From: kkniaz@eniac.seas.upenn.edu (Krzysztof W. Kniaz)
Newsgroups: soc.culture.polish
Subject: Re: On Polish Anti-semitism
Date: 14 Oct 92 21:40:22 GMT
Organization: University of Pennsylvania


Roger Lustig very kindly responded to my sharing impressions of reading 
the book of Lucy S. Dawidowicz "The Holocaust and the Historians".
In view of his outstanding politeness it would be improper to leave his
questions unanswered, even if I would definitely rather go instead to
a library and read another book. 

The uninterested readers are strongly encouraged to press the key `n' 
or `j' now.


                           ***
Well, Roger discussion with you has been a pleasure so far, however
this time you really made it easy for me. As you perhaps remeber
I made a point by questionning imparity of Ms Davidowicz in her
approach to the Polish History. I really do not (and dare not) object
to the facts about the Holocaust she presented in her book, however 
I think that a scholar must be evenhanded when he/she draws conclusions
from the facts. Her treatment of Polish History was too shallow and
tritelike for a historian of her status, and it raised some doubts
about whether she did not compromise the scientific neutrality to
demands of her heart. I do not understand why you defend her
obvious misrepresentations of the Polish History. Experts also
make mistakes. Let's examine her claims and your defending statements,
shall we?

>`[The Jews] Invited by the Polish kings to a land of indolent nobility...'


What does she means by the "indolent nobility?" It might habe been true
400 years later, but surely not at the time when Jews were moving in
to Poland. As a matter of fact XIII-XVI centuries are widely perceived
as a very fortunate and very dynamic
period for the Polish nobility, (and gentry as well).
I suggest you should read any good book of the European History and draw
conclusions for yourself. BTW I omited the rest of the sentence, since
it did not contain any rebuffal of the expression she used.

RL:You might at least finish that *part* of the sentence, hm?  "...landed
RL:gentry (szlachta), and a peasantry reduced to serfdom, the Jews 
RL:became the middle class."

Thank you for this addition. Ms. Dawidowicz is indeed wrong again. At 
the time the Jews were coming to Poland in large numbers (14-15th 
centuries) the peasants were still relatively free people. 
They did not become serfs until about 200 years later. This is an error 
called, I believe, `anachronism' - a serious sin for a historian.


>`For centuries Poland had been unable to govern itself, to maintain 
>political or economic stability. The nobility and the clergy feuded 
>endlessly with the royal and ducal powers'

For centuries means when? What does an average reader understand from this
sentence? Isn't it reasonable to say after reading Davidowicz, that 
Poland had been in a state of chaos or anarchy >for centuries<? 
                    [...]
RL: This is a non-sequitur.  In England and France, the nobility were kept
RL: under control, more so as time passed.  Just because all states had this
RL: problem to some degree does not mean that they all had it to the *same*
RL: degree, nor that the problem wass acute in certain times of crisis.  Even
RL: though the problem may have existed elsewhere, other circumstances
RL: *combined* with this problem may have led to a given consequence in
RL: Poland and not elsewhere.  


I agree with you totally. Except that these are your words, and not  
Ms. Dawidowicz's. And I have heard about something called Magna
Charta in England, so there is a question who was keeping there whom 
under control. But this is irrelevant.

>`[The Poles] alienated from other Slavic peoples because of their 
>adherence to Rome'

>Also, she must have known that some other Slavic peoples 
>besides the Poles have traditionally recognized the pope, notably the 
>Slovaks and Ukrainians. 

RL: She said other peoples , not ALL other peoples.

Bravo! I admire your way of argumentation. Net people call it a mutlu-ism
(NOTE: I did not say ALL Net people)

>`[In 1795] Poland as a nation disappeared from the map'

RL:She must have realized, too, that a map usually 
RL:shows *countries* and *states*, the term "Poland" meaning either one. The 
RL:Polish *nation* did not disappear, to which I and my colleagues are living 
RL:witnesses. 

OK, Let's say it was a "licentia poetica", however using such a cliche
in a wrong context by a serious historian....

>`[During the partition period] Attempted suppression of language and faith 
>only intensified and politicized Polish nationalist passions and the 
>appetite for independence. Indeed, their exaltation of martyrdom inclined 
>the Poles to desperate, even suicidal, ventures to win their freedom.'


>I seriously doubt, too, if she would describe the unsuccessful 
>Jewish revolts against Rome in the first two centuries A.D. as expressions 
>of `politicized nationalist passions' and `appetite for independence'.

RL:Why not ask her?

First of all tell me: do you see a difference between "appetite for
independence" and right to independence? Do you think that a serious
historian should use a phrase like that? (especially in the view
of Polybius)? Secondly, she's dead.


RL:Well, we've seen what your eyes are worth, I'm afraid. Or perhaps
RL:its the tinted glasses -- in any case, your bleeding chunks of
RL:text have little to do with Dawidowicz's argument.

You're right, her (not mine) "bleedeing chunks" have little
to do with argument, they just atest to her attitude towards
Polish History.

At the beginning of my original posting I wrote that I was sharing
my impressions. To be on the safe side, in several places I used the 
disclaimers like "in my eyes", "in my opinion" etc. 

Roger chose to ridicule these expressions. The conspicuous absence
of them in his text implies that he considers himself to be in
possession of the ONLY and ABSOLUTE TRUTH on the subject.
Congratulations.

