it might relate to the reliability (or lack thereof) of glaukopis.pl which has chosen to promote his book on "Poland for Poles!".Icewhiz (talk) 10:39, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Back on topic - @Hijiri88: - to WP:V my quote - visit www.glaukopis.pl (one of the sites hosting copies of Paul's works - but note even they haven't Published them) - It is all in Polish, I know - use chrome-translate, or alternatively scroll down all the way to the bottom of the page - there is small print at the bottom that reads Glaukopis to pismo społeczno-historyczne Glaukopis jest kwartalnikiem naukowym, który ukazuje się od 2003 r. Na naszych łamach poruszamy tematy związane z historią, naukami politycznymi i szeroko rozumianą kulturą. W sposób szczególny interesują nas nieznane aspekty historii Polski i świata. Odrzucając polityczną poprawność, prezentujemy tematy dotąd niezbadane i nierzadko kontrowersyjne. copy paste this into google translate - Glaukopis is a socio-historical journal. Glaukopis is a scientific quarterly, which has been published since 2003. In our magazine we deal with topics related to history, political sciences and broadly understood culture. We are particularly interested in the unknown aspects of the history of Poland and the world. By rejecting political correctness, we present topics that have never been explored and are often controversial. - ok for WP:V of this?Icewhiz (talk) 10:44, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Mostly correct, for MT. And I don't see anything wrong with their mission. They are recognized as a scholarly outlet by the Polish Ministry (pl:Wykaz czasopism punktowanych przez Ministerstwo Nauki i Szkolnictwa Wyższego), for what it's worth - which is not that much, but enough to consider them a WP:RS. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Recognition by a gvmt ministry would not be sufficient to pass RSN (not that it is relevant - as they haven't actually published whatnwe are talking about) - this fringe, open access journal has no snowball's chance to pass a serious RSN discussion.Icewhiz (talk) 10:01, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

@Piotrus: On "Glaukopis.pl": I should say I'm not familiar with the site, so these are just preliminary impressions.

Starting with Icewhiz's quote: References to "the hidden history" (and similar phrases) work well for National Geographic, but when I see them in historical or PolSci contexts it sets off some alarm bells; and even more so when the supposedly "unknown" material seems to be (at least in part) a rehashing of material on one of the most well-studied - and politically-sensitive - periods in human history. In other words - when you say you want to discover "the hidden truth" and then go about and write about the Nazies and Communism, it's not really convincing. Other catch phrases include "political correctness", "pseudointellectual fashions", "truth" (not a common phrase in the narrative-based historiographic narrative), and "young scholars [that] debut on our pages", which can either mean "young promising academics" or "people who didn't get published elsewhere".

The site also has an English-language section [9] listing four authors, of which one is Mark Paul. The other three contributed these tidbits:

• Stachura's reply to Polonsky and Michlic (of which you're aware): he makes a point of noting both authors work/ed for a "Jewish institution", are "Polish-Jewish born" or edit a "Jewish-funded... publication", and that the editor of a "left-of-centre" newspaper is "a former Marxkist of Jewish extraction", then just a page later writes that "it would be... preposterous... for anyone to allege that [Polonsky and Michlic] were pursuing a 'Jewish agenda' or an 'anti-Polish agenda'". Well, he just did! He doesn't actually make an argument other than that.
• Tyndorf's letter: He starts with a good argument, then swerves to "the significant involvement of local Jews in the persecution of Poles during the Soviet occupation", a stance repudiated as both statistically incorrect (as Jews did not participate in Soviet schemes more often than Poles) and morally absurd (because that's hardly a reason to burn entire families in a barn).
• Zaborowski's article starts with denying Polish anti-Semitism as "[existing] only in Gross's books... [which] intentionally, no doubt, contribute to exacerbating Polish-Jewish tensions." He then asks: "tens of thousands of ethnic Poles risked their lives helping Jews... Would an essentially anti-Semitic nation make such sacrifices?" He neglects to mention those "tens of thousands" were, by the most generous estimate, no more than 1% of the Polish population, and can hardly be generalized to the other 99%. Other than a quote by Richard Lukas and another one by Norman Finkelstein (who isn't exactly free of "baggage"), the rest of the text (12 pp.) is dedicated to the "massive murders and other acts of treason, committed by Jews on the Polish population." The way he tells it one can forget Jews were but a tenth of Poland's population, and widely persecuted as such (see Abraham Brumberg 's reply here).

There are just the ones available in English. Are they solid refutations of Gross? Hardly. Are they representative of an "echo chamber" of right-leaning ideologies? Maybe. They all seem to come back to Chodakiewicz and Paul, and to known, and sometimes refuted material. Cross-referencing and selection bias are a concern. Do I think Glaukopis as a publisher isn't RS? I can't say that definitively; what I will say is that we have to consider their publications carefully, and perhaps - in a similar critique to what some levied against Piotrowski - cite them for their fact-finding skills, but not for their synthesis. François Robere (talk) 12:46, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and one last note: Their Facebook page gave a "like" to Mel Gibson [10]. Would you like to guess why? François Robere (talk) 12:59, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Stachura's letter was published in Glaukopis after being rejected by History (possibly unwilling to publish allegations of "Jewish-Funded" and the like). Tyndorf is connected to KPK Toronto (http://www.kpk-toronto.org/organizacje/) and Zaborowski to KPK Ottawa (http://www.kpk-ottawa.org/kpk/kpk_pop_zarzady_en.html).Icewhiz (talk) 13:21, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

We seem to be going off topic, but re ""the significant involvement of local Jews in the persecution of Poles during the Soviet occupation", a stance repudiated as both statistically incorrect (as Jews did not participate in Soviet schemes more often than Poles)", I think you are incorrect. I am not sure what sources 'repudiated' this. I think you'll agree with me that Gross hardly has a pro-Polish, anti-Jewish bias, right? And yet he writes page 32 ""there were proportionately more communist sympathizers among Jews than among any other nationality in the local population". --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:00, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

