Talk:History of the Jews in Poland/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3



I would just like to congratulate everyone who contributed to this article. This is one of the best, most-interesting, and well-organized articles I've seen on Wikipedia. JHMM13 (T | C) 04:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I think I speak for all of the editors who worked on this when I say that your kind praise is very welcome! This was a true group effort, with people from many points-of-view coming together to write an encyclopedia article. --Goodoldpolonius2 04:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Wow, great article! A credit to Wikipedia. Good work, folks. Babajobu 18:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Yes, superb for such a highly contentious area, well done.

This article kicks ass!Cameron Nedland 18:34, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Why "the" Jews?

Why not just "history of Jews in Poland"? Michael Hardy 04:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

See #Title.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 05:22, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I could not find any discussion. It's an undoubtedly racist phrase, on accident or not. "The Jews" refers to a specific set of Jews, as though the Jews in Poland were substantially different from the Jews in Germany, Russia, etc. You wouldn't right an article called "History of the Mexicans in U.S.", would you?
The use of "the Jews" is not racist, for example, some well-known recent book titles: A History of the Jews by Paul Johnson, Gifts of the Jews by Thomas Cahill, A History of the Jews in the Modern World by Howard M. Sachar, etc. We can decide whether or not to keep the "the" as a matter of style, but it is just that, style. --Goodoldpolonius2 15:24, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Well I don't want to get into a big thing about whether it is racist or not. Of course it is, but that's not the point. It's not how the english language operates. In Spanish it would be completely necessary, but not in english. "The" is superfluous in this use. We aren't comparing "the Jews" to another subset of Jews. It's not as though the Jews in Poland also worship a sun god. They are just Jews who live in Poland. --MateoP 15:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
Let's get rid of 'the', it's not necessary, obviously offends some people, etc.Cameron Nedland 19:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree, 'the Jews' has a pejorative connotation. 'The' is superfluous. Pkmink 09:30, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Can I move the page, or do we need more people to agree?Cameron Nedland 02:23, 4 October 2006 (UTC)


I always understood that only some of the communal leaders converted to Judaism (a neutral religion during the crusades to) to make trading with both christians and muslims easier, but the majority of them retained islam as their religion. Yellowmellow45 14:03, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

How about Semi-Protection?

It seems that featuring the article brought many vandals to it. How about temporary Semi-Protection that would prevert anons from making changes to the article?--SylwiaS | talk 14:44, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

I'd support this (the last page of edit history has not a single good edit) but SPP is still a proposal. If you want this idea to be implemented, feel free to vote here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 15:41, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
No. See user:Raul654/protection Raul654 15:52, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
LOL, I see you are well prepared! Ok, I can see the concerns, so I'll be watching the page then.--SylwiaS | talk 16:14, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I got so very, very tired of re-typing my answer to this question every two or three days that I wrote a boilerplate text :) Raul654 16:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Gdańsk Jewish community

If you can read Polish, this website might provide some good information Gdańsk Jewish communityYellowmellow45 11:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


How useful is this template and related articles? Are they actual improvements, or are they - as the last time I checked - just outdated and more POVed copies of sections of this main article?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 20:44, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

Narodowe Odrodzenie Polski (National Rebirth of Poland) Poster

This is a significantly unpopular party in Poland, at least if you take votes cast in the election to be an indicator. Placing it without a comment to that effect within the article can give the wrong impression, especially to people from nations where there are few parties. However, qualifying the picture caption may seem defensive, or at least a method of conveying the unpopularity of the party without sounding defensive has not come to me. So, as to the poster: stay as is, remove, or add qualifier(s?)

Feel free to update the poster with a qualifier you feel is appopriate. I don't think removal would be that useful, but you are right it creates a misleading impression as it is. Please remember to sign your post in the future, and bottompost - tnx.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:12, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Antisemitic AK

"Some sources hold that the Armia Krajowa was extremely antisemitic, attacking Jewish partisan groups almost as enthusiastically as they they fought the German invaders. However, the leftist Army Ludowa aided and collaborated with the Jewish partisans. (See Harold Werner's book Fighting Back, Columbia University Press, 1992.)"

Let's discuss the question here. The Home Army wasn't "extremely antisemitic". Read "Biuletyn Informacyjny" before you quote "some sources". The same some units of the "leftist" Army Ludowa robbed and murdered Jews. Xx236 11:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I think some mention of anti-semitic actions on the part of the Armia Krajowa should be added. Sir Martin Gilbert's The Holocaust: A History of the Jews of Europe During the Second World War (Holt, New York) indicates that there were such actions as well as an instance of the AK rescuing Jews. [by ]

M. Gilbert is, undeservingly, authority in Holocaust of Jews. However, he also is making many mistakes and his works woul dbe righly labelled as POV-pushing in wikipedia. However, if you know something specific about anti-semitic actions of AK and why it should be mentioned, discuss it freely. Szopen 08:12, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

National Forces Organization was antisemitic because of it's extreme right-wing ideology. But Armia Krajowa (Home Army) was a suprapolitical organisation. It was AK who supported the Jewish Ghetto Rebellion (not the communist People's Army [Armia Ludowa] - though most of Jews are communists they forge the history), there was also a special sub-organization of AK which only aim was to get the Jews out of ghettos and find shelters for them. Nowadays abroad AK is sometimes considered as anti-semitic because many jews (those dwelling from social lowlands) joined People's Army which was a soviet, antipolish (communist) organization. Also on the eastern part of Poland (taken by USSR) the soviet government made a jewish (and ukrainian) militia to terrorise, sometimes kill Poles, but mainly make a list of Poles considered as a antisoviet element [they were taken to Siberia[one million] or killed] (mainly nobles, for example half of my family was murdered by the jewish-ukrainian militia). but you must consider these jews as a very very small fraction of the jewish population in poland (the poorest, non-educated, communist, bundist). Nevertheless this is one of the reasons of polish anti-semitic [i'm not] nowadays. - travis

There's some discussion of the allegations of antisemitism against the Armia Krajowa in Rising '44 by Norman Davies. I've lent out my copy so can't give quotes, but the gist is that any antisemitism that might have been there was overstated to the extreme by Communist propagandists for their own purposes. (talk) 12:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)


"Their departure was largely organized by the Zionist activists in Poland such as Adolf Berman and Icchak Cukierman under the umbrella of a semi-clandestine organization Berihah ("Flight")."

The Communists tolerated the emigration. They haven't massacred the refugees, like they murdered the non-Jewish ones. Xx236 11:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Addiitionally, many Polish Jews supported Communism which further polarized them as a group against Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empirical rule, and cast them as supporters of the Russian Bolshevik Re

"Addiitionally, many Polish Jews supported Communism which further polarized them as a group against Russian and Austro-Hungarian Empirical rule, and cast them as supporters of the Russian Bolshevik Reloution"

Wrong place, anonymous author. How much is "many"? When? In 1840? Xx236 11:58, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually some Zionist activists briefly advocated and idea of buffer state under the protection of German Empire on territories of Poland. The idea is often brought up by antisemitc publications in Poland. But of course they are two sides of the coin to this issue. The proposal isn't invented, on the other hand those remembering it sometimes overblow it. For examples see here[1] [2]

As for role in Communism this Jewish site presents it this way: Under Soviet Rule The Jews felt as if they had been saved from destruction. The Poles, however, looked upon the Red Army as invaders since they would have preferred the Germans. The Ukrainians were split: the nationalists were disappointed because they had expected the Germans, who were supposed to drive out the Poles and to give them an independent Ukraine. The poor peasant population, including the Ukrainians, however, were happy because with the arrival of the Soviet Army the peasants were told to divide the properties of the Polish landlords. They took the horses, the cattle, the pigs, grain and other property. In the course of three hours the landlords' courtyards were empty and bare. The property owners had fled to Lemberg during the first days of the war since they were afraid to remain in the villages. Most of the Polish Jews, except for a small group of Communist sympathizers, were afraid of the Soviet Union and Communism. Before their eyes were still the fresh memories of the Polish-soviet Russian War of 1920. In addition, most Polish Jews were occupied in trade. Jewish workers, in general, were very few. But when on September 17, 1939 the Soviet Army entered the eastern regions instead of the Germans, the Jews without exception welcomed them as liberators and protectors against the Germans and the local population. The Jews welcomed the Soviet soldiers openly and the new power began to deal with the Jews with the same trust with which it dealt with its own brothers -- the Ukrainians. Jews were employed by the Soviet officials in the administration and even in the local militia. Jews went gladly to these tasks since there were very many unemployed craftsmen and intellectuals. Meanwhile the reorganization of trade, industry and economy on a Soviet basis had begun. Cooperatives of shoemakers, tailors, tinsmiths, and bakers were organized. Each of these artels -or cooperatives was headed by a leader with previous craft experience -- in most cases a Jew. Raw materials mere brought from Stanislavov, Lemberg and Tarnopol. In these cities, too, Jews played an important role as the most experienced craftsmen. The Jewish and non-Jewish workers in the artels worked under the guidance of Jewish directors. Control over the factories was in the hands of the Party, which again had greater trust in the Jews than in the non-Jews. The Party knew that we Jews didn't have any political aspirations and only wanted to work and live in peace. The Party also knew that behind the non-Jews there was an underground nationalistic organization which was carrying on sabotage against collectivization. Under Soviet rule the number of Jews in Rohatyn almost doubled because of the large numbers of refugees from Germany. They included a large number of highly-educated intellectuals, who had once enjoyed good living conditions. Now, however, they were poverty-stricken and had to sell the last remnants of their belongings. The government didn't have much trust in this category of citizens. First of all the refugees didn't know the Ukrainian language. The Russians also knew that at the first opportunity these elements would gladly return to Germany. When passports were distributed, theirs were marked with a notice that they didn't have the right to move about freely throughout the country. Some of our local Jews, former traders, also received the same kind of passports, forbidding them to move outside the limits of Rohatyn. --Molobo 15:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)


  • The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program. They may or may not be accurate for the article in question (due to possible javascript errors/uniqueness of articles). If the following suggestions are completely incorrect about the article, please drop a note on my talk page.
  • Per WP:CONTEXT and WP:MOSDATE, months and days of the week generally should not be linked (Don't link September or Tuesday unless there is really good reason to). Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • Per WP:MOSNUM, there should be a no-break space -   between a number and the unit of measurement. For example, instead of 18mm, use 18 mm, which when you are editing the page, should look like: 18 mm.
  • Per WP:MOS#Headings, headings generally do not start with the word "The". For example, ==The Biography== would be changed to ==Biography==.
  • Per WP:WIAFA, this article's table of contents (ToC) maybe too long- consider shrinking it down by merging short sections or using a proper system of daughter pages as per WP:SS.
  • This article may need to undergo summary style, where a series of appropriate subpages are used. For example, if the article is United States, than an appropriate subpage would be History of the United States, such that a summary of the subpage exists on the mother article, while the subpage goes into more detail.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.