>`The accusation comes with little grace from a Pole whose people offered 
>no armed resistance to the Germans until August 1944' (p. 121)

RL:I think she's referring to resistance *after* the occupation, not 
RL:defense vs. an invation. 

What are you talking about my friend? *After* the occupation meaning when?

RL: Such resistances are popular movements,
RL: as opposed to governmental/military ones.  Or are the people now
RL: suddenly to be identified with the state, contrary to everything 
RL: you've been arguing?

Well, ever heard about the Polish Home Army? See Gutman, Krakowski for
details (on the other hand don't - they prefer communist sources,
so you might end up with very unfavorable impression).

[Quotation about Polish Historians deleted]

RL: Could you cite a passage where she says that?  Just because the government
RL: that commissioned such work was not a nice one makes these people
RL: no less Polish, nor does it make other Poles responsible for what
RL: they say.  Dawidowcz is explicit in her attribution of blame to the
RL: Communist Party and to Marxist historiography in general: the
RL: previous chapter (on the SU) makes this numbingly obvious.


Sure. P. 112: [After the March 1968 campaign] `For the Poles had been 
stung by worldwide denunciation of Poland's anti-Semitic course'

I am sure Mr. Walichnowski et consortes were stung by this denunciation.
Ms. Dawidowicz appears however to take the press publications at their 
face value without any comment in what measure the output of the
totally Communist-controlled press represented the sentiments of
the population.

I have not yet read the book by Eisner on March 1968 recommended by 
Adam Reed, but from what I know the response of the Polish society
to this campaign was very mixed. The intellectual elite by and
large condemned what was happening and paid dearly for that. The
above is but one of the sweeping generalizations present in the book,
generalizations that you appear not to notice, for reasons known to
difficult to establish.

>thinking about subscribing to Aleksander Mazur's theories of "Jews" being 
>responsible for the actions of some UB (secret police) bosses about 15 
>years earlier.

RL:What *IS* this shit?  Dawidowicz nowhere espouses collective guilt as
RL:a way of looking at these writers.  And insisting that it's wrong to
RL:call them "Poles" is as wrong as insisting that one not call David
RL:Duke and American, or Meir Kahane a Jew.  What are you afraid of?

The discussion was nice sofar, I would appreciate your refraining
from using such an elitist vocabulary, but let us not stray from
the point:

Who in s.c.j. thinks that Polish historians are neutral and
objective? Wanna try a poll? Why do people think so? You see
my point? (About Alek Mazur theories: I happen not to store his texts,
but I remeber few days ago he mentioned something about Jews
joining the Communist Political Police after the war, out of 
vengeance. I'm still waiting for the letter he promised to release).


RL:But that ideology was represented by a national government, like it or
RL:not. 

No Sir. A "national government" is one elected by the majority of a nation
or population in free and democratic elections. The communist government
did not qualify as such despite its continuous claims to the contrary.

RL: There's no point in pretending that Poland did not exist as
RL:a nation-on-the-map between 1945 and 1989; it had a unique governmental
RL:and political and socio-cultural situation, much of which was determined
RL:by CP bosses, to be sure, but much of which was determined by *Polish*
RL:Communists, who very much considered themselves Poles, and also by
RL:*non*-Communists.  

Hm, who did the Communists consider themselves to be? That is quite a
question, and you appear to be so well-informed on the subject. Read 
any books on Rosa Luxemburg, by chance? She and her generation 
considered themselves "internationals" and were truly proud of it. 
The younger generation indeed started acquiring nationalist ideas and 
may have thought of themselves as "Poles", but even their loyalty
was first to the "working masses" i.e. the Soviet Union, and not
to Poland. I find it strange that even after reading chapter 4 of 
Dawidowicz you still believe that non-Communists had any significant 
influence on the political and socio-cultural situation in the S.U. 
and its satellites.

About books:
RL:Fine.  Any particular ones you have in mind?  Show me where to start.

Sure. Go to a library, look in the catalogue and find "Polin" vol. 1.
(ISBN 0-631-15343-8) In it, read e.g. the dialogue between Rafael
Sharf and Wladyslaw Bartoszewski. Even better texts in the next
5 volumes of this journal.

Also, try to read "The Jews of Poland", Abramsky, Jachimczyk and Polonsky, 
eds. (Oxford: Blackwell, 1986) ISBN 0-631-14857-4, recommended to us 
by Adam Reed. The last chapter (17) of this book by Lukasz Hirszowicz 
is called "The Jewish issue in post-war Polish communist policies" 
and covers exactly the same period that Dawidowicz attempts to deal with. 
He does a much better job than she, *I think*.

Another book: "My Brother's Keeper", Antony Polonsky, editor.
(London, New York: Rutledge, 1990). ISBN 0-4150-4232-1.

Another recommendation: David Engel, "In the shadow of Auschwitz. The
Polish Government-in-Exile and the Jews 1939-1942" (Chapel Hill:
The University of North Carolina Press, 1987), ISBN 0-8078-1737-6.
This book by the Israeli author deals with the `supposedly anti-Nazi'
(Adam Reed) Polish `London government'. It is a good example how
to do a good history work, be critical and at the same time fair,
`fairness' meaning in this case an ability to listen to the other
side's arguments.











--

Krzysztof Kniaz, University of Pennsylvania |Due to circumstances beyond
Lab for Research on the Structure of Matter |your control, you're master of 
Philadelphia, PA, 19104, USA                |your fate and captain of your soul
Newsgroups: soc.culture.polish