Talk:The Holocaust in Poland

Page views (90 days)

Other necessary revisions

A greater focus on temporal progression, as used by many historians, might well elucidate the Holocaust as a process. Then we would not need separate sections for Poles and other ethnic groups, but simply indicate their roles within the main narrative, where it belongs.

1. Background
2. Ghettoization, Aryanization, forced labor
3. Deportation to extermination camps
4. Hunting down survivors, remaining German labor camps (i.e. Deblin–Irena)
5. Aftermath; including the August Decree trials, long-term effects on the Polish economy flight of most of the surviving Jews, etc.

The only featured article on the Holocaust in a particular country, The Holocaust in Slovakia, is structured in a mixture of temporal and thematic ways; there is no separate sections for collaboration and rescue, German and Slovak roles etc. rather these themes are discussed in a single narrative progression. (t · c) buidhe 05:49, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

There's always a problem with organizing things chronologically. You end up with a timeline not an article. Thematic organization, as we have now, is more suitable. Volunteer Marek 19:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't suggest a timeline (indeed the Slovakia article is not remotely a timeline), I suggest a structure that presents the Holocaust as a process that was coordinated by German occupation authorities and implemented by a wider variety of actors. Many scholarly works, such as Gates of Tears take this approach. The current structure falls short at enabling the reader to understand how the Holocaust was organized and implemented. (t · c) buidhe 22:30, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

The approach you outlined looks very much chronological. Of course there is some need for chronology but like I said, I think a thematic approach is better. Volunteer Marek 00:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the current organization is that it is not really based on the approach taken by sources. The national minorities section is arguably SYNTH since I cannot find a single source which discusses the role of "national minorities" in the Holocaust in Poland.[1] (t · c) buidhe 07:03, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The title may be somewhat SYNTHy but the topic is most certainly covered (see sources within the article). Certainly the role of Selbstschutz, Sonderdienst and similar formations, as well as that of UPA, Lithuanian Auxiliary Police Battalions, Ypatingasis būrys, in the Holocaust is definitely discussed in sources. Volunteer Marek 00:19, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

I cannot find a single source which discusses the role of "national minorities" in the Holocaust in Poland It's very easy to find.Poland's Holocaust: Ethnic Strife, Collaboration with Occupying Forces and Genocide in the Second Republic, 1918-1947 Paperback – Illustrated, January 9, 2007 by Tadeusz Piotrowski which is writing about [2] . Based on primary and secondary sources in numerous languages (including Polish, German, Ukrainian, Belorussian, Russian and English), this work examines the roles of the ethnic minorities in the collapse of the Republic and in the atrocities that occurred under the occupying troops.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 01:15, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

References

The lead

• I see two problems in the lead.

1. Something is wrong with numbers on the page. It say 3,000,000 Polish Jews were killed by Nazi, and it was 98% of all Jews who lived there. At the same time, it tells 350,000 survived. How is that? The contradiction is glaring, right in the infobox and the lead.
2. Obviously, Nazi killed millions more people, not only Jews, during the Holocaust in Poland, and I think they also should be mentioned in the lead. My very best wishes (talk) 14:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Simply looking at one of older versions, it seems to be without such problems:

The Holocaust in German-occupied Poland was the last and the most lethal phase of the Nazi "Final Solution of the Jewish Question" (Endlösung der Judenfrage) marked by the construction of death camps on German-occupied Polish soil. The genocide officially sanctioned and executed by the Third Reich during World War II, collectively known as the Holocaust, took the lives of three million Polish Jews and similar numbers of Poles, not including losses of Polish citizens of other ethnicities.[8] The extermination camps played a central role in the implementation of the German policy of systematic and mostly successful destruction of over 90% of the Polish-Jewish population of the Second Polish Republic.[9]

Every arm of the sophisticated German bureaucracy was involved in the killing process, from the Interior Ministry and the Finance Ministry, to German firms and state-run trains used for deportation of Jews.[10][11] German companies bid for the contracts to build the crematoria in concentration camps run by Nazi Germany in the General Government as well as in other parts of occupied Poland and beyond.[9][12] My very best wishes (talk) 15:10, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

That version is better stylistically but one issue was the "similar number of Poles" phrasing. Three million non-Jewish Poles may be roughly the number that died at the hands of both Nazis and Soviets, but it's probably too high as a number for just the Nazi victims. Volunteer Marek 17:47, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The 98% figure as stated only refers to the Jews who were in Poland at the time. Saying that 350,000 survived as you inserted is misleading because it combines those who were and weren't in Poland at the time. Common usage of "the Holocaust" in scholarly works only refers to the persecution of Jews rather than non-Jews as has been established by consensus on the Holocaust article. (t · c) buidhe 14:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

I didn't "insert it". I restored original text. How would you want to word the sentence in a way that accounts for those who were and who weren't in Poland at the time.