Polish Jews

Just a note that we should, sooner or later, transform this redirect into a normal article. Anybody interested?-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  18:42, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Support of Polish Jews for communism

First, let's look at the disputed sentence: Significant percentage of Jews where sympathetic to the communist cause; that led to growing tensions betweem Polish and Jewish communities in those regions. Second, I am assuming that article published on Jewishgen is quite neutral (if not pro-Jewish). From the section "Under Soviet Rule": [ instead of the German soldiers the town was occupied by the Red Army.] The Jews felt as if they had been saved from destruction. [...] But when on September 17, 1939 the Soviet Army entered the eastern regions instead of the Germans, the Jews without exception welcomed them as liberators and protectors against the Germans and the local population. The Jews welcomed the Soviet soldiers openly [...] Jews were employed by the Soviet officials in the administration and even in the local militia. [...] Of course, we should not exaggerate (see also Jewish Bolshevism). For example, most of the older and more traditional Jews were rather anti-communists - but many young ones saw the bolshevism as a chance for, well, a revolution. Irpen is right, however, that the source is somewhat confusin (Most of the Polish Jews, except for a small group of Communist sympathizers, were afraid of the Soviet Union and Communism). I will agree that this sentence should probably be developed into paragrah, but certainly those claims are not (from Ipren's edit summaries) insinuations in line with Zydokomuna conspiracy theory.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  01:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)


There is mention here of the 1492 expulsion of the Jews from Spain, and I know I've read elsewhere that some of them found their way to Poland-Lithuania. Does anyone have a solid citation on this? Are there any estimates of numbers, or any prominent people among this migration, or known to be among their descendants? - Jmabel | Talk 06:52, 23 February 2007 (UTC)


As far as I can tell, every other article about a particular country's Jewish history contains the definite article in its title. This one does not. Why? Surely either "the" is best practice, in which case the Poland article's title should have it, or "the" is not best practice, in which case the others should be changed. I can't see a justification for making Poland, and only Poland, depart from the usual form. 04:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

See above.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Polish Jews and communism

See Talk:Żydokomuna. There is a well referenced section on this in the article, and the scope of where żydokomuna slurr discussion ends and discussion on Polish Jews and communism starts is unclear... the latter topic is also notable for this article, too, I think.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  17:07, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Steven Paulsson

Steven Paulsson, the author of the article being used as a reference, is better known as Gunnar S. Paulsson, and that is the name under which his book, Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw 1940-1945 was published. For more information about the book, including reviews, visit here.

As I wrote in my edit summary, "Steven Paullson" has 13 Google hits, most of them for copies of the same article. Jacurek identified him as "Steve Paullson", who has about 500 Google hits. "Gunnar S. Paulsson" has about 350, and "Gunnar Paulsson" another 1,500. (All searches included the quotation marks.)

Googling "Secret City" "Hidden Jews of Warsaw" (both phrases in a single search) gets more than 1,700 hits.

FYI: Secret City is available on Google Books, and you can search inside the book at Amazon. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 01:38, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The original source credited to Paulsson was a newspaper op-ed column, so I did some research and found similar content in his book. I've included a relevant quotation from the book in the footnote. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 02:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Yizkor books as sources

A yizkor books were/are made up of personal remembrances of people's experiences in specific shtetlach (small villages) or small cities, prepared by landsmanshaftn of survivors; they're not works of history. The books included whatever photos people could find, and stories about villagers who had perished in the Holocaust, from the important (a rabbi or a politician) to the ordinary (a butcher, or the person next door).

It's one thing to use a yizkor book as a reference for a specific anecdote, or in a biography, but using it as a reference for reactions of "a significant percentage of Jews" to anything is, in my opinion, inappropriate. That's not what yizkor books were intended for, and that's not their value. — Malik Shabazz (Talk | contribs) 22:10, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I have provided a better academic reference. In subarticles we can use the yizkor book to expand or give examples, but for this article I think the current reference is indeed better.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk  22:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Interwar period 1918–39 - POV

The paragraph is POV, it presents mostly selected facts. The reader isn't informed that very many Jews were succesful in law, media, medicine, business. Many Jews collected funds to defend the Polish state in 1939. Jews defended themselves against anti-Semitic actions killing or hurting a number of Poles. Yiddish movie in Poland isn't even mentioned.

Atheistic Jews dominated among Communists in Poland.

The problem of orthodox Jews exists even in Israel. Xx236 10:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

considered themselves frequently as a separate nation

They were generally better educated than their non-Jewish neighbours. The majority of Jews didn't have any non-Jewish relatives.Xx236 11:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Please note that in English the word NATION means STATE, unlike NACIJA which in Slavic languages means ETHNOS.Galassi 12:18, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Please note that I find your "nonsense" comments offensive. Would you please be more polite, Sir?
  • Jewish culture in pre-war Poland isn't a "nonsense".
  • The "Interwar period 1918–39" section is biased and should be rewritten. I'm not sure if perfect languge gives the right to write biased text.Xx236 12:45, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

History of Jews in Poland and Jewish Polish history during the 1900s

Interwar period 1918–39 section contains almost the same biased text in both articles. Why? 80% of the text is about bad Poles. With all due respect to Jewish tragedies of that time there existed also the other side of the image. The text doesn't even mention the Yiddish language movie industry in Poland. The only names mentioned in the paragraph are Bruno Schulz, Julian Tuwim, Jan Brzechwa and Bolesław Leśmian. No businessman, scientist, religious leader, politician. According to Shevah Weiss the state of Israel was constructed by University of Warsaw graduates. Even if he exaggerates, the anti-Polish obsession of some Wikipedai editors reduces the Jews in Poland to irrational victims, destroys the remnants of their interwar culture. Xx236 13:13, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

The information in regards to the collaboration of the Polish people,and government with the Nazis has been overlooked.Polish Jews numbered 3.5 million pre Nazi era.By 2007 there are fewer than 30,000 Polish Jews living in Poland.To suggest that Poles were not collaborators with Nazis is without any fact.Poles were in complete collaboration with the Naazis when it came to Jews.In fact after the Nazis were defeated Poles took on the role of Nazis by making certain that the possessions of those Jews who fled Poalnd from the Nazis would never be returned to the Jews.Poles discouraged Jews from returning home,by threatening to finish what the Nazis left unfinished.This accounts for the low number of Polish Jews left in Poland.30,000 Jews is less than one percent of the original population of Jews pre Nazi era. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alinesebag (talkcontribs) 03:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

If you have information about collaboration of Polish government with Nazis, please give specific examples and specific quotes. Take your time. Let me repeat it: quotes about collaboration of POLISH GOVERNMENT with NAZIS during OCCUPATION. Szopen 15:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Jews were often not identified as true Poles

Many Jews identified themseloves as non-Poles - Russians, Germans, Zionists, a separate culture/etnicity. Why do you present them as passive victims only? Xx236 13:20, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes they were commonly PERCEIVED as such - it is a truism. The question is whether the treatment of Jews was based on their supposed inherent unpatriotic qualities (as you seem to suggest), or that that the said qualities were the result of their mistreatment in the hands of the titular ethnic groups.Galassi 13:33, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

According to you the Poles created Jews (and later the state of Israel) 1918-1939. It was probably the most creative project of the 20th century, if it were the truth.

In reality the Jews existed since thousands of years and quite many of them decided to continue their separation in Poland, including the areas where Ukrainians or Belarusians consisted the majority. According to your thesis the mistreatment by Ukrainians and Belarusians also existed, but accidentally not mentioned in the article. If the ethnic map of interwar Poland is discussed, the Poles consist minority almost everywhere Talk:Soviet invasion of Poland (1939). When useful they become omnipotent, like the Jews in antisemitic writings.

I have written Why do you present them as passive victims only? nad you read my words as truism. Strange.Xx236 14:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Lacking names 1918-1939

Xx236 14:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Xx236 10:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Xx236 13:08, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Janusz Korczak is listed as a writer, but he was also a pedagogist.Xx236 14:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Cossack uprising - disputed information

The information on the death tole (100,000 to 200,000) is uncited and most likely too high, go see the part of the article Bohdan_Khmelnytsky#Khmelnytsky_in_Jewish_history for cited estimates made by reputable scholars. Ostap 23:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

communists and nationalists fought each other

  • Soviet units and Soviet advisors also took part in the fights. Many Polish officers were Soviet ones, expelled from Poland after Stalin's death. nationalists is frequently understood as endecja, so maybe post-AK formations should be literally mentioned.
  • The number of Jewish victims should be compared to the number of all victims in Poland.
  • Many Jews were killed as UB-officers or Communist activists/informers, so not because of ant-Semitic but anti-Communist reasons. In reality both were mixed, but branding all cases as anti-Semitic is simplificatiion and bias.Xx236 07:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

History of the Jews in France - double standards

May I demand the same method and level of precision when describing antisemitism in Poland and other countries?