I'll have to check exactly to which article I added it and to what revision (as you know, some editors push the same arguments again and again to multiple articles) and get back to you on this. François Robere (talk) 11:36, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

In an exchange with Jewish-American publicist Abraham Brumberg in the New York Review of Books (“Poles and Jews: An Exchange,” April 9, 1987), British historian Norman Davies wrote authoritatively: What I wrote, and can confirm, amounts to this: firstly, that among the collaborators who came forward to assist the Soviet security forces in dispatching huge numbers of innocent men, women, and children to distant exile and probable death, there was a disproportionate number of Jews; and secondly, that news of the circumstances surrounding the deportations helped to sour Polish-Jewish relations in other parts of occupied Poland. I might have added, for Mr. Brumberg’s comfort, that the majority of Polish Jews (like the great majority of Poles, Byelorussians, Ukrainians and Lithuanians) did not sympathize with Russian communism, did not welcome the Soviet invasion, and did not collaborate with the deportations. … None of which alters the original contention. Among those persons, who to their discredit did collaborate, there were “many Jews.” … As an eyewitness to the events in eastern Poland in 1939–1941, [Brumberg] has reported that the charge of Jewish collaboration is “particularly obnoxious” and that the collaborators only included “small groups of procommunist sympathizers.” Regrettably, without disparaging either his memory or his eyesight, one has to report that almost all other witnesses disagree with him. Thousands of survivors now in the West, and scores of published memoirs tell a different story. Among the informers and collaborators, as in the personnel of the Soviet security police at the time, the high percentage of Jews was striking. One could check the following accounts: Jan and Irena Gross (1983), Anatol Krakowiecki (1950), Aleksander Blum (1980), Aleksander Wat (1977), Klara Mirska (1980), Ola Watowa (1984), Marek Celt (1986), or the collective work, Moje zderzenie z bolszewikami we wrześniu 1939 roku (“My Clash with the Bolsheviks in September 1939”), and very many more. These reports about the conduct of Jews do not necessarily make pleasant reading, especially when one reflects on the appalling fate of those same Jewish communities following the Nazi invasion of the Soviet-occupied zone in June 1941. But one should not for that reason discount them, or try to read history backward. … One might equally recall the report written in February 1940 by Jan Karski—one of those fearless Polish couriers who kept London in touch with occupied Poland, and who was subsequently decorated in Israel for his attempts to warn the West about the realities of the Holocaust. [The portions in square brackets were omitted in the English translation relied on by Davies. Karski’s full report, in its two versions, can be found in Norman Davies and Antony Polonsky, eds., Jews in Eastern Poland and the USSR, 1939–46 (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1991), 260–71.] “The Situation of the Jews on Territories Occupied by the USSR” The Jews here feel at home, not just because they are not humiliated or persecuted, but because their smartness and adaptability has won them a certain measure of political and economic advantage. The Jews are entering the political cells. They have taken over the majority of political and administrative positions, and are playing an important role in the labor unions, in the schools, and above all in commerce, both legal and illegal [loansharking and profiteering, illegal trade, contraband, foreign currency exchange, liquor, immoral pursuits, pimping and procurement] … Polish opinion considers that Jewish attitudes to the Bolsheviks are favourable. It is universally believed that the Jews betrayed Poland and the Poles, that they are all communists at heart, and that they went over to the Bolsheviks with flags waving. Indeed, in most towns, the Jews did welcome the Bolsheviks with bouquets, with speeches and with declarations of allegiance and so on. One should make certain distinctions, however. Obviously the Jewish communists have reacted enthusiastically to the Bolsheviks. … The Jewish proletariat, petty traders and artisans, whose position has seen a structural improvement, and who formerly had to bear the indifference or the excesses of the Polish element, have reacted positively, too. That is hardly surprising. But what is worse, Jews are denouncing Poles [especially students and politicians] (to the secret police), are directing the work of the (communist) militia from behind the scenes, are unjustly denigrating conditions in Poland before the war. Unfortunately, one must say that these incidents are very frequent, [and more common than incidents which demonstrate loyalty toward Poles or sentiment toward Poland]. Davies continues: The Yad Vashem archive in Israel, too, provides detailed substantiation of the same picture. “The Jews welcomed the Red Army with joy. The young people spent all their days and evenings with the soldiers.” In Grodno, “all sorts of appointments were filled predominantly with Jews, and the Soviet authorities entrusted them, too, with the top positions.” [In Żółkiew, “The Russians rely primarily on Jews in filling positions …”] In Lwów, “I must admit that the majority of positions in the Soviet agencies have been taken by Jews.” A Jewish observer to the pro-Soviet demonstrations in Lwów related, “Whenever a political march, or protest meeting, or some other sort of joyful event took place, the visual effect was unambiguous—Jews.” In Wielkie Oczy, the Jewish doctor recalled how local Jewish youths having formed themselves into a “komsomol” toured the countryside smashing Catholic shrines. The references can be found in a recent study of the Soviet deportations from eastern Poland by J. T. Gross and I. Gross, W czterdziestym nas Matko na Sybir zesłali…: Polska a Rosja 1939–42 (London: Aneks, 1983). In Pińsk, where the population was over 90 percent Jewish, young Jews built an “Arc de Triomphe.” The purpose here, of course, is not to demonstrate what one hopes would be taken for granted, namely, that Jews given the chance will behave as well or as badly as anyone else. The purpose is simply to show that the marked increase in anti-Semitism in occupied Poland in 1939–1941 was linked to Jewish conduct. To put the perspective of many Poles emotively, Jews were seen to be dancing on Poland’s grave. Israeli historian Ben-Cion Pinchuk paints a similar picture (Shtetl Jews under Soviet Rule: Eastern Poland on the Eve of the Holocaust (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1991), 25-26): Indicative of the human resources and potential in the Jewish community was the important role played by the Jews during the transition period and the first phase of organizing the new regime. There were many places, usually those removed from the major routes of the advancing Red Army, where the interregnum lasted for some days. The power vacuum created was filled quite often by local temporary executive committees. Jews played a prominent role in those committees, which lasted in many places until they were replaced by officials from the Soviet Union. The creation of the temporary committees was a local initiative … There were places where committees were created to organize the reception for the Soviet units and provide what they considered new Soviet-like authority as a temporary replacement for the disintegrating Polish administration. ‘Revolutionary committees’, as some of the committees were called, according to numerous Polish reports consisted almost entirely of Jews, with a few Ukrainians. A citizens’ militia served as the executive tool of the committees. In the two organizations Jews played a dominant role, according to Polish sources. Jewish communists tried in some places to establish what they considered a Soviet administration. The committees behaved as if they were the government until the entrance of the Red Army. They initiated ‘socialist’ reforms, occasionally coming into conflict with the local population.