I have no idea what your last sentence is referring to since no one here is claiming that the term "the Holocaust" refers to anything other than the persecution of Jews. It appears to be a non-sequitur? Volunteer Marek 19:55, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

"The 98% figure as stated only refers to the Jews who were in Poland at the time." That's not true. This is what the source says: "on the territories controlled by the Third Reich at most only 2 percent of Polish Jews survived.". The numbers don't add up, one of the figures must be wrong. Most probably it's the 98% one, the source mentions it only in passing and the numbers weren't the main focus of the article. Całkiem anonimowy (talk) 21:07, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

There were 3.3 million Jews in Poland before the war. Around 300,000 managed to get to Soviet Union after German invasion. That left about 3 million within Poland. 2% of that is about 60,000. About 230,000 survived in Soviet Union. That gives 290,000. That's less than the 350,000. The discrepancy probably has to do with different methods of estimating these numbers, rounding, differences in definitions, as well as differences in population (in particular some survived by escaping to the West via Romania - I don't know how significant that number is). These kinds of estimates by their nature are very difficult and each component will have error and when you add them up these errors ad up to, so it's not reasonable for the numbers to match perfectly. Volunteer Marek 00:11, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for responding to my question! Given that, something like "destruction of over 90% of the Polish-Jewish population of the Second Polish Republic" would be probably a more fair statement. But whatever you guys decide here. This subject is way too far from my interests. P.S. I did visit Yad Vashem in Israel (that was an incredible spiritual experience), just as I did visit Poland long time ago and heard some interesting stories with family photos (also a memorial of sort), not on this subject though. My very best wishes (talk) 05:40, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Just to clarify it was My very best wishes who inserted the 350,000 figure (check the article history), I don't know where they got it. Although some sources do calculate it that way, I personally think that one should not bundle in Jews who were in the Soviet Union, out of reach of the Nazi genocide, with those who survived in Poland. It gives a misleading impression of how deadly the event actually was. (t · c) buidhe 01:52, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the numbers do add up within estimation errors, but the main issue is that the article is clearly misquoting the source. The source states: "on the territories controlled by the Third Reich at most only 2 percent of Polish Jews survived." Obviously, "on the territories controlled by the Third Reich" is not the same as "Jews in Poland at the time". Changing this to be in line with the original would also make the text much less confusing to casual readers. Anyone can notice that 350,000 isn't close to 2% of 3,000,000, which could cause them to dismiss this whole article as unreliable. I surely couldn't make sense of it until I checked the source. Relatively random (talk) 07:26, 13 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe leave out how many survived, as it seems to not be that accurate or simple. Let the reader work out what the number is from the numbers killed.Slatersteven (talk) 09:49, 13 February 2021 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 27 April 2021

Hello, please correct the title of "The Holocaust in Poland" by adding the phrase "German-occupied". Correct: "The Holocaust in German-occupied Poland". Substantiation More and more often on the Internet I hear the opinion that "Poles murdered 3 million Jews". Those who write this use the quoted title of the Wikipedia article: https://twitter.com/voyaserbreve/status/1385930597017821184 https://twitter.com/voyaserbreve/status/1385940544027774976

Young people who are completely ignorant of history may be misled by the current title of the article.

greetings Lukas Gmurczyk Lgmur (talk) 18:12, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Then they should read the article and not just the title.Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. This is going to be contentious so please seek a consensus on this before requesting the edit. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:45, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

Not news, undue

This is WP:UNDUE and it violates WP:NOTNEWS. Volunteer Marek 17:36, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

It's an awful lot of NOTNEWS! [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17] François Robere (talk) 19:58, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

NOTNEWS means that Wikipedia isn’t a newspaper. Volunteer Marek 20:22, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

And how exactly does mentioning a bill that's been in the works for years, on a subject that's widely written about, makes it one? François Robere (talk) 20:26, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

You created an entire section about it, which is clearly UNDUE in this article. Also any idea why a brand new account, Ludwig97, is spamming links to an article you *just* created to so many other articles, trying to raise its visibility? Volunteer Marek 20:28, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Why exactly is it undue? Does the subject of Polish-Jewish property confiscated by the Nazis not part of the Holocaust in Poland?

Also, do I look like the phone directory? Ask them. François Robere (talk) 20:30, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, it was your article and only moments after it was created this strange new account began trying to link it all over the place, so that’s why I’m asking. Just wondering if you have some … insight here. What’s a “phone directory”? Volunteer Marek 20:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I mean... less than two hours after I finished it you were already there carving it up.[18] How do people find these articles?

Back to my previous question: how is it not part of this subject? François Robere (talk) 20:41, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, yeah, I saw the article pop in other articles on my watchlist because that brand new account (now blocked) started spamming it too all kinds of places almost as soon as you created it.

It’s not part of the subject because WP:NOTNEWS - in particular it’s not even clear that this is related to WW2 property at all. Yes, I know some NEWSpapers say that but that’s why we have the sourcing restriction in place for this topic - we can wait till there are serious academic sources on the subject. Volunteer Marek 20:45, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

It took you all of seven minutes to notice the article, read the sources, and start cutting it up?[19][20] François Robere (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Was seven minutes how long it took for that brand new account to show up and start spamming this brand new article everywhere? Really, that quick? But yeah I’m a fast reader and it’s not like this article was long or something. Doesn’t take that long to read a paragraph. Volunteer Marek 21:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

No, it's how long passed from their first post to you starting to delete things. François Robere (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

ah, ok, that’s how long it took me to remove the false information from the article. Since you did that calculation, can you also add up how long it took for that sock puppet account to start spamming the article you just created to dozens of other articles? Volunteer Marek 21:37, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Discussing this bill a month and a half ago, Poland's PM said that "as long as [he is] the prime minister, Poland will certainly not pay for German crimes. Not a single zloty, euro or dollar."[21] François Robere (talk) 21:19, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Ok, and? Volunteer Marek 21:25, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

You said it’s not even clear that this is related to WW2 property at all. Poland's PM disagrees. François Robere (talk) 21:32, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