What about anti-Israeli propaganda common in many EU countries?Xx236 07:47, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

"who were conscripts like other citizens of the country,"

There's an edit war over this one sentence. Yeah. Anyway, would it be a significant sentence given the context? Seems like so. However, since it's apparently controversial I'd like to ask from a source from User:Tymek in regards to this matter. I'd also like to know why both sides feel the sentence is/isn't necessary so we can handle this. (I think you guys both violated WP:3RR today, let's try not doing that) Wizardman 19:24, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, we both violated 3RR, and this is why I decided to stop this trivial war. Jews, like all other citizens of the Second Polish Republic were conscripts and I seriously see no reason for deleting this information. They did not fight the invaders because they wanted to. They did it because as citizens of Poland, they had to. There is no evidence of Jews voluntarily en masse joining the Polish Army before Sept 1, 1939. Tymek (talk) 19:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Why is it important to have or not have this sentence in the article ? How many Jews were professional soldiers in September 1939 ? Officers ? --Lysytalk 20:34, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we have been unable to solve the problem, I am counting on opinions of people like you, Lysy. What do you think? I have no idea how many Jews were professional soldiers and officers, from what I have read, not too many. Tymek (talk) 20:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Look guys, most of the Jewish soldiers were conscripts, of course, but underlining that in that particular sentence suggests to people that otherwise they would be no Jewish soldiers in September Campaign. And don't tell me otherwise because this is the purpose of this line. This is the problem and that is why it is important. Tymek knows that. If you Tymek want to necessarily add this information then do it this way. “Conscripts, professional officers and volunteers “because this is how it was. This article is about the history of Polish Jews and not some nationalistic, anti-Semitic history board. Jacurek

I do not see anything nationalistic or anti-Semitic here, sorry Jacurek, but it was a good try. What is nationalistic or/and antiSemitic in this phrase? OK, two questions - How many Jewish volunteers? How many Jewish professional officers? Anyway, I was not not thinking that a simple addition of an obvious fact will be answered with such a weird response, with usual accusations of anti-Semitism and nationalism. Looks like you have nothing to say, since you resorted to such a primitive provocation. Tymek (talk) 06:18, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I expect there might had been less Jewish professional soldiers in the army than it would yield from their share of the population of the country, and for a number of reasons. Still we would have to research this before making any claims. But above all, I don't really think this is worth mentioning at all, unless we are trying to make some point. --Lysytalk 07:55, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no provocation Tymek. You know exactly what you want to achieve by adding "who were conscripts like other citizens of the country". You want to minimize their role during the September Campaign by suggesting that they had no other choice because there were drafted to the Army. Adding this sentence will also completely change the meaning of the whole paragraph. “Polish Jewish soldiers were one of the first to fight the Germans" versus "Polish Jewish soldiers were one of the first to fight the Germans because they were drafted to the army and had no other choice". There is a SIGNIFICANT difference in these two sentences. Most Jews fought and died for Poland just like their Christians compatriots did and should get credit for it. This has nothing to do with the behavior of some Jews in the Eastern part of Poland.--Jacurek (talk) 08:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

It's true that militarism was not part of the Jewish culture before WW2. Therefore not many Jews decided for an army career in Polish Army, and those who did, usually served in the second line, where they often proved very successful as e.g. logistics or medical personnel. In summer 1920 Jewish volunteers to Polish Army were ... interned by their Polish combatants. Until 1931, Jews were discriminated against in Polish Army, which also could contribute to their number in 1939 being lower then expected. Anyway, between 110 and 150 thousand Jews were fighting in defence of Poland in September 1939. Sadly, not many remember today about the graves of those who gave their lives then. In fact not many graves of Jewish soldiers of Polish Army survived in Poland. Modern Polish Army only seems to care about the graves of the 1939 soldiers of Polish ethnicity. --Lysytalk 14:12, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Jacurek, leave suggestions and speculations to yourself. Wikipedia, like any other encyclopedia is about facts, not about what you think and suppose. Jews were conscripts, full stop. Prove that there was a mass movement of Jewish volunteers to the Polish Army before Sept 1, 1939, and you can change the article. I am not minimizing anything. I have not changed anything else in the paragraph.

Lysy, as for discrimination of Jews - well, was this an official policy? I wish General Bernard Mond were alive, I guess he would explain all to us. Graves of Jewish soldiers are a complete different subject. Tymek (talk) 16:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe it was an official policy, but we need to confirm this with sources of course. I agree that the graves of Jewish soldiers is a different story. As for General Mond, I don't think he was a conscript either. --Lysytalk 17:18, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Tymek, there is not a slightest doubt in my mind what are your intentions. I'm not 15 years old, you know. If you think that "conscripts line" is absolutely necessary, then change the paragraph to something like this:

"Contrary to what many people believe, Jews in Poland were not simply victims of the Holocaust. Jewish Polish soldiers were among the first to launch armed resistance against the Nazi Germany during the 1939 Invasion of Poland. Among one million Polish conscripted soldiers fighting the Germans in September 1939, 13 percent (130,000) were Polish citizens of Jewish descent, who fought in all branches of Polish Armed Forces."

Otherwise leave it alone.--Jacurek (talk) 03:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I do not know how old you are and I do not care, but at least you could try to assume good faith. Contrary to what you may think, the world is not full of anti-Semites. Anyway, the solution you proposed is good. Do not forget that the phrase I added was "who were conscripts like other citizens of the country", so conscripts were not only Jews, but also Poles, Ukrainians etc. And of course, the conscripts line is necessary. Without it one may think that the Jews voluntarily fought the Germans and you know it is not true. Tymek (talk) 05:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Don't "play" anymore Tymek and stop that "I don't care" nonsense. You know and I know what you were trying to achieve by adding who were conscripts like other citizens of the country. I'm quite confident that this is also clear to others. You are doing an excellent job on many other Wikipiedia projects, so do the same on this one.--Jacurek (talk) 07:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Since we do not know how many Jews volunteered, how many were conscripts or professional soldiers, I don't think it makes much sense mentioning it in the article. I would however suggest rephrasing the sentence, as in its current wording it indeed sounds like if the Jews volunteered to "launch armed resistance against the Nazi Germany" which is also not confirmed. Also "fought in all branches of Polish Armed Forces" seems a bit dubious or maybe a little senseless. --Lysytalk 18:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I would suggest replacing:

Contrary to what many people believe, Jews in Poland were not simply victims of the Holocaust. Jewish Polish soldiers, who were conscripts like other citizens of the country, were among the first to launch armed resistance against the Nazi Germany during the 1939 Invasion of Poland.[10] Among one million Polish soldiers fighting the Germans in September 1939 , 13 percent (130,000) were Polish citizens of Jewish descent, who fought in all branches of Polish Armed Forces.

with something like:

A hundred thirty thousand soldiers of Jewish descent served in Polish Army at the outbreak of the Second World War, thus being among the first to launch armed resistance against the Nazi Germany.

Would that be acceptable to both of you ? Less pathos and down to the facts. --Lysytalk 20:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Lysy, thank you for your idea. Less pathos and facts indeed. Good job, I like it. Tymek (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

This is fine with me. Thanks for your involvement.--Jacurek (talk) 06:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Cool. Done. --Lysytalk 14:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I just found an interesting article: JEWISH MILITARY CASUALTIES IN THE POLISH ARMIES IN WORLD WAR II. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

I know a movie is not an authoritative source, but this discussion reminds me of a scene from Europa, Europa where David Perel comes pounding on his family's home in Łódź in the middle of the night, after having been conscripted to fight the Germans, and his father accuses him of being a deserter. His response is that the Army had told him (and presumedly other Jews) that there simply not enough guns to be giving them to Jews. Now, I don't know whether there is any historical basis for this specific incident (I don't recall Perel discussing it in the book), but it seems to me that either there is a slander there, or some basis in fact that is not being discussed here... neither in the article nor here on the talkpage. Anyone have any relevant information? (talk) 06:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

A good reference probably would be WALDEMAR REZMER, "Mniejszości narodowe i wyznaniowe w siłach zbrojnych Drugiej Rzeczypospolitej 1918-1939", 2001, Toruń: Wydawnictwo Uniwersytetu Mikołaja Kopernika, ISBN: 832311398X (9788323113980).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

14 Righteous of the nations: Absolute numbers / proportionate numbers

Jacurek This is an encyclopedia allowing a balanced view based on what is verifiable. It is not a vehicle to either attack Poles or promote Poles. For that reason I have not deleted or amended(and have no reason to) the sections telling readers that that Poland had the highest number of awards or the sentence telling readers that Poles faced particularly severe punishments for helping jews. By the same token I don't expect you to delete legitimate changes that show a balanced view. Why would you be afraid of the facts? Do you have an agenda to promote Poles? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:27, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Are statistics like yours done by Yad Vashem ? --Jacurek (talk) 12:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Like "mine"? The statistics quoted in the article drawing attention to Poland having the highest number of Righteous are I believe from Yad Vashem. You seem happy to let those remain. Do you doubt them? As far as I know the stats on the Netherlands are from the same source. The stats on the Netherlands population are from census data and show that the jewish population at the start of the war was around 150,000 not the 250,000 I mentioned earlier. The ratios of 6,066 Righteous awards to 3.5 million jews (Poland) and 4,863 Righteous awards to 150,000 jews (Netherlands) remain. What is your point in asking your question? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:03, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Unlike in Netherlands, in Poland ANY kind of help to a person of Jewish faith or origin was punishable by immediate death, for the rescuer, his/her family, neighbours and on whole towns or villages. Also, Jews in Poland were closed in Ghettos (again, unlike in the Netherlands) and help was only provided to people who managed to escaped them. Now, if we start this "nonsense" statistics game and start comparing the risk average Dutch person took (punishment for helping a Jew - jail or concentration camp for the rescuer) with average Pole took ( punishment - immediate death to him, his entire family and neighbours) HOW would you fit this in your statistics? The reason I asked about Yad Vashem and if they keep such a "statistic" is to tell you that if the statistics were important they would have that in their museum. ONE Righteous Gentile is ONE Righteous Gentile and your "statistics" are nothing else that attempt of minimizing the role Poles played in saving Jews and undermining the number of Polish Righteous. And don't try to tell me otherwise because this is very clear and nothing new. --Jacurek (talk) 13:30, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if Yad Vashem keep such proportionate statistics. I agree that statistics are potentially misleading - the ones in the article drawing attention to Poland having the highest number of Righteous are misleading by not taking into account proportionality and the ones I have quoted are too as Yes they don't take into account the greater risk that Poles took and the ghetto factor. For this reason I suggest that this article either -