  Expression of suppressed grudges and hatreds against the haughty Polish officials could be detected during the transition. … it was a time for settling scores, a time of retribution. Detectives and policemen were disarmed and arrested. Polish officials reported that they were told by local Jews ‘Your time has passed, a new epoch begins.’ The Polish population felt itself alienated and threatened and tried to avoid public attention … There were many instances of arbitrariness and of settling accounts with those who were well-to-do or in authority in the old regime, Jews and Poles alike. Those who were Communists before were ‘engaged now on their own in “nationalizing” stores, houses, merchandise, and settling old grudges. Arbitrarily they make arrests and investigations,’ related a survivor. Harassment of the more affluent, expropriation and distribution of goods among the poor without authorization from the incoming regime, were typical of the transition time. The persecution, expropriations, and occasional imprisonment were indicative of the social changes that would take place. … 

Jews participated in disproportionate numbers in the Soviet-established institutions during the first few weeks of the new regime. … The Polish population could not serve as a source of manpower for the new institutions… The Jewish community particularly in the shtetlach constituted a large reservoir of manpower, relatively well-educated, reliable as far as its outside relations were concerned and, what was equally important, available and eager to cooperate. Jewish youth formed special organizations whose role was to facilitate the establishment of the new regime. In many places the first Soviet-appointed institutions contained a very high proportion of Jews. Governmental and economic institutions, the militia in particular—organized by the authorities as a local police force—employed many Jews. The shtetl Jews … were willing to fill every available opening, thus playing an important role in the initial stages of building the Soviet system in former Eastern Poland. … During the transition period the local Communists were used…in helping build up the Soviet system. After the formal annexation local Communists were systematically removed from responsible positions, some were even arrested. Many of them received subordinate administrative appointments, particularly in fields where knowledge of local conditions or direct contact with the population was required. They were employed in factories, schools, the militia, as NKVD informers and later as propagandists in the election campaigns. Tatzref (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Edit break2

While it seems we are now treated to forumish quotations from Paul and the like on this talk page (and I will admit I find odd the notion that Jews should have "loyal" to the Polish state that persecuated them prior to the war) - what evidence do we have that the little known Paul (besides footnotes referring to this work as promoting a myth) is taken seriously be the academic community? It seems these long tracts are primarily written and read by the KPK.Icewhiz (talk) 18:23, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

So in Icewhiz's estimation, verbatim quotations from Norman Davies, Jan Karski and Ben-Cion Pinchuk that demolish Icewhiz's arguments can be dismissed because they are found in Mark Paul's meticulously referenced publications? QUERY: What is Icewhiz's expertise anyway, except for citing Jewish apologists like Michlic? Any peer-reviewed published works in this area? Mark Paul's articles have appeared in several issues of Glaukopis, a peer-reviewed scholarly publication (nos. 25/26, 27, 28, 30), as well as in several scholarly books mentioned earlier that featured at least twenty other scholars, among them academics and members of recognized historical research institutions. Strange, Icewhiz doesn't seem to object to Rich Cohen being cited in the Koniuchy massacre article even though he's a journalist with a BA from Tulane University. It has become abundantly clear that this assault is ideologically driven, has nothing to do with merits, and is simply aimed at censoring fact-based views that don't conform with his ideology. Tatzref (talk) 03:14, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Icewhiz: "It seems these long tracts are primarily written and read by the KPK". Sorry, ZERO credibility again. A basic Google book search has turned up many books that refer to Mark Paul's publications. Here are 15:

(1) Irena's Children: The Extraordinary Story of the Woman Who Saved ...

https://books.google.ca/books?isbn=1476778507 Tilar J. Mazzeo - 2016 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions She was hiding Jewish children in city orphanages: “K. Dargielowa,” Warsaw Ghetto Database, Polish Center for Holocaust Research, http://warszawa.getto.pl ... Mark Paul, “Wartime Rescue of Jews,” 61–62. The name on the bell read ...

(2) Before All Memory is Lost:

https://books.google.ca/books?isbn=1988065232 Myrna Goldberg - 2017 - ‎Preview Wartime Rescue of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy: The Testimony of Survivors, compiled and edited by Mark Paul, Polish Educational Foundation in North America, 2009.

(3) Needle in the Bone: How a Holocaust Survivor and a Polish Resistance ...

https://books.google.ca/books?isbn=1612345689 Caryn Mirriam-Goldberg - 2012 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions 2005), and several studies by Mark Paul: Neighbours on the Eve of the Holocaust: Polish-Jewish Relations in Soviet-Occupied Eastern Poland, 1939*] 941, http://www.kpk-toronto.org/ZO1 l/files/SOVIETiOCCUPi39 -41.doc, and A Tangled ...

(4) A Promise at Sobibór: A Jewish Boy’s Story of Revolt and Survival in ...

https://books.google.ca/books?isbn=0299248038 Philip “Fiszel” Bialowitz, ‎Joseph Bialowitz - 2010 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions compilation of actions by Polish Catholic clergy to assist Jews during the Holocaust can be found in Mark Paul, 'Wartime Rescue

(5) Die Verjagten: Flucht und Vertreibung im Europa des 20. Jahrhunderts

https://books.google.ca/books?isbn=3641095689 - Translate this page Jan M. Piskorski - 2013 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions Paul, Mark: Wartime Rescue of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy. The Testimony of Survivors, Toronto 2007

(6) Jewish Resistance Against the Holocaust - Page 73

https://books.google.ca/books?isbn=1477776028 Robert Z. Cohen - 2014 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions Paul, Mark. Wartime Rescue of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy.