That’s because he was responding to Lapid’s claims. Volunteer Marek 21:39, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't matter. The point is Poland's PM does the connection, as do over a dozen media sources. You can't just dismiss it because you don't like it. François Robere (talk) 21:43, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Israeli politician tries to make the connection, Polish PM has to respond. But regardless, it doesn’t matter simply because it’s not suitable for a general level article such as this one. Volunteer Marek 21:57, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't really think that's a WP:NOTNEWS situation. The example cited in NOTNEWS is routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities. Laws adopted by national parliaments with ramifications for international relations are clearly beyond that. JBchrch talk 20:42, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I’m not saying it’s not notable (which is why I haven’t AfD’d FR’s new article that the sock puppet account started spamming all over the place). But it isn’t DUE here as this is a general level article with stringent sourcing requirements (part of the reason for the sourcing requirement is that kind of stuff tends to get misreported when it first break). There’s other articles where it may be relevant, like Poland-Israel relations or something. Volunteer Marek 20:48, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

I will let other editors discuss whether this is DUE in this article. Just wanted to point out the issue with the NOTNEWS argument. JBchrch talk 20:56, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

Let's draft something here, using scholarly sources if possible. (Also please note that indef-banned editor has been active socking in this area, see [22], it's possible they'll try to disrupt the discussion here too). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:39, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

My edit included two component: a small structural change, and a short mention of this law.[23] The structural change follows the norms in similar articles (The Holocaust in Slovakia, The Holocaust in Bohemia and Moravia), and the addition is well-sourced. François Robere (talk) 10:54, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd prefer to see something based on academic sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:48, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

On what exactly? François Robere (talk) 13:05, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

The first and lasstences are not controversial, but "The law would make it difficult for survivors and their descendants to recover property that was lost during the war." requires more foolproof sourcing. Also, we should discuss whether this is DUE here at all. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:19, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

• WaPo/Bloomberg: "[The law] makes it more difficult for Holocaust survivors to reclaim property that was seized by Nazis in Poland, leaving many Jews whose families perished in Poland and had their properties confiscated with no recourse to restitution but also a sense that their history is being denied."
• Politico: "The law... imposed a 30-year time limit on legal challenges to restitution claims and ending outstanding claims for the return of seized property that have not reached a final decision in the last 30 years — effectively cutting off many cases."
• AP: "...a law that restricts the rights of Holocaust survivors or their descendants to reclaim property seized by the country’s former communist regime..."
• Reuters: "...a new law that could have an impact on the restitution of Jewish property after World War Two... Poland's parliament passed a draft bill in June which is expected to make it harder for Jewish people to recover the property..."
• Guardian: "...a new law is expected to pass its final stages in the Polish parliament that will set a 30-year time limit on legal challenges over confiscated properties, in effect axing thousands of claims."

Links given in my previous message. François Robere (talk) 10:37, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, who supports what?Slatersteven (talk) 12:27, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

In

• Everything? François Robere (talk) 12:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
  • Nothing? I am not convinced this is DUE at this level. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:10, 19 August 2021 (UTC)
    • That looks like an option to not have it, correct?Slatersteven (talk) 15:37, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

RfC: Property restitution

Should the following paragraph be entered into the article? 11:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

In August 2021, Poland passed a law to address restitution of property seized by the communist regime that ruled Poland after the war. The law would make it difficult for survivors and their descendants to recover property that was lost during the war. In protest, Israel recalled its charge d'affaires to Warsaw.

References

Survey

• Yes, per a multitude of RS establishing accuracy and notability.[24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38] François Robere (talk) 11:32, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• No really not about the Holocuast.Slatersteven (talk) 11:34, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes (Summoned by bot) - the three sources given in the proposed section are clearly relating the new law to Holocaust victims in Poland; no reason to exclude. The prose is factual and neutral, and while I don't know where it's intended to be placed in the article I'm sure it can be balanced with any new developments, or removed if it turns out that nothing comes of this (unlikely, I think, since Israel has recalled their ambassador over it). Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 12:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

  @Ivanvector See my 'no but' below. The issue should be mentioned, but the proposed prose is not neutral. It only outlines grievances of one side ("survivors and their descendants"), and not the other (such as tenants, who are often mercilessly evicted, as well as the issue of widespread corruption and criminal intermediaries, see [39], [40]). Instead of adding the emotional argument for the other (tenant) side I think we should avoid playing on readers emotions at all. The issue is controversial, but we should avoid trying to generate sympathy for either side (and this is what the text proposed above does, hence, it fails NPOV test). Second issue is that the proposed addition is an example of recentism, suggesting the issue arose just this year, whereas it has been an issue since at at least 1989. See property restitution in Poland, a dedicated article which for unknown reason is not even linked in the proposed sentence to be added. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:45, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  For that we have the main article, Piotrus. Putting everything here would be a WP:COATRACK. To quote one of your sources:[41] "the proposed restrictions have been received with dismay by many heirs to prewar owners, including organisations representing Holocaust survivors and their heirs, who argue that they should not be held responsible for the crimes and unethical practices of a minority of claimants. “This focus on ‘wild reprivatisation’ is threatening the legal, normal restitution processes of people who constitute the majority of claims and had nothing to do with this illegal behaviour,” says Grocholski, [a] lawyer representing heirs to prewar owners."