Doesn't draw attention to Poland having the highest number of Righteous OR It includes both Poland having the highest number of Righteous AND also draws attention to proportionality

- as the article as it stands now is highly misleading and one-sided. In every memoir or documentary I have read/seen about the Holocaust in Poland jewish survivors have talked of how anti-semitic so many Poles were (not all of course). The article's (your?) "statistics" are clearly an attempt to minimise the anti-semitism of many Poles at that time. And don't you try to tell me this is not the case either - I lived in Poland for a couple of years in the mid 90s and well remember the denial and angry demonstrations against 'Schindlers List' for daring to suggest that many Poles didn't exactly love jews at that time. By the way, it shouldn't be relevant in an encyclopedia, but I'm not jewish. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:52, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Look, there is plenty about Polish anti-Semitism in the same page (scroll down). If you have anything valuable to add about Polish Anti-Semitism then please do so in that section. Leave alone "statistics" such as "there was one Gestapo per 100 Poles in Poland and in Netherland there was one Gestapo per 10000 Dutch" Your response is a proof that you just want to underline Polish anti-Semitism by providing "statistics". Yad Vashem, the institution awarding "Righteous Gentile" DOES NOT keep such "statistics". Hope you understand.--Jacurek (talk) 14:22, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Alright then I will leave the article as it is, I've made my point here. I think most (non-Polish at least) readers will agree that drawing attention to Poland having the highest number of Righteous without putting those figures into context is clearly a distortion of the behaviour of many Poles in the war and is clearly motivated by a desire to gloss over that behaviour. I will also say that I have the utmost admiration for those brave, humanitarian Poles who won those awards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:45, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Hope this will not stop you from contributing into this page. Discussions like this are very necessary.--Jacurek (talk) 14:51, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Polish eyewitness accounts prove allegedly anti-Semitism of Poles and Jewish eyewitness accounts prove allegedly anti-Semitism of Poles. Maybe at least some Jewish accounts ignore the context? What about Jewish accounts about Jews - were Jews anti-Semitic? Or maybe the world was more complicated as in Hollywood movies?Xx236 (talk) 11:55, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

"without putting those figures into context" - the context was that Christian helpers in Poland were executed on the spot and people outside Poland generally weren't executed. Xx236 (talk) 11:58, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

That's certainly part of the context. Here's another: "The ratios of 6,066 Righteous awards to 3.5 million jews (Poland) and 4,863 Righteous awards to 150,000 jews (Netherlands) remain." Perhaps both should be included in the article for a more complete picture? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:17, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Stop this already...what about this ratio : How many Dutch and Dutch families died for helping the Jews? How many Poles and Polish families died for helping the Jews? Can you see my point ? Dutch Righteous were brave indeed and they risked a lot, prison, even concentration camp and death, but you can't compare situation of Dutch Jews and their rescuers in Holland with Polish Jews and their rescuers in Poland. THERE IS NO COMPARISON, therefore the ratios are useless. Polish Jews were CLOSED IN GHETTOS, help was only provided to people who managed to escape them. Polish Jews, unlike Dutch Jews were less assimilated, some did not even speak Polish. Poles were shot ON THE SPOT for offering a Jew one "glass of water". The whole towns and villages were shot and burned simply because there was a Jew hiding in one of the houses. I'm %100 sure that if the situation of Jews in occupied Poland was similar to the situation of Jews in occupied Holland the ratio would be much, much different. Enough of this useless ratio already....o.k.?--Jacurek (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps editors here would like to expand the article I've created on Polish Righteous Among the Nations.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 23:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Duch Jews spoke Dutch and had non-Jewish families. In Poland many orthodox Jews preferred to isolate themselves. A marriage with a Christian was frequently a tragedy. Jews who had Christian families had relatively high survival rate during WWII, even if such family declared antisemitism.Xx236 (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Changing the topic, I think that our dear anon should also make some comparative mathematics about ratio of Dutch volunteers to SS vs. Polish volunteers to SS. You will be surprised, if your mission is to make such arguments. Tymek (talk) 03:44, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

There is a beautiful and extensive explanation of the issue on the Yad Vashem page here. To quote:

By the end of 2007 Yad Vashem recognized over 22,000 Righteous Among the Nations from 44 countries. The question is often asked what can be learned from the numbers of Righteous and from the proportions between different nations about attitudes and the scope of rescue in the respective countries.

It needs to be noted that the numbers of Righteous recognized do not reflect the full extent of help given by non-Jews to Jews during the Holocaust; they are rather based on the material and documentation that was made available to Yad Vashem. Most Righteous were recognized following requests made by the rescued Jews. Sometimes survivors could not overcome the difficulty of grappling with the painful past and didn’t come forward; others weren’t aware of the program or couldn’t apply, especially people who lived behind the Iron Curtain during the years of Communist regime in Eastern Europe; other survivors died before they could make the request. An additional factor is that most cases that are recognized represent successful attempts; the Jews survived and came forward to tell Yad Vashem about them.

Before drawing any statistical conclusions about the proportions between different countries, one should bear in mind that although the Holocaust was a global and total attempt to annihilate the Jews all over occupied Europe, there were important differences between countries – differences in the number of Jews, the implementation of the Final Solution, the type of German or other administration, the historical backdrop, the makeup of the Jewish community, Germany’s attitude to the local population and the extent of danger to those who helped Jews, and a multitude of other factors that influenced the disposition and attitudes of local populations and the feasibility of rescue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:59, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Even the word "Zyd" ("Jew" in Polish) has a pejorative connotation

The word Żyd has a pejorative connotation in Russian. If it has a pejorative connotation in Polish, why do Jewish organisations in Poland use allegedly pejorative names?

Before WWII millions of Poles lived in semi-feudal world, in which money was managed by Jews, hence don't be a Jew in the meaning, don't behave as a bank clerk. Are French people anti-Polish when they say "sou comme un polonais" 200 years after Napoleon wars? Xx236 (talk) 11:41, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Żydzew Łódź does ring the bell? If not, here might lie the answer [3]. M0RD00R (talk) 10:29, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Would you please explain what you mean? Xx236 (talk) 11:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)


I moved the page to "History of the Jews in Poland" because that's how every other similar page is titled (see template at the bottom: History of the Jews in France, History of the Jews in Romania, etc). I hope no one objects. Biruitorul (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Jews of Poland within the Russian Empire (1795–1918)

The Pale of Settlement wasn't Poland, especially after the collapse of the January Uprising. Maybe some additional explanation is needed.Xx236 (talk) 11:38, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

How many is many?

many of them were looted
What is national? The anti-slaughter campaign was oriented against government policy and non-Jewish animal producers, so it wasn't national.Xx236 (talk) 12:19, 7 May 2008 (UTC)


This article's introduction is far too long. The introduction is meant to be a general overview of the rest of the article, but editors have placed information that belongs in the body into the introduction. This should be fixed.

Compare the introduction of the article when it was a featured article to the current introduction. selfwormTalk) 07:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Deleted information

Since I have been unable to reach consensus with one admin, I will repeat the question here

Why is this part of the article being deleted? Please provide reasons for this outrageous behavior. Deletion of sourced information puts the whole project in bad light.

Anecdotal reports of Jewish responses to the Soviet occupation exist, including accounts of young Jewish men and women with communist sympathies, wearing red armbands and often armed with rifles, cooperated with the Soviet security forces and served in the Red Militia or Revolutionary Committees actively assisting the NKVD.[4] A knowledge of the language and the local scene made them essential for the Sovietization of the newly acquired Polish territories. Polish soldiers (especially officers) and policemen were disarmed, abused verbally and physically, and delivered by the Red Militia to the NKVD, sometimes even killed (see: Massacre of Brzostowica Mala). Thousands of Poles remembered Jewish celebrations after the Soviet invasion of Poland, there were stories of Jewish brutality.

Tymek (talk) 03:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

As explained, the first sentence relies on cherry-picked anecdotes from a polemical work written by a sociologist, not a historian. The next three are unsourced. And, also as explained, all of them are edits made by a banned editor. Jayjg (talk) 03:26, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
OK then I am sure that you will delete all unsourced information from this article. And was it added after Jacurek was deleted? Anyway, if it is sourced, it should stay, don't you think so as an uninvolved admin? Tymek (talk) 03:49, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
It was unsourced material added by a banned editor who had been banned for adding exactly this kind of polemical material to articles, including this one. If you find any similar unsourced polemical material inserted by banned editors in this article, feel free to delete it. Jayjg (talk) 04:11, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Good to know, thanks. Now, I will feel free to add sourced material of this kind, happy we understand each other. Changing history is pointless. BTW what is polemical here? And are we supposed to delete all kinds of information added by all now banned editors? Tymek (talk) 04:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Piotrowski's observations are reliable and valid. Unreferenced info, if challenged, should however be removed.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Piotrowski is a sociologist who wrote an apologetic polemic. Find better sources. Jayjg (talk) 02:24, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Your opinion on his work is irrelevant. Find critical academic reviews, or your criticism is no different from WP:IDONTLIKEIT WP:BLP violation.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Sociologist, not historian. Find better sources. Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
The same Gross is a sociologist who wrote an apologetic polemic.
There ia an academic book Jews under Soviet Rule: Eastern Poland on the Eve of the Holocaust by Ben-Cion Pinchuk. Are there any better sources? Which ones?Xx236 (talk) 12:54, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
Aside from the fact that he's not even used as a source in that section, Gross is the the Norman B. Tomlinson '16 and '48 Professor of War and Society and Professor of History at Princeton University. Now please take your absurd war against Gross to a blog. Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
A question to user Jayjg. Using your logic, are we supposed to remove all quotations which are not provided by historians? My hunch is that half of the sources in this article will disappear after such a purge. Also, let me get back to user Jacurek. He is banned now, so the piece censored by you is not valid, regardless of its historical accuracy, right? What will happen when his ban is over? Will the same piece of info become valid again? What will happen when one day creator of Ghetto benches article gets banned? Will the article be deleted by you? Tymek (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I have no idea what you're talking about. Jacurek is banned. Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)