(7) Katholische Geistliche in nationalsozialistischen ... - Page 91

https://books.google.ca/books?isbn=3826044134 - Translate this page Eike Lossin - 2011 - ‎Preview Siehe hierzu Paul, Mark: Wartime Rescue of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy.

(8) Rethinking Poles and Jews: Troubled Past, Brighter Future - Page 42

https://books.google.ca/books?isbn=0742546667 Robert D. Cherry, ‎Robert Cherry, ‎Annamaria Orla-Bukowska - 2007 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions See Mark Paul, "Anti-Semitic Pogrom in Ejszyszki? An Overview of Polish- Jewish Relations in Wartime Northeastern Poland," in

(9) The Polish Deportees of World War II: Recollections of Removal to ...

https://books.google.ca/books?isbn=0786455365 Tadeusz Piotrowski - 2007 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions Mark Paul, “Jewish-Polish Relations in Soviet–Occupied Eastern Poland, 1939–1941” in ... (10) The Story of Two Shtetls: Bransk and Ejszyszki, Part Two (Toronto & Chicago: The Polish Educational Foundation ... https://books.google.ca/books?id=x1HrGwAACAAJ Mark Paul - 2001 - ‎No preview (11) Between Nazis and Soviets: Occupation Politics in Poland, 1939-1947 https://books.google.ca/books?isbn=0739104845 Marek Jan Chodakiewicz - 2004 - ‎Preview (12)Intermarium: The Land Between the Black and Baltic Seas https://books.google.ca/books?isbn=1351511955 Marek Jan Chodakiewicz - 2017 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions (13) Poland, 1918-1945: An Interpretive and Documentary History of the ... https://books.google.ca/books?isbn=0415343585 Peter D. Stachura - 2004 - ‎Preview - ‎More editions scholars writing in English, such as the Canadian Mark Paul (14) After the Holocaust: Polish-Jewish Conflict in the Wake of World War II https://books.google.ca/books?isbn=0880335114 Marek Jan Chodakiewicz - 2003 - ‎Snippet view Polish-Jewish Conflict in the Wake of World War II Marek Jan Chodakiewicz ... 1999); Mark Paul, Neighbors on the Eve of the Holocaust: The Polish Minority and Jewish Collaboration in Soviet-Occupied Eastern Poland, 1939-1941 (Toronto: ... (15) World War II Through Polish Eyes: In the Nazi-Soviet Grip - Page 389 https://books.google.ca/books?isbn=0880335025 M. B. Szonert, ‎Maria Szonert-Binienda - 2002 - ‎Snippet view The Polish Underground ran the production of fake identification documents on a large scale. 3. Tazbir, p. 682. Chapter ... 535; see also Mark Paul, Neighbours on the Eve of the Holocaust (Toronto: Pefina Press, 2001). 11. Testimony of Father ... Tatzref (talk) 03:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC) Here is the nail in the coffin of Icewhiz's rantings about Mark Jan Chodakiewicz's scholarship as a broadside to attack Mark Paul. Chodakiewicz’s The Massacre in Jedwabne, July 10, 1941: Before, During, and After (Boulder, Colorado: East European Monographs; New York: Columbia University Press, 2005) was cited and relied on heavily by the prominent historian Peter Longerich in his Holocaust: The Nazi Persecution and Murder of the Jews (Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press, 2010). Here's some background on Longerich's impeccable credentials: https://www.ushmm.org/research/competitive-academic-programs/fellows-and-scholars/all-fellows-and-scholars/peter-longerich-2003 According to his Wikipedia entry, Longerich "is regarded by fellow historians, including Ian Kershaw, Richard Evans, Timothy Snyder, Mark Roseman and Richard Overy, as one of the leading German authorities on the Holocaust." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Longerich) I don't think he can be easily fooled by "sham" scholarship. This certainly trumps anything put forward to discredit Chodakiewicz in this discussion. One more point, if scholarly material promoted by the Canadian Polish Congress is purged, so should writings from the World Jewish Congress, American Jewish Congress, B'nai Brith, Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, among others. Tatzref (talk) 04:40, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

So - in some twenty years of publishing as Mark Paul, we have a handful of cites - most of which Google scholar ignores (as they are in low quality sources). Some of these citations or mentions in RSes are in a negative context -

1. I will never forget what you did for me during the war”: Rescuer — rescuee relationships in the light of postwar correspondence in Poland, 1945–1949. Yad Vashem Studies, 39(2), 169-207.: As with the case of other dominant narratives pertaining to the memory of the Holocaust, some of the chief narratives about rescuers and Jewish survivors were formed in the early postwar period such as the myth of the “ignoble ungrateful Jew.” By the late 1960s, this myth was fully developed and utilized by the “partisan” faction within the Communist Party, led by General Mieczysław Moczar. Writers, journalists, and historians continued to disseminate the myth of “the ungrateful Jew” in publications in the 1970s and 1980s,(84) and the myth has persisted in popular historical consciousness in the post-communist era.(85) - (in footnote 85) 85 For recent mild and strong expressions of this myth see, for example, Mark Paul, ed., Wartime Rescuers of Jews by the Polish Catholic Clergy: The Testimony of Survivors (Toronto: Polish Educational Foundation in North America, 2007); .....
2. Fugitives of the Forest: The Heroic Story Of Jewish Resistance And Survival During the Second World War by Allan Levine "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".