  @Ivanvector: The paragraph was originally inserted under a new subsection: Legacy / Restitution.[42] François Robere (talk) 10:40, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  Yes, exactly, for those details we have the main article. The article here should not be used to POV push one side's grievances. We should mention there is a controversial issue covered in a subarticle - nothing less, nothing more. NPOV is the key policy to observe. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:56, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  But this isn't "tenants vs. Jews", Piotrus, it's "Holocaust survivors and their kin vs. the government of Poland". Unless you can clearly show that all of these other claims (evictions, corruption, etc.) actually concern Holocaust survivors and their kin, then I see don't how any of it is even relevant here; and if it's not, then why should it stop us from including material that is?[43] François Robere (talk) 13:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  ” it's "Holocaust survivors and their kin vs. the government of Poland". ” — uhhh, what??? Does the “government of Poland” own these properties or something? No. What are you talking about??? The only way that “government” has been involved in this process so far is that some politicians have been caught and prosecuted for accepting bribes to GRANT fraudulent restitution claims (see the fraud in Warsaw article already linked). I’m sorry FR but your comment makes absolutely no sense here, and that’s not even getting to the part about “Holocaust survivors” whose claims are completely unaffected by this or any other law (the issue is always about “heirless property”). Volunteer Marek 20:16, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

  I disagree. "Holocaust survivors and their kin vs. the government of Poland" is just one of several possible POVed ways of framing this. The sources cited here and in the main property restitution article clearly show this is all intermixed (ex. the following example of corruption related to a claim by "Holocaust survivors and their kin" A number of figures involved in “wild reprivatisation” specialised in obtaining claims to buildings whose Jewish prewar owners had died during the war. Some obtained properties on the basis of dubious claims about absent claimants – in one case, a court accepted testimony arguing that an absent 130-year-old owner was alive but could not be located. Others specialised in buying claims from heirs who had grown tired of waiting for a decision from city hall.) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:35, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

  I'm not seeing any source state this has anything to do with the survivors and their kin, only that the process itself is flawed. That, again, is not reason enough to omit this issue from this article, any more than this aspect would be reason enough to omit it from eg. Warsaw, if it was due there. We don't cover every aspect of an issue in every article, just the pertinent ones. François Robere (talk) 18:00, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

• No. The law is about restitution of property seized by communists and it addresses restitution in general - there's nothing in it specifically about Jewish property or anything like that. It's purpose is to address the rampant and widespread corruption, fraud and abuse in "wild reprivatizations" that have occured since fall of communism (see for example Reprivatisation fraud in Warsaw) which have resulted in a quasi-legal secondary market in restitution claims (where one person buys claims to property which may have been seized by communists from another, then sells it to a third person, who then sells it to a fourth person, who then sells it to some developers or organized firms etc), thousands of unfair evictions (often of low income long standing residents), several bribery scandals, involvement of organized crime and such. It is only tangentially related to the Holocaust, if at all. As such it is WP:UNDUE in a *general level* article such as this one, even if the info does belong somewhere else, like Property restitution in Poland. The attempt to squeeze it into here smacks of WP:COATRACKing. Volunteer Marek 13:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)
• No but. In the current form proposed above this is recentism, and POVed too. That's not acceptable. But the article should neutrally mention that the issue of Jewish property restitution in Poland, an obvious artifact of the Holocaust era, is a recurring controversy in Israel-Poland relations, attracting some international media attention. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:38, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• No for this cherry-picked form. The issue is wider than that. Lembit Staan (talk) 16:17, 27 August 2021 (UTC)
• Yes. A simple search for Holocaust+Poland+Jewish+property yields an incredible amount of news, books, and scholar results. The The Plunder of Jewish Property during the Holocaust has significant content on Poland, so do The Polish debate on the holocaust and the restitution of property and Unsettled possession: the question of ownership of Jewish sites in Poland after the Holocaust from a local perspective]. In addition there is significant coverage in sources likes the New York Times: 'a Narrow Window to Do Justice' for Those Robbed by Nazis, A Quest to Reclaim a Family Home Unearths a Past Buried, and Holocaust Survivors in Poland Find Restitution Claims ‘Like a Carousel’, the Guardian: Anger as Poland plans law that will stop Jews reclaiming wartime homes. Clearly the plunder of Jewish homes and property by the Poles and Nazis as well as Poles taking over Nazi wartime plunder of Jewish property after the war, is a significant aspect of the Holocaust of Poland. Over 90% of Polish Jews were murdered by the Nazis, their property overwhelmingly was in Polish hands after the war. As for other property disputes from the communist era, that's a separate subject, which is less relevant to this article. What is relevant to this article is the massive coverage of the plunder of Jewish property and coverage of the refusal of Polish authorities to return the property to its owners, descendants, remote heirs, and the Jewish community at large.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:25, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Astral Leap, I can see that you're using purposefully inflammatory language (" plunder of Jewish homes and property by the Poles ") which, apart from being false and NOT supported by sources (for example, would you care to tell us what exactly this source, which you claim has a "significant content on Poland" actually says? AFAIK it talks about plunder by Germans WITHIN Poland) appears intended to provoke other editors. That was indeed what User:Icewhiz was banned from this topic for. And now, strangely, you're doing the exact same thing ([44] "made unnecessarily inflammatory comments ([6]), made negative insinuations about Poland ([7]), and made inappropriate ethnically derogatory comments") Please cut it out. Additionally this RfC is not about the general issue but this particular restitution law which was just passed and which actually DOES NOT say anything about pre-war Jewish property - it's mostly about the property nationalized by the communists. Volunteer Marek 20:01, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I am sorry Volunteer Marek that you consider language in reliable sources as "purposefully inflammatory", perhaps that explains your multiple bans from Jews, anti-Semitism, and Eastern Europe. Some quotes from sources:

This clause clearly violated the most basic rules of international law and obligations undertaken by Poland under a number of international conventions of which it is a signatory. Such a stance actually legitimizes the plunder of Jewish property by German occupation authorities. (pages 103-104 of The Plunder of Jewish Property during the Holocaust)

The relative visibility of peasants denouncing Jews, murdering them and plundering their property is accompanied by an invisibility of the intelligentsia and its essential role in rein-forcing the exclusion and the antisemitic patterns of behavior before the Holocaust which facilitated direct involvement in these events, as well as an invisibility of the intelligentsia’s own participation in the events of the Holocaust. (abstract and page 2 of paper)

Antisemitic practice was not restricted to blackmailing, it also involved the pillage and plundering of Jewish property . A dispatch in Agencja Prasowaof October 7, 1942 on the Polish response to the deportation of the Jews from the Warsaw Ghetto reports mass pillaging by all classes (page 9, ibid)

The plundering of Jews was not incidental or abusive, it was “a social practice rather than a criminal activity or the deviant behavior of some rogue individuals. That plunder-ing was widespread and sanctioned is revealed precisely by the forms of reference to it captured in language” (Grudzińska-Gross & Gross, 2012, p. 77). Many people treated the seizure of Jewish property as a patriotic duty of reclaiming property for the sake of Poland ; all social classes had a part in it: not only the peasants plundering utensils, clothes, huts, money, and valuables; but also the bourgeoisie plundering townhouses, apartments, and factories; and lawyers taking part in the procedure of “reappropriation” (Grabowski, 2005) (page 13, ibid)

For Gross, the Polish obsession with Jewish property is the key to understanding the brutality and persistence of Polish antisemitism . The Poles, he argues, wanted whatever the Jews had, from their homes to the gold in their teeth. academic book review

An analysis of Polish textbooks published between 1977 and 2006 found that where the Holocaust was mentioned at all, Catholic Poles were usually depicted saving Jews while resisting German aggressors, a description that glosses over difficult facts of Polish complicity in the plunder of their Jewish neighbours during the war (Struggling to deal with the difficult past: Polish students confront the Holocaust, page 443

The post-war housing situation of Polish Jews was shaped primarily by: wartime and post-war displacements, deportations, escapes, and migrations; the plunder of Jewish property (by the German occupiers, and by Polish society) during the war, and post-war Polish legislation regarding its restitution; Housing Situation of Holocaust Survivors Returning to Their Hometowns in Poland after the Second World War. Examples from Kraków and Łódź, page 109

Ms. Cie´sli ´nska-Lobkowicz then reminded the participants of the proceeding that it was not only the Nazis who plundered Jewish homes and rid the Jews of their personal possession, but also the local Polish population. She asserted that many of these looted objects eventually made their way to the public collection after the war to be purchased by private owners and antique stores. A Moot Issue-Rethinking Holocaust Era Restitution of Jewish Confiscated Personal Property in Poland, page 695

In December 1995, the EU adopted a resolution demanding the return of plundered property to Jewish communities in Central and Eastern Europe. In its resolution, “the Parliament recalled the first additional protocol to the European Convention on Human Rights. . .and in particular Article One [of Protocol Number One to the European Convention on Human Rights] thereof. . ..”181 Based on the EU’s commitment to these issues, the Parliament called on member states to adopt legislation regarding the plunder of Jewish confiscated property.182 Poland has yet to comply. ibid, page 703

In Poland and Slovakia the theft or redistribution of formerly Jewish-owned property constituted “one of the largest social revolutions of the Second World War” (p. 64) This plunder implicated substantial numbers of local Gentiles in the Holocaust. ... The new “owners” were not eager to return property they had acquired. In both countries, the number of survivors was small, and few were ready to pursue the return of their homes or belongings: it was dangerous for lone Jews to challenge the new situations, while the new (and sometimes old) authorities were content to let the new arrangements stand. book review of Beyond Violence: Jewish Survivors in Poland and Slovakia, 1944−1948, pages 546-547

Ignoring Polish elements such as state textbooks, far right politicians, and beneficiaries of stolen property, the Polish plunder of the property of Jewish Holocaust victims is described by reliable sources and is not inflammatory at all. Sources also describe how the Polish state supported the beneficiaries of this stolen property and how it repeatedly failed to meet its international obligations.--Astral Leap (talk) 07:18, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Astral Leap. It is perfectly clear that you are trying to provoke me here, with your false accusations and statements like "perhaps that explains your multiple bans from Jews, anti-Semitism, and Eastern Europe." I have NOT had "multiple bans" from "Jews, anti-Semitism". You. Are. Lying. In order to provoke.

Likewise, I didn't say that "language in reliable sources was purposefully inflammatory". This is you purposefully misquoting and lying about what I said. I said YOU - you, Astral Leap, a new account about whom serious issues have been raised right since the beginning - are using "purposefully inflammatory" language.

You've ALREADY had an indef interaction ban with one user [45], then been blocked [46] for repeatedly trying to post defamatory (and outing) info about ME on Wiki. In fact, the justification for your block specifically warned you [47] for exactly the kind of behavior you're engaging in again: You have been acting in a manner that is both suspect and provocational for a while now. If this AE block (and AE topic ban above) doesn't serve as a wakeup call for you, expect sanctions to escalate. (my emphasis)

Since your sudden arrival in this topic area, the question of whether you are a new account or a banned user has been repeatedly raised [48] and statements such as these lend credence to the accusation, made by multiple editors, that no, you're not.