This article contains an original research, stating in its "1989" section the residents of Kielce have killed 40 Jews just after the Second World War. Even the English Wikipedia article Kielce pogrom does not acknowledge this obvious OR. No civilian resident of Kielce killed any Jewish national during this pogrom. Two of them even lost their lives trying to defend them. The communist militia was in charge of this action from the very beginning to its very end. They even brought uninvolved peasants to the scene, workers from the outside factory, just to cover their crime and to find scapegoats to blame for it later, after it showed no one from Kielce participated in their bloodbath. Just another pro-Soviet showcase showdown, known also very well from yhe Poznan 1956 protests 10 years after. There, in Poznan, they didn't bother with peasants and brought common criminals straight from the local jail. Tagged this article with the "POV" template. greg park avenue (talk) 20:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Exactly Greg. But here only some POVs are the right ones. History and truth looses with some users' POV. (talk) 01:31, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

You don't POV tag an entire article because you disagree with a sentence. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:06, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Jews and minorities

The section about pre-war Poland informs only about ethnic Poles, who consisted about 2/3 of the population. What about the other millions? Were Nazi Germans in Poland, controlled from Berlin, philosemitic? What about Ukrainians in Poland? Xx236 (talk) 13:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Interwar period 1918–39 section is biased

The Interwar period 1918–39 section is biased, the main part of it being about Growing antisemitism. The main problem of Polish Jews was that of Growing antisemitism in Germany, totally ignored here. Some non-Jews were killed or injured by Jews during the fights. If you count Jewish victims, it's a bias to ignore the other victims. Xx236 (talk) 13:12, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Clearing the air

Instead of going into another edit war started by you, Mister User:Boodlesthecat by removing my edit with a note: (rv OR and editor's opinions, and please use civil edit summaries that don't violate WP:BLP), I better place my reasons here. Cluttering this former FA article with controversial and scholarly unreferenced books by Jan T. Gross as a source of reference Fear: Anti-Semitism in Poland after Auschwitz and the other one about Jedwabne, which I even never commented on as I don't feel competent enough to judge people what they did or did not during the war (was involved myself in the gang street wars only), is a highly disruptive action concerning Wikipedia standards I think. I advise you to back off. Gross' book about Jedwabne includes also many mistakes, one of it is estimate about the victim's count. He says 1600, while the scholar sources say 200-300. Maybe it's not a hoax, but a honest mistake based on communist propaganda, still I am for removing this part as poorly sourced. Wanna deal? You remove this part about Warsaw citizens enjoying Germans killing Jews, I remove the part about hoax by Czesław Miłosz? Agreed? With a Bruce Springsteen' New Jerseyan salut, have a nice day and bon jovi back to Brooklyn, if you know what I mean! greg park avenue (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

I strongly advise you not to tell editors to "back off." This is an encyclopedia, not a street gang. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:52, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
I think the "back off" advise to notorious 3RR offenders was a friendly kind of advise on a side. Pity, you haven't addressed the topics I commented of above concerning this article and the recently added to it innovative but poorly referenced statements by Gross. The talk page as you have never failed to remind me is for the creative discussion to improve the article only, so what's the matter with you this time? greg park avenue (talk) 02:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I added three sentences with 6 references, none of them were by Gross. What are you talking about? Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Ref [57] ^ "Was it inevitable that the Jews, looking their last on this world as they rode in the death trains speeding from different parts of the country to Treblinka or other places of slaughter, should have had to witness indifference or even joy on the faces of their neighbors? In the summer of 1942, when carts packed with captive Jewish men, women and children moved through the streets of the capital, did there really need to be laughter from the wild mobs resounding from the other side of the ghetto walls, did there really have to prevail such blank indifference in the face of the greatest tragedy of all time?" Quoted in Antony Polonsky & Joanna B. Michlic, editors. The Neighbors Respond: The Controversy over the Jedwabne Massacre in Poland. Princeton University Press, 2003. Neighbors not from Gross, huh? This site you have provided in here is so full of chickenshit my anti-virus program, thank God, can't even open. But someone's maybe not that lucky. Don't ever introduce this garbage into Wikipedia. You got better one in here. Just don't tell me it's not by Gross. greg park avenue (talk) 04:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
Please re-read your message, and visit the Princeton Press page to which you linked. The material isn't from Gross. It's from a book about responses to Gross's book, that's why it's called The Neighbors Respond.
Also, please stop the personal attacks. It doesn't contribute to the discussion and it only reflects poorly on you. You're not going to convince anybody of the strength of your argument by insulting other editors. Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 05:17, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
So what we got now, a book without a writer pretending to be scholarly? Must be some new academic prank. Only the cover is the same as in the Neighbors by Jan Gross. Don't suspect the copyright violation though. Say follow the money to find the mysterious individual responsible for this book and its content who conveniently hides his face behind the mask. Remainds me of Zorro. Editors don't count, they're just paid technicians. There was nothing personal in my comments, just became sarcastic after someone introduced this cloth and dagger junk into the FA article. I am not even speculating for what purpose it has been done. Fair enough? greg park avenue (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure what your point is. Both books have the same picture of a burning house on the cover, but the covers aren't identical. Take a look for yourself. You posted the link; Neighbors is on the bottom of the page, The Neighbors Respond is at the top.
For a list of the authors, see this page.
And again, please stop the personal attacks. That includes the snide comments as well as the violent threats. Thank you. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 06:23, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
The point is follow the money meaning who gets paid for the book and for selecting these editorials. And it's not a violent treat. Please, stop provoking me into personal exchange. Thanks! greg park avenue (talk) 06:44, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
None of the references from that section are by Gross. This argument is ridiculous. Greg stop abusing the talk page whith your incessant rants and your obsession with Gross. Boodlesthecat Meow? 12:12, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Antony Polonsky is a respectable academician. The Neighbors Respond is a selection of articles of different reliability, so one shouldn't quote The Neighbors Respond but rather the introduction or a specific article. Polish-Jewish Relations During the Second World War has beed published, the quoted sentence is on pages 7 and 8, so why to quote any other book? Xx236 (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Because it is preferable to use a secondary source. Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

You don't quote a general overview; or ... analytic or synthetic claims by Polonsky or someone other but the original text, omitting the context. A secondary source would be Polonsky (or someone) has checked hundreds of accounts, which support the 1944 Ringelblum's opinion "...". Xx236 (talk) 14:39, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Antisemitism, Anti-Judaism, and the Polish Catholic Clergy during the Second World War. is a text by Dariusz Libionka, not mentioned here. This text isn't available in Internet, with the exceptions of two first pages. I can see, that Libionka writes that the subject is controversial and quotes Jewish and Israeli opinions. Does he fully support those opinions?Xx236 (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

We don't need to have a source that agrees with Ringelblum's opinion to quote him. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
We don't need non-Ringelblum's sources to quote Ringelblum. Xx236 (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Too large sections

We should split some material into subarticles. For example, "The Holocaust: German-occupied Poland" section is too big, and we have a subarticle we should move most content to (Holocaust in Nazi-occupied Poland). This section (and several others) should be only well referenced summaries of other articles we have.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a basic question - the definition of Poland - is it GG or pre-war Poland or contemporary Poland? I don't see anything about minorities, eg. Ukrainian pogroms. Xx236 (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Double standards and ifo hiding

Comments by banned editor removed.

Dear anon. I agree with many of your points, but please consider registering an account, so you will be known in our discussion as something else than an anon. Thank you, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 05:15, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Will gladly discuss this or any other article with you when Jacurek's ban expires. Until then you are simply are not allowed to edit. Suspected block evasion reported. M0RD00R (talk) 08:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Archiving messages

I just archived all messages from 2005. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 05:27, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

the majority of Polish Jews prior to the war constituted some of Poland's poorest citizens

OR or rather fiction. Xx236 (talk) 11:14, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

RC and the Jews were responsible for the crucifixion of Jesus

  • Is this problem specific to the RC church? No orthodox church says so, no protestants, only the RC?
  • Poland wasn't a RC only state. There were many Orthodox believers there and the Ukrainian church, part of the RC, but not Polish.Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Which Poland?

Is this article about ethnic Poland only or about the Polish state after 1918? The Polish state was a mixture of nations and religions.Xx236 (talk) 10:37, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Can you identify where exactly there is a problem and suggest a solution? Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Since 1918 - it's not defined if the subject is the state Poland or ethnic Poland. The text is only or mainly about ethnic Roman Catholic Poland. As I have written about the WWII period: There is a basic question - the definition of Poland - is it GG or pre-war Poland or contemporary Poland? I don't see anything about minorities, eg. Ukrainian pogroms. Either we should define that only ethnic Poland is discussed here or we should add informations about Eastern Poland, like Lviv pogroms, Ponary massacre, Andrey Sheptytsky.Xx236 (talk) 14:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any confusion about "which Poland" is being specified at any point of the text. If you feel a particular passage is unclear, please point it out. If you wish to add additional information about the subject of this article--History of the Jews in Poland--feel free. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't see any confusion about "which Poland" either. Are you concerned they might be talking about Poland, Maine or Poland, Indiana? Jayjg (talk) 23:29, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

If the problem is obvious, explain me "which Poland":

  • 1918-1939 ethnic Poland or Polish republic?
  • 1941-1944 ethnic Poland, General Gouvernment,pre-war Polish republic represented by the government in exile.