While some "anti-Jewish tracts" are indeed notable (e.g. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion) - such tracts when published on various websites and whose use boils down to some very minor citations, mainly in a non-academic setting, and footnote mentions of these tracts as an example of a wider phenomena - then quite obviously these tracts are not being used by others in a meaningful fashion - and we should ignore them as well. We do not promote random "anti-Jewish tracts" (or any other group) posted in various internet forums. Even with notable tracts of this nature - we do not use them as a source (except in the PRIMARY sense to say work X said Y - but certainly not to cite facts nor do we promote such works as further reading).Icewhiz (talk) 05:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It is apparent that the assault on Mark Paul's publications lack objectivity. Regarding Michlic, it is not Mark Paul who is promoting or inventing the myth of Jewish ingratitude. In fact, Mark Paul canvases a broad spectrum of Jewish attitudes. The sources he cites are Jewish authors exposing this phenomenon based on Jewish testimonies: (1) “‘Now you see why we hate the Polacks,’ one survivor concluded her account, in which she presented many instances of Poles’ help. There was no word about hating the Germans.” Cited in Eva Hoffman, Shtetl: The Life and Death of a Small Town and the World of Polish Jews (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin, 1997), 245. (2) “The Wanderers were among the luckiest Jewish families in town. Both parents and the girls survived the war. They were hidden successively by several Polish families. After the war, the Wanderers emigrated to America. I sent the Wanderer sisters information about the Regulas, one of the Polish families in whose house on the outskirts of Brzezany they had hid after the Judenrein roundup. I hoped that they would start the procedure of granting them the Righteous Gentiles award, but nothing came of it. … When I called Rena, the older one, and asked whether a young Polish historian, a colleague of mine who was doing research in New York, could interview her for my project on Brzezany, her reaction was curt and clear: ‘I hate all Polacks.’ … Rena advised me not to present the Poles in too favorable a way ‘for the sake of our martyrs.’” See Shimon Redlich, Together and Apart in Brzezany: Poles, Jews, and Ukrainians, 1918–1945 (Bloomington and Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2002), 22. (3) Liwa Gomulka, the wife of Communist leader Wladysław Gomulka, “refused to see an old Polish woman who had hidden her during the Nazi occupation and had come to her for some small favour.” See Michael Checinski, Poland: Communism, Nationalism, Anti-Semitism (New York: Karz-Cohl, 1982), 143. As for Allan Levine, Mark Paul amply demolished his criticism and his scholarship. It is Levine who relies almost exclusively on Jewish testimonies and cites no archival sources, whereas Mark Paul cites Soviet, Polish and German archival sources, as well as testimonies from the Archives of the Jewish Historical Institute and Yad Vashem. Levine is also adept at purging documents of important information, namely Jan Karski’s report from February 1940, from which he removes a key passage that refers to widespread denunciation of Poles by Jews and Jewish collaboration with the Soviet organs of repression. Although no one has proven the existence of such an order, Levine claims that Polish partisans received instructions from the Home Army leadership and the Polish government in exile in London to unilaterally declare war on the Soviet partisans and their Jewish members. Soviet archival documents released in the 1990s make it clear that an order to undermine and destroy the Polish partisan movement was issued by the Belorussisn partisan command. The list can go on and on. Levine's is an amateurish book with little historical value. His notion that the Polish underground waged a war on Jews was flatly dismissed by Yisrael Gutman: "One should not close one’s eyes to the fact that Home Army units in the Wilno area were fighting against the Soviet partisans for the liberation of Poland. And that is why the Jews who found themselves on the opposing side perished at the hands of Home Army soldiers—as enemies of Poland, and not as Jews." Tatzref (talk) 15:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Primary documents and accounts of perpetrators are often dismissed by serious scholars as self-serving. That aside, the ORish promotion (or copy-paste from Paul's self-published document?) of "Jewish ingratitude" in the comments above is quite offensive. The term is seen as a stereotype (Gans, Evelien. "“They Have Forgotten to Gas You”: Post-1945 Antisemitism in the Netherlands." Thamyris/Intersecting: Place, Sex, and Race (2014): 71.), as an anti-semitic trope Michlic, Joanna Beata. "‘At the Crossroads’: Jedwabne and Polish Historiography of the Holocaust." Dapim: Studies on the Holocaust 31.3 (2017): 296-306., or an anti-Jewish motif [11]. It has also been debunked based on archival evidence - Forward articleMichlic, Joanna B. "'I Will Never Forget What You Did for Me during the War': Rescuer-Rescuee Relationships in the Light of Postwar Correspondence in Poland, 1945–1949." Yad Vashem Studies 39.2 (2011): 169. - which shows Jews broke off contact with their saviors "deliberately to protect them because anti-Semitism was so rampant at the time that had suspicions been raised that they had saved Jews, they would have been punished by their neighbors for being traitors. So while many Jews would have like to stay in contact with their rescuers after the war, they decided it was best to stay away." - and this after repaying debts. Furthermore, this trope has quite a history - it was used by Antoni Listowski to justify the Pinsk massacre as the "town's Jews as whole were guilty of the crime of "blatant ingratitude" - in 1919 - 20 years prior to any "Holocaust ingratitude". Anti-Jewish Violence: Rethinking the Pogrom in East European History, page 33.

Basically, you are arguing an WP:ILIKEIT argument for a self-published author of highly questionable material.Icewhiz (talk) 15:41, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