Your cherry picked and misrepresented citations (for example, your very first source refers to GERMAN plunder of Jewish property) doesn't help your case either. Volunteer Marek 07:29, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

• Yes Its clearly relevant, and as noted above, plenty of RS to support. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:29, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• No (Summoned by bot) somewhat COATRACK-y and cherrypicked account of an issue with only a tentative connection to the holocaust. Israel recalling its representative 75+ years after seems especially un-connected. The content belongs elsewhere clearly, but not here.Pincrete (talk) 10:03, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• No - I was thinking about it for a while now. I believe I have to agree with Pincrete's judgment above. This does not belong to the article about the Holocaust. Property restitution in Poland is a way broader issue that affected all Polish citizens. Poles, Jews, Ukrainians, Germans, and so on. Poland was a multiethnic society before the war. This certainly belongs elsewhere, not here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 10:14, 29 August 2021 (UTC)
• yes - The article cited from Reuters states "Israel on Saturday condemned Poland’s approval of a law that restricts the rights of Holocaust survivors or their descendants to reclaim property seized by the country’s former communist regime." This clearly relates directly to Holocaust survivors from Poland and makes this relevant to the article. Jurisdicta (talk) 06:50, 3 September 2021 (UTC)
• Weak yes. I understand the arguments about coatracking, since essentially the problem of restitution of i.a. Jewish property (and the one that makes most political clout is about the property in Warsaw) arose, in fact, after the war due to the nationalisation of land and properties in the capital in order to make reconstruction less burdensome, and the Holocaust survivors (and victims) are only one of the several categories (though one of the more significant ones, if not the most significant, given that pre-War Warsaw had 30% Jewish population, according to the 1931 census; by contrast, Ukrainians, Germans etc. did not even constitute quarter of a percent; in other cities, Jews were still a substantial minority and Ukrainians, or Germans, in the cities now belonging to Poland, have AFAIK almost never constituted more population in proportion than Jews. Maybe Gdynia and Bydgoszcz were exceptions to that rule). That said, the notability, in my opinion, has been shown very well, and the question belongs to the article as directly concerning Holocaust survivors, and as placed in such context by numerous sources, including scholars.

I would rather make some tweaks to the text, because without them, I'm reluctant to support it as is. First, the law applies uniformly regardless of nationality of expropriated citizens, so that should be made clear in the text; secondly, it must be made clear, if we want to include it, that the question of property restitution is a contentious issue in Polish-Israeli relations (which it doesn't, because we can only guess, in fact, why would Israel want to recall its ambassador in the first place), and an explanation on how we have come to that problem. After these changes, I think it's OK to include. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 06:18, 6 September 2021 (UTC)

@Szmenderowiecki Could you propose a draft new wording? Maybe in the 'discussion' below? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:41, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Sure, working on it. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 11:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• No Per coatracking and due the fact that the sentence is extremely cherrypicked to present an extreme POV view, as property restitution affected all Polish citizens.--MyMoloboaccount (talk) 15:53, 6 September 2021 (UTC)
• No. The proposed text addition, "In August 2021, Poland passed a law to address restitution of property seized by the communist regime that ruled Poland after the war.[1] The law would make it difficult for survivors and their descendants to recover property that was lost during the war.[2] In protest, Israel recalled its charge d'affaires to Warsaw.[3]", would be incorrectly understood by readers as relating selectively to Jewish "survivors and their descendants" (this being an article on "The Holocaust in Poland").

The proper place for the question of property restitution in Poland, to persons of any ethnicity, is the article on "Property restitution in Poland".

Nihil novi (talk) 07:50, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

• No, per Piotrus, not as written. A more general sentence about the controversy over restitution might make sense, but singling out this one law and incident, when we are not currently discussing restitution at all, is giving it WP:UNDUE weight (and falling into obvious WP:RECENTISM given that it just happened last month); it's the sort of hyper-specific detail that belongs on Property restitution in Poland instead. This article should just summarize the broad overarching issue rather than engage in a blow-by-blow over individual laws. --Aquillion (talk) 16:11, 10 September 2021 (UTC)
• No The proposed wording is cherry-picked and POV. Some alternative, more polished wording, like the one proposed above by Piotrus, would be acceptable more.--Darwinek (talk) 02:09, 12 September 2021 (UTC)
• Yes, based on reliable sources. Idealigic (talk) 14:46, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

The old version goes this way:

In August 2021, Poland passed a law to address restitution of property seized by the communist regime that ruled Poland after the war. The law would make it difficult for survivors and their descendants to recover property that was lost during the war. In protest, Israel recalled its charge d'affaires to Warsaw.

The new version, which incorporates my conditions of support of the text is more or less this one (be free to propose edits for this one):

After World War II, the Polish government nationalised most properties, which disproportionately affected property formerly held by the Jews, who died during the Holocaust and/or were expropriated by the Nazis. After the fall of Communism, citizens and organisations that were expropriated demanded that the issue be revisited. As Poland did not sign an indemnity treaty with Israel, nor did it enact a comprehensive restitution bill, descendants of the Jews submitted claims to return property.