Both paragraph ignore existence of ethnic minoroties in Poland. Is an Ukrainian nationalist "Polish"? Does a US reader understand that many of such "Poles" killed thousands ot ethnic Poles? That millions obtained Soviet citizenship and lived in Lithuania, Belarus or Ukraine? That German "Poles" joined German national lists, killed ethnic Poles and run away to Germany? Is "Poland" responsible for such German Nazis? Xx236 (talk) 08:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, one final time--can you indicate a sentence or passage that is confusing and suggest and improvement? That would be more helpful than ranting. Editors cannot constructively respond to rants. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:58, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Echoing what BTC has said, can you point out specific sentences that you think are confusing, and explain why? Jayjg (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2008 (UTC)
Any original ideas?Xx236 (talk) 12:06, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Boodlesthecat has quoted in another discussion a source which defines Germans in Poland as Polish collaborators. The Germans signed documents they were German, not Polish. They obtained much bigger rations of food, had more rights than ethnic Poles. They delivered ethnic Poles, killed many of them. The majority of them run away after the war and now they or their children are German. Xx236 (talk) 11:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

You have removed my templated indicating the paragraphs. Now you ask me - which ones. Any logic?Xx236 (talk) 11:12, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Please quote, in this section, which sentences you believe are confusing, and explain why you think that. Jayjg (talk) 01:21, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not the matter of confusing sentences only, a number of which I have quoted before.

If one describes the USA as a land of WASPs, what is the value of such text? Either one has to define - This text is only about WASPs or to add proportional text about Spanish speaking, Afroamericans and others.Xx236 (talk) 07:22, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Please quote, in this section, which sentences you believe are confusing, and explain why you think that. Jayjg (talk) 23:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Please don't repeat yourself, I have answered you. If you don't understand my answer, try to explain your point. Xx236 (talk) 12:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

You've been asked to quote which sentences you believe are confusing, and explain why you think that, which you haven't done. You are also welcome to discuss which sentences you believe are confusing, and why, on the mediation page. Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:27, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I have quoted a number of confusing sentences.
  • Poland was a state 1918-1939, with defined borders and population. One cannot describe parts of the area and of the population and ignore the others.

Xx236 (talk) 13:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Could you quote here which exactly sentence or sentences are confusing? I don't see where you have. Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:51, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

An article about Jews in Poland should define, what is Poland. Which part of the article defines Poland 1918-1945? If this definition is standard, the article is biased, because it informs only about ethnic Poles, RC believers, which consisted less than 2/3 of the population of Poland, so it ignores almost 25% non-Jewish, non-ethnic Poles and about 50% of the area. Xx236 (talk) 08:08, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Arbitrary deletion of reliable sourced information

Piotrus is serially deelting the following relaibly sourced information:

while estimates of the number of Polish collaborators with the Nazi occupation vary from seven thousand to about one million.[1]

as well as edits that clarify the distorted summary of the following phrase:

and relatively little collaboration by individual Poles with the Nazis, including the Holocaust.[2][3]

which should read, per what the sources actually say: Collaboration by individual Poles with the Nazis has been described as having been less than in other countries.[4][3]

This flagrant POV pushing needs to stop now, and it's disturbing that a Wikipedia admin is the one doing it. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:08, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I have responded here.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Your response basically consists of you disagreeing with the source. However, you are not a reliable source. You need to supply one that disputes this source. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
I don't disagree with the source. I disagree with your selective selection , rewriting and interpretation of the source.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:06, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
Oh please, it was taken practically verbatim from the source, and added to an entirely appropriate section of the article where Polish collaboration was being discussed. Nothing was rewritten or interpreted; I would appreciate it if you would not totally mischaracterize my edits. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:12, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
It was taken out of context and added to inappropriate section of the article (the lead).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:16, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

unwillingness to help

Where is the context - death penalty, sometimes for the whole family? How many people in your country are eager to help me, risking lives of their children? Are there any?Xx236 (talk) 11:17, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Now I understand, the death penalties are extraneous details found elsewhere in article. Or maybe bias of the editor?Xx236 (talk) 11:55, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

This is an article about the Jews in Poland, not about the Poles and their role in the Holocaust. The most important points in the article should be summarized in the lede. Piotrus wrote that the lede is too long. Details concerning the Holocaust are described at length later in the article. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 18:43, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Would you please reread the lead? It's about the Poles.

Your comment about the death penalty has been highly impolitic. Xx236 (talk) 06:29, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Efforts of Communist Government to help Jews post-war are missing in the article

Efforts of Communist Government to help Jews post-war are missing in the article. No information on largest number of newspapers in the world, special autonomous Jewish paramilitary, seperate health service and so on.

Some info can be found here:


August Grabski from Jewish Institute argues that in 1945 till 1949 Jewish minority enjoyed de facto a national autonomy in post-war Poland.--Molobo (talk) 22:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Don't be a Jew"

In the section about Jews in Poland since 1989 there is a whole passage about the Poles and their alleged antisemitism. In the section I found this:

"Cultural Anti-Semitism" is still in existence in Poland today. It is exemplified in the saying "Don't be a Jew". Even the word "Zyd" ("Jew" in Polish) has a pejorative connotation.

I've asked a couple of my Polish friends and they never heard of the "don't be a Jew" saying. Where does it come from ? --Lysytalk 20:42, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Neither had I.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:51, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Refer to this source. Boodlesthecat Meow? 20:49, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, this refers to pre-war period, not post war. Note the tense: "it was expressed." In any case, the author misses an important issue: "Żyd" is rarely used and can be seen as an insult - true, but the analogy with "black" (or "negro") is English language is important (i.e. the term is simply not politically correct anymore). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 20:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Google also might help [6]. Hatikvah, Znak - all WP:RS. M0RD00R (talk) 21:05, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Mordoor, according to "google search methodology", it would seem to be an English saying (over 14 thousand hits), not Polish (over two hundred). --Lysytalk 21:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I think the 200 hits illustrate how "popular" this saying is (and as far as I can tell, many hits simply explain the history of this old historical saying...). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 21:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps I know some different Poles as nobody even confirmed that they heard of such saying. What is this phrase supposed to mean, anyway ? I know another saying in Polish: "Don't play a Greek". Would you use it to suggest that Poles are anti-Greek ? --Lysytalk 21:12, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

See here for a discussion of the meaning in contempory usage:

As Zubrzycki puts it, anti-Semitism in Poland today is mostly aimed at “symbolic Jews” rather than actual Jews, since so few of the latter remain in the country. "Jewishness, in this context," she writes, “itself becomes a symbol, standing for a civic-secular Poland.” In the debate over the crosses at Auschwitz, right-wing publicists identified their political opponents and even some priests and bishops as “Jews,” which came to be a code-word for anyone who advocated a culturally open, liberal, secular Poland."

Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:15, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Boodles, she is very right, but how is it relevant here ? --Lysytalk 21:23, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Seems relevant to an article on History of the Jews in Poland? Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:26, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
I meant to the topic of this particular discussion about the "Don't be a Jew". --Lysytalk 22:09, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

What does it mean? Well "Żyd żyje w wyobraźni. Żyd żyje w świadomości polskiej i jest mitem, który zakłamuje świat, zasłania rzeczywistość [11]. Dlatego stwierdzenie takie jak „nie bądź Żydem” jest zrozumiałe dla każdego Polaka, który targuje się z drugim Polakiem. On wie, że nie chodzi o religię, narodowość, tylko o pewną postawę – chciwość, skąpstwo, chęć postawienia na swoim, którą obaj przypisują Żydom. A może lepiej powiedzieć - postawę, którą ucieleśnia Żyd, którą nazywają słowem Żyd. Żyd to część z tego, czego Polacy w sobie nie lubią, albo z czym się nie identyfikują." [7]. Cheers. M0RD00R (talk) 21:28, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

An interesting theory. As much as "Nie udawaj Greka" would suggest that according to Poles, the Greeks are dump. Somehow my Greek friends didn't feel offended :-) --Lysytalk 21:48, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
Of course. But then again, there were few Greeks murdered in Polish pogroms. Boodlesthecat Meow? 21:54, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
As well as relatively few Jews, compared to the pogroms in other countries in Eastern Europe. Also, I don't recall many pogroms in post-1989 Poland. But we are discussing something else here, right ? --Lysytalk 22:10, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
We are, I thought, discussing what appears to be a lingering anti-semitism in present day Poland, a phenomenon that seems quite striking given the minuscule number of Jews actually in Poland. This phenomenon has been termed "Anti Semitism Without Jews". You can google the phrase and find some interesting material. Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
All right, so why do you mention the pogroms, if you want to discuss anti-semitism in present day Poland ? --Lysytalk 01:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

As a footnote to a discussion, to be honest I _have_ heard "don't be a Jew" many times. As a teen i recall also some other words like "let's love ourselves like family, but in financial matters let's deal with ourselves like Jews", "let's not drink like Jews" etc. As a teen I in fact never considered them anything more than some kind of automatic sentences. Before 16 or 18 I've never saw a Jew in my life, never talked to one and I never cared about Jews, antisemitism etc. Even when I heard such sentences I never paid any attention to them and as paradoxicaly to some it may sound, I never thought anything negative about Jews -- no more than as about stingy Scotts or anything. I don't think using that word is comparable to burning a synagogue or anything like that. It's just a kind of mental virus. (In fact first time I met a Jew on internet, I was called antisemite from that black hole Poland even before I started write anything) Szopen (talk) 06:57, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

The only saying in Polish about Jews that I can think of is "kochajmy się jak bracia, liczmy się jak Żydzi" ("let's love like brothers but count like Jews"), however it is as much antisemitic as "nie udawaj Greka" ("don't play a Greek") is anti-Greek or "na tureckim kazaniu" ("at a Turkish sermon") is anti-Turkish. Still, why does the article about History of Jews discuss antisemitism in its post-1989 section ? (and claims that "It is exemplified in the saying "Don't be a Jew"") --Lysytalk 08:18, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I haven't heard "don't be a Jew" since ages. The origins of "don't be a Jew" or "let's love ourselves like family, but in financial matters let's deal with ourselves like Jews" aren't in any way anti-Semitic but describe the reality before WWI, but sometimes till today. There existed many Polish customs imposing irrational hospitality and solidarity, exchanging goods rather than buying and selling. The culture of money was mostly Jewish in Poland, with a little Armenian share in the East.Xx236 (talk) 12:13, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Should we mention Polish "anti-Scottism"? After all, in Polish stereotypes, a Scott is as greedy as a Jew... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 16:25, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I would not call it anti-semitism either, as Piotrus said. Scotts and Jews are considered very miserly and the meaning of "dont be a jew" means something like "share it with me". There are other similar idioms, as Lysy wrote. This should be definitely deleted from the article, because it is NPOV and simply untrue. (talk) 23:33, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Stereotyping a national minority that was effectively annihilated in Poland in a horrific genocide as "miserly" isn't antisemitic? If Americans considered Polish people to be unintelligent, would it be no big deal to say "Don't be a Pole" because all it meant was "use your head?" Boodlesthecat Meow? 01:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

What about the examples provided by Lysy? There are many other such idioms. It's not stereotyping a minority. So the next time I will use the idiom "nie udawaj greka" will it mean that I am antigreek? Not to even mention "French love"... this is incredibly antifrench. There is "french kissing" in English.. ah the Americans, are they dicriminating their French minority? The fact that Jews were killed during the war does not mean that nothing cannot be said about them. According to your logic they became some sort of a 'sacred cows' and the name of their ethnic group cannot even be used in idioms - because it is anti-semitism. Consequently: if someone of Jewish origin kills Palestinians and I call him a murderer - am I antisemitic? Or if he steals something and I call him a thief - am I antisemitic? You are incredibly biased.