It appears that any criticism of the behaviour of some Jews is an anti-Semitic trope for Jewish nationalist ideologues, even when that criticism is voiced by reputable Jewish authors. Let's be clear here. This is about censorship of information, and not just views, that is problematic for one's own arguments. Here's another example of censorship of important information about the role of the Germans that was just purged by Icewhiz (it appears) from the article about the Jedwabne pogrom: The earliest reports from Jewish survivors emphasized the key role played by the Germans in the massacre, including direct involvement in rounding up and abusing the Jews in the town square and in killing them at the barn site, where the Germans were said to have set the barn ablaze and shot at Jews who tried to escape. See Michael Maik, Deliverance: The Diary of Michael Maik: A True Story (Kedumim, Israel: Keterpress Enterprises, 2004), 38–39 ("With the help of local farmers, the Germans gathered the Jews of these places, with the rabbi and leaders of the community at the front, in the market square. At first, they beat them cruelly and forced them to wrap themselves in their tallitot, to jump and dance, accompanied by singing. All this was done under an unceasing flood of lashes from cudgels and rubber whips. At the end, they pushed all the Jews, while beating and kicking them, into a long threshing house and set it on fire with them inside.") -- this book is based on a diary written by Maik during the war; Testimony of Rywka Kurc in Hone Holcman, “My Sisters Tell,” in Yitzchak Ivri, ed., Book of Kehilat Ostrolenka: Yizkor Book of the Jewish Community of Ostrolenka (Tel Aviv: Irgun Yotzei Ostrolenka in Israel, 2009), 384 ("the S.S. enclosed all the Jews in a hayloft—men, women, children and old people, among them her husband and two children. They set fire to the building and everyone was burned alive.") - this memorial book was first published in Hebrew in 1963; Harold Zissman, The Warriors: My Life As a Jewish Soviet Partisan (Syracuse, New York: Syracuse University Press, 2005),42 ("some Jews who had fled Jedwabno [sic] told us when the Germans first entered their town, they had herded all the Jews into a barn and set it ablaze. Anyone who tried to get out was cut down by machine-gun fire.”) -- this book is based on interviews from 1995 found in the US Holocaust Memorial Museum. Tatzref (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2018 (UTC) We already know that Yehuda Bauer, Timothy Snyder, and Peter Longerich, leading historians in their field, pay no heed to Michlic’s extremist views about historians Bogdan Musial, Marek Wierzbicki and Marek Chodakiewicz. Other historians don’t have much use for her views either. See Gunnar Paulsson’s response to the charges Michlic levelled at his book Secret City, in Holocaust and Genocide Studies, vol. 20, no. 2 (2006): 372–74. Tellingly, Michlic does not accept the findings of Poland’s Institute of National Memory regarding the number of victims of the Jedwabne pogrom, and stubbornly clings to a 1,000 toll. That is almost twice the number of Jews recorded in the Soviet census of September 1941, and we know that at least 200 Jews survived the massacre. She is simply not credible on so many issues. So you’ll have to do a lot better than Michlic to discredit Mark Paul. He has published in peer-reviewed scholarly publications (journals and books) and his online publications are cited by academics like Eike Lossin, M.B. Biskupski, and many others. Icewhiz has gone around in circles on this and is no closer to providing a justifiable reason for banning Mark Paul's publications. Tatzref (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Despite the long walls of text above, the policy based reason is WP:FRINGE for an author described as propagating a myth and WP:SPS due to this being self published.Icewhiz (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Paul's creentials, beyond the issues above, remain unclear. His education? Occupation? Other activities beyond self publishing these long and copiously footnoted online documents?Icewhiz (talk) 23:19, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

(1) This is a contradiction in terms: Mark Paul's publications are "copiously footnoted" yet they are allegedly fringe. (2) Even if we were to accept they are fringe (which many scholars clearly do not not), Wikipedia's policy is not to exclude them but to give them less prominence: Fringe theory in a nutshell: To maintain a neutral point of view, an idea that is not broadly supported by scholarship in its field must not be given undue weight in an article about a mainstream idea. More extensive treatment should be reserved for an article about the idea, which must meet the test of notability. Additionally, when the subject of an article is the minority viewpoint itself, the proper contextual relationship between minority and majority viewpoints must be clear. (3) As for self-published sources, the policy states: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by . Mark Paul's work has been published in journals (Glaukopis) and books (Golden Harvest or Hearts of Gold?) peer-reviewed by academics and professional historians, and his self-published work has been cited by many academics and professional historians (Marek Wierzbicki, Bogdan Musial, Peter Stachura, Eike Lossin, Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, M.B. Biskupski, Tillar Mazzeo). They do not propagate myths, one of which alleged "myths" is consistent with the views of Norman Davies, Ben-Cion Pinchuk and Jan Karski. Clearly Icewhiz's purported veto of Mark Paul's work contravenes this policy and is illegitimate.Tatzref (talk) 02:15, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Mark Paul, whose background / education / occupation are unknown, and over a period of some 20 years has been mentioned scantily in works of other (the lack of citations in google scholar is telling) can not be considered an expert. Being hosted on a website does not constitute publication. Has Paul been published in a mainstream reputable peer reviewed journal?Icewhiz (talk) 04:00, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Just to consolidate the previous post, there were two "myths" attributed to Mark Paul in order to discredit him: (1) One was advanced by Icewhiz, who denies Jewish overrepresentation among collaborators with the Soviet occupiers of Eastern Poland to the detriment of Poles; this overrepresentation has been substantiated by leading (non-Polish) historians and key eyewitnesses such as Norman Davies, Ben-Cion Pinchuk and Jan Karski, who are hardly fringe, among others. (2) The other is based on a patent misreading by Joanna Michlic of Paul Mark's text, which refers to what Jewish authors said about some survivors' attitudes, as well as mentioning many examples of gratitude; for the record, Michlic's extremist views of other historians whom she dislikes and tars have been implicitly rejected by leading (non-Polish) historians in the field such as Timothy Snyder, Yehuda Bauer, and Peter Longerich. So the notion that Mark Paul's work propagates myths has been effectively demolished. At least ten works by Mark Paul have been published in peer-reviewed journals and books. Mark Paul's unpublished (online) work has been mentioned by at least seven historians/academics (Marek Wierzbicki, Bogdan Musial, Peter Stachura, Eike Lossin, Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, M.B. Biskupski, Tillar Mazzeo), which is more than sufficient to meet the test of reliability. By any definition, Glaukopis is a scholarly peer-reviewed journal that is subscribed to by leading universities and scholarly institutions such as the University of Toronto, Yale University, Columbia University, UCLA, Stanford University, the US Holocaust Memorial Museum, etc. (WorldCat lists 49 institutions). The fact that Glaukopis may be right-leaning (as opposed to left-leaning) or that Icewhiz doesn't like its content is irrelevant. The Wikipedia criteria refer to "reliable" not "mainstream" third-party publications, so Icewhiz is misrepresenting their content and misapplying them. To reiterate, Icewhiz's purported veto of Mark Paul's work contravenes Wikipedia policy and is illegitimate. Clearly, we are dealing with a situation where someone wants to suppress information for ideological reasons. Tatzref (talk) 14:47, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