The issue of restitution became contentious both in Poland and Israel, and the problem was worsened by reprivatization fraud in Warsaw. Finally, in August 2021, in a bid to resolve the issue, Poland passed a law that barred all appeals on administrative decisions made by special administrative bodies older than 30 years, which effectively meant that owners of property seized in the communist era could no longer receive compensation. While the law concerned all proprietors, regardless of nationality, it sparked outrage in Israel, whose citizens had pending claims in courts, who believe they have been unfairly treated. As a result of the controversy, Israel recalled its ambassador "until further notice"; so did Poland. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:21, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The main problem is heirless property claims Szmenderowiecki, you omitted that. - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:24, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can recall, they don't make such a distinction in the law, and both legitimate heirs (under pre-August 2021 definitions) and Israel in general were demanding some sort of compensation. Propose a specific change to the text, please. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:29, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

As far as I can recall, they don't make such a distinction in the law - that’s why none of it belongs to the Holocaust article. ...and Israel in general were demanding some sort of compensation - some sort of compensation for what? - GizzyCatBella🍁 12:39, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

1. I believe that since it does concern heirs of Holocaust victims and property of Holocaust victims who were killed in families, leaving no heirs; and given the coverage in scholarly literature and in the news that ties the question to the Holocaust in general, it does have a legitimate place in the article.

2. As is known, some of these Jewish organisations claim property on the premise that the families possessing the properties, before being murdered, have been Polish citizens, and that, according to the Law of Return, any Jew may become an Israeli citizen, hence they claim some property/compensation for property which had been Jewish and would have been so were they not murdered. We don't argue here whether their interpretation makes sense or if they should in fact seek compensations from Germany (whose wartime administration murdered and encouraged others to murder Jews) or Poland (to which country these proprietors had allegiance, where the property lies, both pre-war and post-war and whose citizens, under duress or voluntarily, killed/expropriated some of them (not a large proportion of them, but still)), and don't even try doing that. The controversy is notable (it has its own article) and is directly related to Holocaust victims, hence another argument for its inclusion. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 12:53, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

Okay, lest try this. Show me a single word “Holocaust”, “Law of Return”, “Israel", “German” or “Jewish” in that law. There is none. The legislation was introduced to combat property reprivatization fraud, which was a major problem in recent years. All you wrote as your proposal illustrates only a fraction of the wider problem, but most importantly, it has no place in the general article about the Holocaust. And yes, you are right here - Israel advancing claims to heirless properties of Polish citizens of Jewish descent murdered by the Germans in Poland during WW2 is a separate issue not to be discussed here, but also belongs elsewhere. - GizzyCatBella🍁 13:36, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

In the same way, it could be argued: show me the word "Democrats", "Republicans", "Blacks", "Latinos/Latinas" etc. in a law establishing lizardly electoral districts in, say, Maryland, Texas, North Carolina or elsewhere or any of the laws that tightens state electoral regulations. It doesn't mean we should not create articles on gerrymandering in these states, or talking about that in Voting in state X article, or actually write a separate article on voter suppression (there is one, in fact). And yes, you can of course say that the law is intended to bolster election security, ensure that people not impersonate each other (all valid concerns, in fact), but have the side effects of which the lawmakers are well aware of. Of course no one would officially introduce a bill saying "we want to reduce Black turnout".

I don't say the law was intended to harm Jews (or at least I have no RS to back this claim). I say that the law's consequences are significant for those who are Holocaust survivors and their heirs, and the organisations trying to negotiate on behalf of them as well as generally lobbying for restitution. And lawmakers who were passing the law knew of it (at least because Israel was reminding of its position), not speaking of general merits of such regulation. Again, lawmakers would never introduce the law by arguing, "Hey, let's deny heirs of Holocaust victims a possibility to inherit property", and actually, the Polish MFA tried to counter that the law would not deny it, so the govt was perfectly aware of what is happening and what the discontent is about. The logic that "if the law does not say 'Jews', it's not about Jews at all" is at the very least misguided.

I don't personally understand your underlining of "Polish citizens", because, as I said, I'm not here to debate the quality of the arguments of these groups. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 15:12, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't personally understand your underlining of "Polish citizens", because, as I said, I'm not here to debate the quality of the arguments of these groups. - me neither.

I don't say the law was intended to harm Jews (or at least I have no RS to back this claim) - additional argument why this law doesn't belong here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:40, 8 September 2021 (UTC)

Isn't this too long? As I said, a neutral sentence, maybe two, would be enough here, per WP:UNDUE. Two paragraphs is what we dedicate here to much more relevant issues such as "Background", "Antisemitism" or "Auschwitz-Birkenau" - and more than to "Postwar trials" which just has, well, two sentences and desperately needs expansion. Btw, you - and all the other interested editors here - may want to help with the Property restitution in Poland, which still needs much improvement. Also, as I noted there, we need a general article on property restitution! _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:37, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

I wasn't able to come with a shorter version, though you can of course help with that. Szmenderowiecki (talk) 09:40, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

Maybe "The issue of property restitution in Poland, which concerns property nationalized by the Polish-post war communist government, remains controversial in Poland. As some of that property belongs to Holocaust survivors or their descendants, this issue has also occasionally affected Israel-Poland relations." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

@Piotrus, we don't need anything of that. This article is about the historical record of the Holocaust, not about the restitution law, descendants or issue of Israel producing claims to heirless Polish properties. All this belongs elsewhere. - GizzyCatBella🍁 09:04, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove anti-Semitic trope in article

Please take this out of the article:

... with some local Jews forming militias, taking over key administrative posts,[229] and collaborating with the NKVD. Other locals assumed that, driven by vengeance, Jewish communists had been prominent in betraying the ethnically Polish and other non-Jewish victims.[230]