As far as I know Americans consider Poles unintelligent, refer to: for example.

btw. Are you Jewish? Because from the things I have read so far, I came to the conclusion that you are a Jew nationalist - you seem to be bending the truth and ommiting inconvenint facts; I am waiting for you to call me antisemitic, just because I want to include truth in the wiki article.. (talk) 14:47, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

No, I won't call you anti-semitic. I'll let your posts speak for themselves. But I wont respond to your rude assumptions and uncivil Jew baiting. Cheers. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

You wont, or you simply cant? This part should be deleted from the article then, as soon as it gets unprotected. (talk) 20:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Won't. I don't respond to rude Jew baiting posts. Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I have found in a Czech book You look like a Polish Jew. Does any article here discuss antisemitism in Czechoslovakia with the same precision like in Poland?Xx236 (talk) 10:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

What's the book about. Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Partially about anti-Semitism in Czechoslovakia after 1968. Hrdý Budžes by Irena Dousková.Xx236 (talk) 13:47, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah yes, it's a novel. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:38, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Polish-Nazi collaboration

Can we remove this sentence from the lead:

The Nazis made no attempt to set up a collaborationist government in Poland, and they rejected overtures by Polish fascists and anti-semites.

It does not seem to belong to this article. --Lysytalk 16:26, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it also doesn't tell the entire story - it implies that the "Polish fascists and anti-semites" were numerous and significant. In any case, this is article about the Jews (as was pointed out by Malik several times). Thus, as Xx236 pointed out some time ago, much more relevant would be a note of Group 13 and Judenrat. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 17:29, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
If material on Polish anti-semites is irrelevant, then of course so would material on Poles who assisted Jews. Inn any case, the mediation page is the proper location for article issues. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:34, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying here, as in the mediation page you are surprisingly mute. I'm still awaiting your response to the Gazeta Polska there. What I'm saying here is not that antisemites are irrelevant. They are, where their actions are related to the Jews. But this sentence is about some Polish - Nazi relations (or actually lack of relations). I would not mind if the article was about the Nazis or about Poles but how does it fit in the article about Jews in Poland ? --Lysytalk 18:20, 6 August 2008 (UTC)
Let's keep the discussion of issues on the mediation page. Boodlesthecat Meow? 04:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
For starters - the sentence in the lead is completely untrue. As early as in fall of 1939, the Nazis wanted to convince Wincenty Witos to create a collaborationist government. They talked to him again in mid-1944, and again were refused. Tymek (talk) 02:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Frankly, it does not even matter that it's untrue. The statement simply does not belong to the article, and certainly not to its lead. We don't want to describe the whole World War II here. --Lysytalk 07:37, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Come on, let's be honest and accurate here, and not rewrite history. No one who is criticizing the discussion of Polish collaboration in the lead had a problem with it for the at least one year that it has been included in the lead, nor did anyone have any problem when Piotrus made substantial edits to shorten the lead and kept the issue of Polish collaboration in the lead]. Only now, when additional, fully reliably sourced material presenting a more balanced account than the one sourced to a single author (one who has been criticized for presenting a somewhat one sided account of the period) is added did some editors begin edit warring and deleting relaibly sourced information simply because they disagreed with what the reliably sourced information actually said. So let's be real here and not suddenly complain that certain things don't belong in the lead, when no one seemed to have a problem with it being in the lead for at least a year, and instead discuss what the reliable sources say about the issue. Boodlesthecat Meow? 14:45, 8 August 2008 (UTC)
Single very reliable sources include errors, omissions, bias. You cannot select one source, which you like, and impose its opinion. I'm a scientist but I doubt that any historian can use such method, because it's a parody of research. Xx236 (talk) 08:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)


Please add a wikilink to Polish census of 1931. Dzied Bulbash (talk) 00:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Done the first instance only...right place ? - Peripitus (Talk) 01:25, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Almost nothing

About Jewish organisations stance regarding Poland's independence movement in 1914-1918. Needs to be expanded.--Molobo (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have a recommendation and sources? Boodlesthecat Meow? 15:04, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Jews in the communist Republic Security ("UB")

Could anyone add few sentences about it? I think it is really worth being accuretaly described in the article. IMO it is one of the sources of the polish aniti-semmitism. As far as I know around 50% of the UB were Jewish, but the sources I found so far, cannot be trusted. The article does not provide enough cover of the UB repressions on the Poles (it should be updated too). Basically, the UB murdered, emprisoned and robbed a lot of people. The communist office was widely hated not only for their actions but also because of the fact that it was the communist means of controlling the country. As far as I know, Polish people did not want to work there - and a lot of the "agents" were Jewish and Russian - for example the brother of the "Pianist" has tortured and murdered Poles, something that the film never described (I think he was nicknamed "the butcher"). (talk) 17:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources indicating the the levels of Jewish membership and if and how that may be a source of Polish anti-semitism? I assume your referring to Polish anti-semitism in the post 1945 era when the UB was established, since of course it wouldn't explain the centuries of pre-1945 Polish anti-semitism nor the centuries of mass murders of Jews in pogroms. It's also not clear what relationship it would have to the state sponsored antisemitic campaigns of 1956 and 1968. Further info is welcomed. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:51, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Few different sources have similar data. A forum post ( quotes an IPN (official state organization) document, which I cannot find - thus I ask for verification here. According to (reliable? right wingish) and (source is extremely right wing and nationalistic, still seems to contain a lot of sources, thus I think it might be reliable); for 450 poeple, who were the management of the UB during 1945-1954, 49% were of Polish nationality (221 ppl), 37% Jewish (167 ppl) and 10% were Soviet officers (46 ppl). Please note that Jews were probably less than 1-2% of the Polish population after WW2. The numbers seem to be quite shocking. UB has been "cleaned" of the old (both Polish and Jewish) officers before 1968 as far as I know (1954 - Stalins death), but Im not sure about what happened with the Jews. Note that the wife of Wladyslaw Gomulka was Jewish too! (not included into the English article for some reason; source:,9171,840966,00.html ). Basically quite a lot of the communist oppressors (and the "freely elected" leader's wife) were Jewish - that should definitely be included in the article. This should also be considered in the context - Jews were the ones that greeted the Russian occupants few years earlier. (talk) 23:12, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Why is 167 Jews out of a population of 30 million people "shocking." Boodlesthecat Meow? 02:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

167 Jews out of 450 people who worked in management of the oppressive Public Security (UB) between 1945-54. UB not only murdered people from Armia Krajowa (who fought for the freedom of Poland), but also supported the communists in the darkest years of stalinism. It is incredibly shocking, because it was the management - people who prepared the plans for the whole oppression. How many Jews were there after ww2? Between 40,000 and 100,000 acccording to the wiki article... so less than 1% of the polish population. But 37% of the hated Public Security (UB)... This should be definitely included in the article. I read your discussion, you seem to be biased in favour of Jews, thus you do not want to include the inconvenient facts. According to this article 'The attitude of Christian Poles toward Jews hardened significantly, since many Poles believed that all Jews were Communists, the new oppressors of the Polish state.' This should be explained, because now the article is antipolonic. (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

"Note that the wife of Wladyslaw Gomulka was Jewish too!" So? What does it suppose to prove? M0RD00R (talk) 05:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It does not have to prove anything, is true. Also, you might start to wonder, how it was possible, that Jews, who were slaughtered during the holocaust somehow magically managed to find themselves around the most important positions of the state (they were a group who widely cooperated with the Russians?). Think of it from the context, not by dividing it year by year. WW2 started, Russians attacked Poland, Jews greeted them happily, Jews were killed during the war in concentration camps, war ended, a lot of Jews worked at one of the worst, if not the worst office of the communist invaders (UB killed lots of people, especially ones from Armia Krajowa). Then magically the Polish anti-semitism rose. Now the article does not clearly state this. You seem not to understand what the UB officers did to the Polish people... (talk) 14:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I understand perfectly well what Poles suffered under the communist regime. But when you make such strange claims such as antisemitism "magically" arising only after WW2, its hard to take the argument seriously. Boodlesthecat Meow? 18:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Why do you suddenly change the topic? I wrote here about data that should be included in the article, because I would like to get the official source. The sources I have posted are probably enough, but I would prefer to link to the official IPN document. Wikipedia is about facts - and the Jewish involvement in one of the worst of the communist repression tools is a fact. There are no studies if was or was NOT a source of the antisemitism, thus the decision should be left for the reader - but he has to know the alarming numbers. In your opinion it was not, in my opinion it does not matter, let the reader decide. In addition, you seem to have big problems with the neutral POV - thus you seem not to want to include information unfavourable for Jews in the article (to others - please refer to the other parts of discussion - Boodlesthecat sounds as if you would allow to write only good things about the Jews, since they "suffered during the war"). btw. During the talks with my american friends, they told me that they dislike Jews, because they do not allow anyone to publish anything, that will make them look bad; authors of such publications are later labeled as antisemites. I though that its just stories and some stupid stereotype. Apparently it's true - judging from your actions. Falsifying history is a bad thing, dude. People will not like you for that. Agameofchess (talk) 02:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC) (Im the IP)