The Jewish Book Council

The Jewish Book Council is an organization encouraging and contributing to Jewish literature. - is it better than the KPK?Xx236 (talk) 06:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Of course. KPK, after all, is related to Poland, which is clearly a biased side here, whereas... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Differenced between editions

The English language edition is different than the Polish one. The differences should be mentioned. I don't know anything about the Hebrew edition.Xx236 (talk) 07:16, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Concerns about academic freedom in Poland increased

This page is about the book, not about Concerns about academic freedom in Poland.Xx236 (talk) 07:27, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

a rural county ???

The county existed before the war and was annected to Kreishauptmannschaft Tarnow. This information is quoted in the book, has anyone read it?Xx236 (talk) 07:57, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The book describes the county as a rural county - [12]. This is also repeated in coverage[13], and in academic refereces - e.g. Seriff, Suzanne. "Holocaust war games: Playing with Genocide." Toys and Communication. Palgrave Macmillan, London, 2018. 153-170. or Lehmann, Rosa. "Jan Grabowski. Hunt for the Jews: Betrayal and Murder in German-Occupied Poland." (2016): 1382-1383.Icewhiz (talk) 08:48, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

You don't have any idea about the subject. Xx236 (talk) 08:49, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

[14] Xx236 (talk) 08:50, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

"Dabrowa Tarnowska was incorporated into the Tarnow Region (Kreishauptmannschaft Tarnow)." from Grabowski, page 22. Xx236 (talk) 08:52, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

WP:NPA please. I presented 4 different sources (and there are more) describing this as a "rural county" above. What should be relevant here - is the description of the county in 1942-44. If you want to challenge that this wasn't a rural county - I suggest you present WP:RS showing otherwise.Icewhiz (talk) 08:54, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

Be serious. There was no Dabrowa county during the war even if 100 Western ignorants believe it existed. Is Grabowski unreliable? He writes about the pre-war county, but you don't understand.Xx236 (talk) 08:56, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

The majority of readers don't have acces to quoted sources. Xx236 (talk) 09:01, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

By the same argument nor was there a Poland, yet we have The Holocaust in Poland and Collaboration in German-occupied Poland. Per the Polish POV (accepted by quite a few other countries) - Poland did not cease to exist, with the government in exile in London being the legitimate representative (including over Eastern Poland, until 1945). Grabowski, it would seem, was using the pre-war county for statistical/archival purposes. Most sources do not expand on this. I suggest that if you want to expand on this - that you use a source and add something along the lines of "during the war, the county was administered by the Germans as...." - though I don't see how this is terribly relevant. Describing this as a "former rural county" is inaccurate.Icewhiz (talk) 09:03, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

There existed some underground administration in occupied Poland but the book doesn't inform about any such administration in the region.

The story about describing "a county" is used probably for propaganda purposes, it is better to describe "a county" than a part of a county.

"A county" suggests there exited Polish administration of the county which implemented the Holocaust in the region.

Please compare "The Holocaust in Poland" and "Collaboration in German-occupied Poland". There should be obviously "The Holocaust in German-occupied Poland". If you want to write "German-occupied Dąbrowa county" it's O.K.

I see that precizion is terribly relevant. Xx236 (talk) 08:31, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Reception section is way too long

I haven't read it all, and I may not get to. My initial perception based on the first few paragraphs was that it was black-washed by Polish nationalist editors, but then I scrolled down and found the later-cited reviews were more positive, so it rather gives the impression of competing factions of Wikipedians (Polish nationalists vs. everyone else?) trying to "balance out" each other's edits, resulting in the massive wall of text we have now. (Note that I have not looked at the page history or any prior discussion on this talk page. I am judging based purely on what is in the article now. I apologize if the negative reviews were in fact added in good-faith by editors not pushing a nationalist POV.)

But are there no general survey articles discussing the book's reputation among historians overall? Getting a few of those would probably be a lot more helpful than what we currently have here.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:35, 14 May 2018 (UTC)

According to you the section describes a fight of good guys versus bad guys (Polish nationalist), which means the section is biased and should be rewritten.

The book is a book, it contains valuable research and biased accusations.

If academic readers of the book don't understand geography of the described area and claim that the book describes a WWII county, it means that the author is sometimes unprecise. Xx236 (talk) 08:15, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

@Xx236: Please strike your first sentence. Nothing in what I said implied that, and accusing other editors of WP:BATTLEGROUND without good reason is a personal attack. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I don't accuse you but the authors of the section. I understand you text as a description of biased section. I'm sorry that my English is poor.Xx236 (talk) 06:31, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Hijiri88: - there is some merit to what you are saying. The editing process here initially (back when this was in the Grabowski article) - had this in a 1.5 paragraphs (and short ones!) - from English language peer reviewed journals. Following that - a number of very negative Polish language reviews (most not from peer reviewed journals) was added. This led to re-balancing by adding more English (and German) language content (though sticking to a higher sourcing quality level), as well as additional Polish language reviews (some of which were neutral or positivish). At least one edit has been insisting on keeping the Polish reviews on top (which I and others disagreed with - there is no consensus for the current ordering, however I at least am not inclined to "pick up the torch" on this - will support a reordering however). As someone who has actually read all (or most of the reviews) - reception in English (and German) language peer reviewed publications has been good to excellent (with the good pointing out some flaws but overall praising the work). Reception in Polish has been mixed - there is a certain camp of historians who strongly disagree with the conclusions, while others are more aligned to international scholars (and there is a group in between).Icewhiz (talk) 08:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree with @Hijiri88: I've not laboured through the section mysefl. I really needs subsections, but I'm not sure what they can be. Some of the copy goes off on tangeants by mentioning other books that the reviewer covered; this could be streamlined. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:54, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

In Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz reactions from Poland were separated into a separate section. As for other books in reviews - they are closely related - Grabowski wrote the intro to Gross's book and Grabowski and Engelking are at the Holocaust center - the 3 were released more or less the same time in 2011 in Polish and cover the same subject from different angles - which is why reviews on the Polish version are often on the trio.Icewhiz (talk) 17:49, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

See, I think even dividing it into sections would not solve the problem, as it would still be way too long relative to the other sections. Virtually every well-known book on a scholarly subject will have received hundreds of reviews in "reliable sources" of varying quality, and we can't be comprehensive. I'd generally be in favour of violently summarizing what we have here, and perhaps being more brutal with the non-peer-reviewed sources, such as by saying A number of academics in Poland were highly critical of the book and tagging all the citations onto that one sentence. Alternatively, we could rename the article to Responses to Hunt for the Jews and just provide an explanation of what the book is in a "background" section, because that's really what the article is at the moment; the problem with that is that (as I implied in my first comment) the book's reception doesn't appear to have been covered in reliable secondary sources (if it had, this problem would be easy to address). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:06, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

"A number of academics in Poland were highly critical of the book". There is a small problem - is Musiał "In Poland"? In 2017 he lived in Germany [15]. I don't know when he left Poland. Chodakiewicz is Polish-American.Xx236 (talk) 06:58, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

@Xx236: The proposed text does not say or imply that 100% of the negative reception was from academics who are Polish citizens, but speaking for the overseas Irish community I can say with confidence that ethnic Poles who live in Germany or America are not by that fact alone less likely to hold nationalistic sentiments and a strong bias against any "criticism of Poland"; with us at least, it's normally the opposite. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Yes, I agree with cutting / summarizing the “Reception” section. The current amount of information is not very useful to the average reader. However, I’m not sure I’m up to the task. I’d be willing to participate in discussions if needed. As a start, the non-peer-reviewed sources should be probably evaluated for removal. --K.e.coffman (talk) 00:16, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
• Comment - I support summarizing this down as well. I do think it is important preserve all the citations - but we should group similar reviews together in joint paragraphs, or summarize each review in a much more concise manner. I would appreciate if someone else took this up - I've been "burnt" by edit wars on NPOVing this - and it would be better done by someone less invovled. I think the current text does represent the reviews correctly (with some exceptions - e.g. Shimon Redlich's positive review is cherry picked a bit too much for negative bits) - you do not really have to dive into each one - but rather do more of a summary of the existing wiki text.Icewhiz (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

Controversy

This page is about the book, not about Grabowski. Grabowski has published a number of short texts and declarted radical opinions in his interviews. Do all of them belong here?Xx236 (talk) 08:35, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Myths

• Mędykowski concludes by saying that a "shock therapy" for destroying the myths about Jewish salvation is due
• Michael Fleming's review commended the book's insights into how rural Poles were, not infrequently, complicit with German genocide, challenging readers' myths
• the self-serving myths about Polish-Jewish relations in World War II
• the myth of Polish innocence during the Holocaust

Please define the myths. It's impossible to discuss undefined ideas.

Destroction of Polish myths is possible in Poland or among Poles abroad. A destruction of Polish myths translated into English creates biased image of WWII (new myths). Fleming believes that an English language book challenges "readers' myths", wow!

It's unprecize to claim that "rural Poles were, not infrequently, complicit with German genocide". Grabowski describes German terror which forced local people to do certain things. Acting under terror isn't exatly a "complicity". Which legal or ethical systems demand heroism? Bushido in Japan, but in Europe? Grabowski describes also robberies. Robbing Jews was illegal under German occupation, because Jewish goods were owned by the German Reich, so robbing Jews was a crime against the Reich, not "complicity".Xx236 (talk) 06:28, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Mędykowski quotes Grabowski's numbers, but the numbers are wrong according to Samsonowska. I assume that Samsonowska's numbers are wrong, because she is Polish, which means here that she is "right" and "nationalistic". Xx236 (talk) 06:46, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

From the book "I would like to thank my friends at Yad Vashem: David Silberklang, Rob Rozett, Dan Michman, and Witold Medykowski, who were always there to offer their help" - does it make Mędykowski a neutral reviewer?Xx236 (talk) 06:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

"readers' misconceptions" still doesn't inform that the readers are apparently Polish. Is a Polish-Polish or Canadian-Polish discussion interesting for outsiders?. Xx236 (talk) 07:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

• Related comment Could a German-speaking editor clarify how much of the sentence Mędykowski concludes by saying that a "shock therapy" for destroying the myths about Jewish salvation is due. is a straight translation from the source? It doesn't look like the kind of sentence a Wikipedian would write, and if it's very clearly a straight translation of the source then it should probably be either removed or placed in quotation marks. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 07:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

"all of the individuals manning it were Poles"

Please reference the phrase. There were German policemen (Gendarmerie) and officials in the region. Baudienst was a German organization, in which some Poles were working as engineers and foremen. The youth had to obey. Xx236 (talk) 07:16, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Timothy Snyder's opinions

Timothy Snyder has written more. This selection of his words is biased.Xx236 (talk) 09:01, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Oder Aderet quotes Snyder, but the page doesn't quote the quote, so why the reference here?Xx236 (talk) 09:04, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Snyder expalines that (at least some) peasants didn't consider themselves to be Polish. Xx236 (talk) 13:11, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

This page is about the book Hunt for the Jews

It's not about the Fear. Please move your discussion into the right Talk page.Xx236 (talk) 09:19, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Dąbrowa County

The page describes the current county, which exists since the 1999. There existed at least two other Dąbrowa counties - a pre-WWII one and a post-WWII one. We don't know if the area was the same in the three counties. Xx236 (talk) 13:09, 18 May 2018 (UTC)