This is an anti-Semitic trope of Jewish Bolshevism. The two crackpot sources for this are a Richard Lukas, who was at the center anti-Semitism controversies, and Pogonowski who is was an engineer by trade and wrote for far-right publications and spoke at a panel organized by the Polish American Congress known itself for Anti-Semitism controversies.212.114.16.180 (talk) 12:03, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:14, 16 August 2021 (UTC)

You're using an obvious proxy to sock puppet. Please stop. Volunteer Marek 06:20, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Remove fringe estimate

Please take this out of the article:

Historian Richard C. Lukas[66] gives an estimate as high as three million Polish helpers; an estimate similar to those cited by other authors.[185][186]

Lukas is a crackpot source who was the center of anti-Semitism controversies, this is a fringe claim. Rescuers numbered in the tens of thousands at most. Rescuers faced persecution from their own Polish neighbors who turned them in to the Germans in order to received rewards or killed them in the hope of looting Jewish property or money held by the hiding Jews.212.114.16.180 (talk) 06:04, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. —Sirdog9002 (talk) 06:16, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Please stop socking. Volunteer Marek 06:17, 17 August 2021 (UTC)

Grabowski, again

@Volunteer Marek: You've removed a detail that's been in the article since at least 2019,[49][50] which was discussed ad nauseum here[51][52][53] and elsewhere.[54][55][56][57][58][59] What's more, you have a WP:COI with the source, as explained to you twice.[60][61][62] Now you're telling me to "stop edit warring and try to get consensus"?[63] François Robere (talk) 14:01, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, as explained more than “thrice”, I do not have any “COI” (sic) here (or in any other editing on Wikipedia). Your false but persistent pretending otherwise is bordering on personal attacks. And the fact it’s been there “since 2019” is irrelevant. Apparently there was some Wikipedia article that had erroneous information added back in 2004 or something and that info stayed in that article for many many years. Yet, it was later removed. Ironically, the previous discussions you mention all point to the fact that there was no consensus for this text even back then (and some of the other discussions you link to aren’t even about this topic - please don’t do “diff padding”) Volunteer Marek 14:26, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I assume all this hubbub is about "or turned in by Poles" part? If we need to clarify this, then the correct way would be to change "killed or turned in by Poles" into "perished at the hands of Germans and local collaborators". The old phrasing was obviously misleading, as it a, ridiculously implied that Germans didn't do anything, and b, it simplifies the multiethnic state of the SPR into 'Poles' (which was 70% Polish, 10% Jewish, 10% Ukrainian, and 10% other...). This kind of research often risks oversimplifying things when we forget that there were areas of 'Poland' where ethnic Poles were actually a minority (ex. in the east, see commons:Category:Polish census of 1931). For example, look at pl:Powiat rówieński (en:Rovensky Uyezd, that interwiki may need some fixing). Here you have a "Polish" county with a population 60% Ukrainian, 15% Jewish and 10% Polish. So, errr, run by me again what was the ethnicity of the average collaborators there? Eh. Instaed of Grabowski, I'd recommend reading Bloodlands by Snyder. Now that's a serious scholarship that doesn't see the world as a simple black vs white dychtomy. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:05, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hence this correction, which takes directly from the book without doing WP:OR.

It almost reads as if you're trying to say that Grabowski, a world-renowned scholar with whom you've had a public off-wiki disagreement, is not a "serious scholar". François Robere (talk) 19:33, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd appreciate if you'd avoid discussing my person, per NPA, Wikipedia:Casting aspersions and like. Am I commenting on your attitude towards Grabowski, or am I trying to put words in your mouth? No? Then please extend the same courtesy to me. As I prefer to maintain a NPOV stance, I am a bit more reserved when it comes to praising scholars using WP:PEACOCK terms. He has his fans, and he has his detractors, and who is right we will know in few decades or centuries, were tempers die down and new generation of scholars is able to coolly review the topics which modern historiography has difficulties with (and I am sadly not holding my breath for us to see this anytime soon, sadly).

As for your edit, I'll note that Grabowski himself, as noted in the quote, talks about "Poles (or, for that matter, Ukrainians, Belorussians, or Balts)". As I pointed out above, to omit the parenthesis is misleading, either retain it or use some other neutral term (like I suggested above, " local collaborators", for example). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:14, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with WP:NPA and everything to do with WP:COI. As an academic you had previously published a rebuttal of Grabowski on Gazeta Wyborcza. As a wikipedean you're now implying that he's narrow-minded and unserious. You can't do both. François Robere (talk) 08:11, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

HAvew thy stated this here, or is this based on your own research?Slatersteven (talk) 09:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

It's not exactly a secret. He published it under his real name, and there's even a link at Talk:Warsaw concentration camp. François Robere (talk) 10:03, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

FR, I tried to mediate in the dispute you had with VM and offer a compromise that I thought both parties may find of use, and what I am seeing here is some weird WP:BATTLEGROUND, with you refusing to discuss the diffs and instead making BLPs violations against Grabowski ("he's narrow-minded and unserious") and trying to put them in my own mouth (which is a violation of NPA/CIV/etc.). For the last time, please stop those PAs (in particular, please stop offering your novel "rewording" of what you think I said or meant), now topped with BLP violations (which, I'd like to remind you, applies to talk spaces too). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

If you have issues with user conduct either take it to their talk page or to wp:ani, do not discuss it here.Slatersteven (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2021 (UTC)