Let me remind you of Wikipedia rules on civil behavior before you go completely overboard with your Jew-baiting rantings. But, allow me to be rude for a moment--I could give a rat's ass about your friends antisemitic nonsense. Cheers. Boodlesthecat Meow? 03:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Both of you, please be civil and remember: no personal attacks. Discuss edits, not editors! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 18:16, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Article by Szwagrzyk Xx236 (talk) 10:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Jewish Polish history during the 20th century

The article contains almost the same text as this one. Why to edit two parallel instances of the same text? Xx236 (talk) 10:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

their share was down to only 8%

Only? Why not to comment the first, suprisingly high number 24.6%?Xx236 (talk) 10:44, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Gazeta Polska (1929-1939) - wrong link

Gazeta Polska (1929-1939) is erroneusly linked to contemporary Gazeta Polska. I demand correction of this error. Xx236 (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It might be better to request a correction, rather than to demand one. Boodlesthecat Meow? 13:37, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I find your comment hostile, as many of your former ones.Xx236 (talk) 14:14, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

LOL. But demanding that other editors make changes for you is the epitome of refined civility. Boodlesthecat Meow? 16:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It happens that the article is protected and I'm not able to do it myself. Xx236 (talk) 13:49, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

All the more reason to request a correction, rather than to demand one. Boodlesthecat Meow? 17:10, 12 August 2008 (UTC)
Both of you need to learn when to just let it go. Ostap 18:48, 12 August 2008 (UTC)


 Done, though I really should have waited until you said "please". Not to put too fine a point on it, but being polite will get you everywhere. UltraExactZZ Claims ~ Evidence 21:01, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Summary style

There are a collection of related articles, listed below, that are mostly cut and paste from older versions of this article. Considering how big this article is (128K), I think we should consider making use of summary style: move parts of this article to the smaller articles, and summarize the shorter articles here.

The related articles are:

If breaking down history into centuries is inconvenient, we could make articles of our own based on the sections of this article (966–1572, 1572–1795, etc.).

What do other editors think? — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 22:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

In theory, yes. In practice, consider that those articles (who were of inferior quality even before this main article became a FA years ago) have not been updated since, and likely will always be less updated than this main article. I do support rewriting them to current standards, of course.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 22:43, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

The Polish Jewish community suffered the most in the Holocaust

Comparing to what? Xx236 (talk) 09:39, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

A quick note

Just a quick note - from Growing Anti-Semitism section:

By the time of the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany in 1939, antisemitism in Poland was escalating, and hostility towards Jews was a mainstay of the Catholic Church, right-wing political forces, and the post-Piłsudski regime.

Is there a source to substantiate this phrasing? It seems odd that the same Catholic Church just a few years later was helping in hiding and smuggling Jews out of the occupied Poland despite the penalty of death.

Incidentally, one of the editors might find this rather long read interesting, as the issues raised in it seem absent from the WP articles. Since I received this link from a second-hand myself, and am incapable of verifying the cited sources, I cannot guarantee its validity - however, it seems to elaborate on something usually not seen mentioned.

Unfortunately, I cannot do it as I have little experience with WP procedures and edits and, frankly, not enough time to commit to the project at this point.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:38, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Anti-Catholic statement

In the section on the early history of the Jews in Poland the completely unreferenced claim is made that the toleration of the Jews in Poland was ended by the Germans and the Catholic Church! This is not only unreferenced or particularised, but total rubbish inserted by someone. Not only is the next thing that is mentioned a charter granting Jews rights and liberties, but it is enacted by a ruler denoted "the Pious" - in other words a pious Catholic. And Poland had been Catholic throughout the "Golden Age". In fact the Church was the main protector of Jews in Central Europe in this era, and pro-Jewish legislation continued for at least another 400 years. The statement needs to be validated or removed. Xandar 19:53, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Amazingly this whole text is largely the history of persecutions, while Jewish life, their contribution to life in Poland, Jewish culture which thrived in Poland and united with Poland Lithuania for centuries, are not even hinted. In my view the text written with a mentality of the communist propagandist for whom it is or "yes" or "no", while the richness of civilization is of no importance. April 14, 2009 -- (talk) 08:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Giles Coren controversy

Perhaps there should be some reference to the controversial Coren article in The Times of London in 2008? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 19:52, February 22, 2009

Dear anon. Could you be more specific, and link the article in question? I've never heard of it.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 03:07, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I haven't seen the article itself but here's the Economist talking about it: [8]. Not sure this is the right place to mention the article though.radek (talk) 03:36, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, a very interesting piece. Glad to know that TE as always is a high quality piece. See my question at Talk:Giles_Coren#Polish_official_protest.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| talk 19:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, here's the original article [9] - it really is pathetic ignorance on parade.radek (talk) 03:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
I have referenced (see also) Giles Coren's to the History of the Polish Jews.--Jacurek (talk) 04:13, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

First permanent Jewish community

The article has this: "The first permanent Jewish community is mentioned in 1085 by a Jewish scholar Jehuda ha-Kohen in the city of Przemyśl". According to this [10] however, even though it's only partly viewable on line it seems like the first community according to Jehuda ha-Kohen was in Krakow. It'd be nice to have this clarified and even elaborate on it.radek (talk) 04:52, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

According to this book, Iehuda ha-Kohen wrote about a Jewish community that existed in Przemyśl in the early 11th century. (Note that there's no standard Latin transliteration of the Hebrew name Yehuda ha-Cohen.)
The modern historian Simon Dubnow and the Encyclopedia Judaica both put the first significant migration of Jews to Poland at the time of the First Crusade, specifically in 1098. The EJ describes some legends of earlier Polish-Jewish encounters, then mentions 1098 and says, "From this point undisputed and datable information about Jews in Poland begins to appear." Neither Dubnow not the EJ mentions any particular cities in which the early Jews settled in Poland. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 05:42, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
The "Acta Poloniae Historica" linked to above seems to be talking about the same person and the same historical record. I saw Dubnow and EJ but as you mention there's no indication of the town. Przemysl is fine for now but it'd be useful to look around a bit more. Adding ref too.radek (talk) 05:59, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. Jehuda ha-Kohen in the first source is the same person as Iehuda ha-Kohen in the second. (He's got a Wikipedia article, Yehuda ben Meir.) I found another item about him that mentions Przemyśl, also a snippet: [11]. — [[::User:Malik Shabazz|Malik Shabazz]] ([[::User talk:Malik Shabazz|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Malik Shabazz|contribs]]) 06:24, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about Prussian Partition other notable subjects

I noticed there is only information about Russian Partition and nothing about Prussian one. Also little about Second Polish Republic supporting Jewish organizations in Palestine.--Molobo (talk) 01:23, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

  • Good point, thank you.--Jacurek (talk) 04:38, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Copyright concerns, review requested

A question about the extent to which this article incorporates copyrighted text has been raised at the copyright problems' talk page. While the initial concerns (duplication from [12]) don't seem to be an issue, there are runs of text in this article that are duplicated verbatim from other sites without compliance to our non-free content guidelines. One example given there relates to hidden children. This passage in our article is identical to this source:

In rural areas, hidden children lived in barns, chicken coops, and forest huts. Any noise—conversation, footsteps—could arouse neighbors' suspicion and perhaps even prompt a Gestapo raid. During bombings, Jewish children had to remain hidden, unable to flee to the safety of shelters. Under these conditions, the children often suffered from a lack of human interaction and endured boredom and fear.

Archives confirm that this material was published there by August 2004: [13]. Since it was not in our article at that time, [14], evidence strongly suggests it was pasted here from that website, apparently in November of 2007. Such passages should be either revised or properly handled through WP:NFC or Wikipedia:Requesting copyright permission. There are other examples at the copyright problems' talk page, linked above, and there may be more that have not been tagged. I have not investigated each of the examples supplied.

I wanted to alert the regular contributors of this page to these concerns in the hope that they may be addressed by those most interested in and familiar with the article. It's important that Wikipedia properly use material that is copied from non-free sources (that is, sources which are not public domain or licensed compatibly with GFDL.) In the absence of explicit disclaimer or evidence such as age, copyright is presumed, and on pages like the source utilized above often explicit: "Copyright © United States Holocaust Memorial Museum, Washington, D.C.". --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:26, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing this out.--Jacurek (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Removal of troll comment

Removed a comment by an anonymous editor who's been trolling Talk pages under multiple names - see User: (current version) for more information. --GenericBob (talk) 00:19, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

  1. ^ Klaus-Peter Friedrich. Collaboration in a "Land without a Quisling": Patterns of Cooperation with the Nazi German Occupation Regime in Poland during World War II. Slavic Review, Vol. 64, No. 4, (Winter, 2005), pp. 711-746.
  2. ^ Paulsson, Gunnar S (2002). Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw, 1940-1945. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. p. 245. ISBN 0-300-09546-5. There were people everywhere who were prepared, for whatever motives, to do the Nazis' work for them. And if there was more antisemitism in Poland than in many other countries, there was also less collaboration.... The Nazis generally preferred not to count on outbursts of 'emotional antisemitism', when what was needed to realize their plans was 'rational antisemitism', as Hitler himself put it. For that, they neither wanted nor received significant help from the Poles. 
  3. ^ a b Unveiling the Secret City H-Net Review: John Radzilowski
  4. ^ Paulsson, Gunnar S (2002). Secret City: The Hidden Jews of Warsaw, 1940-1945. New Haven: Yale University Press. pp. p. 245. ISBN 0-300-09546-5. There were people everywhere who were prepared, for whatever motives, to do the Nazis' work for them. And if there was more antisemitism in Poland than in many other countries, there was also less collaboration.... The Nazis generally preferred not to count on outbursts of 'emotional antisemitism', when what was needed to realize their plans was 'rational antisemitism', as Hitler himself put it. For that, they neither wanted nor received significant help from the Poles.